Other Faculty Reviews

For a printable version of the guidelines, visit this link

The Arts and Sciences has in place a comprehensive system for review of professional practice faculty. Reviews are conducted in the first, third, fifth and seventh years of service and every seven years thereafter. Through constructive, informative and timely evaluations, senior faculty members advance the career development of their junior colleagues and, at the same time, ensure the presence of faculty of the highest quality and distinction. Each case is evaluated on its own merits, and the review process, and recommendations that emerge from the reviews, are intended to be treated with the utmost seriousness by departments.

By University Statute, all initial appointments to a non-tenured rank are for one year only. Subsequent appointments may be for a term of one, two, or three years. Passage of the major review and subsequent continuing reviews carry the opportunity for reappointment for a term of up to seven years. Under Arts and Sciences policy, associate professors who have not passed the major review may not hold appointment at that rank for more than five years of counted service.1 The University may choose not to renew an appointment beyond its stated term because of budgetary considerations, changes in staffing needs, or less than optimal performance on the part of the officer. In such cases, the University must give written notice to the candidate according to the following schedule:

1) not later than March 1 before the end of the first year of service (March 1, 2021);

2) not later than December 15 before the end of the second year of service (December 15, 2020);

3) at least twelve months before the end of all subsequent periods of service (May 31, 2021).

Procedures for Review

Confirming Reviews (First Year)

The first year of service at Columbia for all full-time non-tenured faculty, regardless of rank, serves as a probationary period and a decision must be made as to whether or not to extend the statutory initial appointment. Reviews of full-time, non-tenured faculty in their first year of service are essentially confirming reviews. Those who successfully complete the probationary period may be extended through the fourth year. Those who do not should be notified in writing by March 1, 2021 that their appointment will not be renewed beyond June 30, 2021. The Dean of the Faculty of the Arts should notify the Executive Vice President for Arts and Sciences of the department’s decision by copy of the letter to the candidate no later than March 1, 2021.

Developmental Review (Third Year)

Those in their third year of counted service must be reviewed for a decision on renewal beyond June 30, 2022. The school should use this review to place a strong emphasis on the professional development of the faculty member, identifying areas of progress and noting especially those requiring attention. Developmental reviews follow established school procedures. These generally include evaluation of the candidate by a subcommittee of at least three tenured faculty and/or professional practice faculty who have passed the major review prior to school’s deliberation. Following the school review, the Dean of the Faculty of the Arts should submit a letter by April 15, 2021, transmitting the school’s recommendation to the Executive Vice President for Arts and Sciences. In instances where the school is requesting renewal of the appointment, the letter should address the individual’s effectiveness as a teacher, accomplishments and potential as a practitioner, and service to the school. A copy of his/her curriculum vitae, a full statement of teaching and current professional plans and reports of any school committees must be included. The Executive Vice President will inform the Dean of the Faculty of the Arts as to whether this request has been approved and the school must then notify the faculty member in writing about the outcome of the review with a copy to the Executive Vice President.

Critical Review (Fifth Year)

Those in their fifth year of counted service must be reviewed for possible reappointment beyond June 30, 2022. Any assistant professor of professional practice who will have completed at least four years and no more than six years of counted service by the end of 2020-21 is eligible for a critical review, which includes consideration for promotion to associate professor of professional practice. 3 The fifth-year review for reappointment and promotion to associate professor of professional practice is considered a critical review. Promotion and renewal will be offered only to those who exhibit the exceptional qualities appropriate to a prospective candidate for major review and the demonstrable likelihood of achievement in their area of professional practice necessary for passage of major review at Columbia or an institution of comparable stature. This promotion and renewal is intended as recognition of exceptional gifts and prospective passage of major review, but is not in itself a guarantee of passage of major review. It is also not intended as a consolation prize, and departmental recommendations for promotion must be developed with the utmost conscientiousness.

The following materials must be included in the department’s case for renewal and promotion to associate professor of professional practice. Please see Appendix B for instructions on submitting the dossier in pdf format files.

1) Statement from the candidate: The Dean of the Faculty of the Arts should ask the candidate to submit a complete, up-to-date curriculum vitae, as well as a full statement of teaching and current and planned scholarly and artistic activities. The curriculum vitae should indicate whether publications, productions or exhibitions listed as “forthcoming” have been accepted or contracted and when they are expected to be published, produced or held. Entries for full-length books listed as “contracted” should also reveal whether readers’ reports exist, what portion of the work has actually been submitted to the press contracting it, and what the timetable is for completion.

2) A first-level review committee report: The first-level review of candidates for promotion to non-tenured associate professor of professional practice should be conducted by a reading committee of at least three senior faculty appointed by the Dean of the Faculty of the Arts. The committee should submit a written report to the school, and the Dean of the Faculty of the Arts should include this report among the materials forwarded to the Executive Vice President with the departmental recommendation. The report should address the candidate’s teaching and citizenship as well as her or his standing as a scholar or artist. There should be a detailed analysis of teaching performance, including a discussion of courses taught, involvement in the school’s central teaching requirements, enrollment history, student and peer evaluations (synthesized), advising, and thesis supervision. The report should contain a specific recommendation on promotion and reappointment.

3) Second-level review: The report of the first level reading committee for faculty with modified titles is submitted to the school’s Standing Committee on Practice for further consideration. In instances where the Committee votes not to recommend reappointment and promotion, the Dean of the Faculty of the Arts first advises the Executive Vice President of the outcome and then informs the candidate of the negative decision.

4) Letter of transmittal from the Dean of the Faculty of the Arts: In instances where the school wishes to recommend reappointment and promotion, the Dean of the Faculty of the Arts must submit a letter stating the case for promotion in full terms, incorporating the substance of the discussion of the relevant faculty committee, the details of the vote, and an explanation 4 of the grounds given for any negative votes. NO REPORT ON THE STATUS OF THE REVIEW MAY BE GIVEN TO A CANDIDATE PRIOR TO THE EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT’S HAVING MADE A DECISION.

The promotion case must comment at length upon the candidate’s likelihood of passing the major review, here or at an institution of comparable stature, based on a full and complete evaluation of his or her work as a scholar, artist and teacher.

The Dean of the Faculty of the Arts also should provide guidance in the letter of transmittal regarding the normal standards for passage of a major review within the particular disciplines or fields. For example, are journal articles, exhibitions, etc., alone a sufficient basis for determining stature? Is the normal assumption the publication and acclaim of one or more book length projects, being in the permanent collections of major cultural institutions, having one’s works produced in major national and regional venues, having one’s work critically reviewed in prominent vehicles, etc.? Are there other kinds of work that constitute the basis for passage of a major review within a particular discipline?

The school’s recommendation for promotion to the rank of associate professor of professional practice should not be made unless the school believes, and can demonstrate, that the candidate’s teaching and scholarship or artistic contributions are likely to merit passage of major review at Columbia or an institution of comparable stature. Recommendation for promotion to associate professor of professional practice allows more scope for the recognition of promise and potential than an actual major review recommendation. It is a statement of probable passage of the major practice review, not a promise of it, and this circumstance should be made clear to the candidate as well as to the school.

A school vote not to recommend promotion and reappointment is a decision, which is conveyed to the Executive Vice President for Arts and Sciences by the Dean of the Faculty of the Arts.

Major Review (Seventh Year)

Those in their seventh year of counted service must be reviewed for possible reappointment beyond June 30, 2022.

The seventh-year review for reappointment is considered a major review.

The following materials must be included in the school’s case for renewal and promotion to associate professor of professional practice. Please see Appendix B for instructions on submitting the dossier in pdf format files.

1) Statement from the candidate: The Dean of the Faculty of the Arts should ask the candidate to submit a full and current curriculum vitae and a full statement of teaching and current and future scholarly and artistic plans. The curriculum vitae should indicate whether publications, productions or exhibitions listed as “forthcoming” have been accepted or contracted and when they are expected to be published, produced or held. Entries for full-length books listed as “contracted” should also reveal whether readers’ 5 reports exist, what portion of the work has actually been submitted to the press contracting it, and what the timetable is for completion.

2) A review committee report: The first-level review of candidates for major review should be conducted by a reading committee of at least three senior faculty appointed by the Dean of the Faculty of the Arts. Semi-blind letters of evaluation, which include a comparison list of appropriate benchmarked colleagues, are solicited by the school from recognized experts in the candidate's specialization. The referees are asked to assess the candidate’s qualifications and compare her/him to other prominent figures in the field. Based on its assessment of the candidate’s credentials and informed by the semi-blind letters, the committee should make a specific recommendation on suitability for passage of the major review. The committee’s recommendation should be framed in a written report to the school, and the Dean of the Faculty of the Arts should include this report among the materials forwarded to the Executive Vice President with the school’s recommendation. The report should provide a detailed analysis of the candidate’s artistic productions and describe in a comprehensive manner her/his position in the field, including a discussion of evidence in support of this assessment. Where published reviews are available, an annotated summary of the reviews should be prepared, and the summary should indicate the importance of a particular reviewer or review venue, where relevant. The report should also contain systematic information on the candidate’s teaching and citizenship. The detailed analysis of teaching performance should include a discussion of courses taught, involvement in the school’s central teaching requirements, enrollment history, student and peer evaluations (synthesized), advising, and thesis supervision.

3) Second-level review: The report of the first level reading committee is submitted, along with the candidate’s full dossier and the semi-blind letters, for further consideration by the school’s Standing Committee on Practice. In instances where the Committee votes not to recommend passage of the major practice review, the Dean of the Faculty of the Arts first advises the Executive Vice President of the outcome and then informs the candidate of the negative decision.

4) Letter of transmittal from the Dean of the Faculty of the Arts: In instances where the school wishes to recommend passage of the major practice review, the Dean of the Faculty of the Arts is required to submit a letter stating the case for the action. The letter should situate the candidate within the overall context of the school and describe why her/his area of work is important to the school. It should incorporate the substance of the discussion of the relevant faculty committees, give the details of the vote, and provide an explanation of the grounds given for any negative votes. No report on the status of the review may be given to a candidate prior to the Executive Vice President’s having made a decision.

Those who will not be put up for major review, must receive written notification by May 15, 2021, indicating that their appointment will not be extended beyond June 30, 2022

Continuing Reviews (Every Seven Years)

After successfully passing the major review, a faculty member holding an appointment with a modified practice title will be eligible for renewable contracts of up to seven years in length, subject to an appropriate review. The Dean of the Faculty of the Arts will appoint a three-person reading committee to consider and recommend on reappointment.

The candidate will be asked to submit a curriculum vitae, a pedagogical statement and a statement of professional activities, along with supporting materials documenting work during the previous seven years (samples of creative work, reviews, articles, etc.). Evidence of teaching performance will also be provided.

The review committee will consider the candidate’s on-going professional and creative work; teaching; and contributions to the division, the school and the University at large. While practice faculty are expected to demonstrate a continued commitment to artistic contributions and maintain an active creative and professional profile, distinction in teaching and mentoring and/or particular dedication to institutional service might weigh more heavily in the evaluation for renewal than in the major review. The review committee may request that the Dean’s Office obtain outside letters of reference and/or make inquiries of experts in the field; however, external references are not required. Upon completion of its review, the committee will prepare a written assessment of the faculty member and make a recommendation on reappointment. The recommendation on reappointment is forwarded to the Dean of the Faculty of the Arts.

If the Committee is unanimously in favor of reappointment, the recommendation is submitted directly to the Dean of the Faculty of the Arts and is not reviewed by the Standing Committee on Practice. If the recommendation for reappointment is not unanimous or if it is negative it progresses to the second level and is reviewed by the Standing Committee on Practice. In instances where the Standing Committee on Practice votes not to recommend reappointment, the Dean of the Faculty of the Arts first advises the Executive Vice President of the outcome and then informs the candidate of the negative decision.

Reasons for non-renewal may be based upon, but not limited to, the following:

1) Evidence of continuous and on-going poor performance in the classroom

2) Failure to maintain an active professional involvement at a high level of excellence as evidenced by the review

3) A shift in the ongoing and future goals, needs, specializations, and practices of the school’s curriculum that cannot be adequately met or fulfilled by the faculty member

Faculty who are not renewed shall be given an additional, terminal year of appointment.

In instances where the school wishes to recommend renewal, the Dean of the Faculty of the Arts is required to submit a letter stating the case for the action. The letter should describe the candidate within the context of the school, incorporate the substance of the discussion of the faculty, give 7 the details of the vote, and provide an explanation of the grounds given for any negative votes. NO REPORT ON THE STATUS OF THE REVIEW MAY BE GIVEN TO THE CANDIDATE PRIOR TO THE EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT’S HAVING MADE A DECISION.

Arts and Sciences Review of Positive Departmental Recommendations

School recommendations on fifth-year reviews, Major Reviews, and Continuing Reviews for professional practice appointments are reviewed by the Promotion and Tenure Committee. In considering fifth year reviews and continuing reviews, the Promotion and Tenure Committee does not replicate or preempt a major review panel’s functions in any case brought before it and will not read a candidate’s publications, interview witnesses and solicit evaluations from outside the University. The responsibility will rest with the school to present a convincing case to the Promotion and Tenure Committee on the content and merit of the candidate’s work, on the effectiveness of the candidate’s teaching, and on the value of the candidate’s division, school, and university service.

The Promotion and Tenure Committee acts as an advisory committee to the Executive Vice President for Arts and Sciences, and after reviewing the school’s case, makes its recommendation to the Executive Vice President.

The Office of the Executive Vice President for Arts and Sciences will notify the school of the outcome of the review process. The school is expected to inform its faculty in writing immediately about the outcome of the reviews and to forward a copy of this correspondence to the Office of the Executive Vice President for Arts and Sciences. In addition, the Dean of the Faculty of the Arts and his or her designee will meet with each candidate completing the critical review to summarize progress to date and offer guidance regarding areas for attention in the coming period.

Appendix A

For a printable version of the guidelines, visit this link

The Arts and Sciences has in place a comprehensive system for review of professional practice faculty. Reviews are conducted in the first, third, fifth and seventh years of service and every five years thereafter. Through constructive, informative and timely evaluations, senior faculty members advance the career development of their junior colleagues and, at the same time, ensure the presence of faculty of the highest quality and distinction. Each case is evaluated on its own merits, and the review process, and recommendations that emerge from the reviews, are intended to be treated with the utmost seriousness by departments.

Statutory Terms Appointment to Modified Practice Title

By University Statute, all initial appointments to a non-tenured rank are for one year only. Subsequent appointments may be for a term of one, two, or three years. Passage of the major review and subsequent continuing reviews carry the opportunity for reappointment for a term of up to five years. Under Arts and Sciences policy, associate professors who have not passed the major review may not hold appointment at that rank for more than five years of counted service.

The University may choose not to renew an appointment beyond its stated term because of budgetary considerations, changes in staffing needs, or less than optimal performance on the part of the officer. In such cases, the University must give written notice to the candidate according to the following schedule:

1) not later than March 1 before the end of the first year of service (March 1, 2021);

2) not later than December 15 before the end of the second year of service (December 15, 2020);

3) at least twelve months before the end of all subsequent periods of service (May 31, 2021).

Procedures for Review

Confirming Reviews (First Year)

The first year of service at Columbia for all full-time non-tenured faculty, regardless of rank, serves as a probationary period and a decision must be made as to whether or not to extend the statutory initial appointment. Reviews of full-time, non-tenured faculty in their first year of service are essentially confirming reviews. Those who successfully complete the probationary period may be extended through the fourth year. Those who do not should be notified in writing by March 1, 2020 that their appointment will not be renewed beyond June 30, 2021. The Dean of the Faculty of Professional Studies should notify the Executive Vice President for Arts and Sciences of the department’s decision by copy of the letter to the candidate no later than March 1, 2021.

Developmental Review (Third Year)

Those in their third year of counted service must be reviewed for a decision on renewal beyond June 30, 2022. The school should use this review to place a strong emphasis on the professional development of the faculty member, identifying areas of progress and noting especially those requiring attention. Developmental reviews follow established school procedures. These generally include evaluation of the candidate by a subcommittee of at least three tenured faculty and/or professional practice faculty who have passed the major review prior to school’s deliberation. Following the school review, the Dean of the Faculty of Professional Studies should submit a letter by April 15, 2021, transmitting the school’s recommendation to the Executive Vice President for Arts and Sciences. In instances where the school is requesting renewal of the appointment, the letter should address the individual’s effectiveness as a teacher, accomplishments and potential as a practitioner, and service to the school. A copy of his/her curriculum vitae, a full statement of teaching and current professional plans and reports of any school committees must be included. The Executive Vice President will inform the Dean of the Faculty of Professional Studies as to whether this request has been approved and the school must then notify the faculty member in writing about the outcome of the review with a copy to the Executive Vice President.

Critical Review (Fifth Year)

Those in their fifth year of counted service must be reviewed for possible reappointment beyond June 30, 2021. Any assistant professor of professional practice who will have completed at least four years and no more than six years of counted service by the end of 2020-21 is eligible for a critical review, which includes consideration for promotion to associate professor of professional practice.

The fifth-year review for reappointment and promotion to associate professor of professional practice is considered a critical review. Promotion and renewal will be offered only to those who exhibit the exceptional qualities appropriate to a prospective candidate for major review and the demonstrable likelihood of achievement in their area of professional practice necessary for passage of major review at Columbia or an institution of comparable stature. This promotion and renewal is intended as recognition of exceptional gifts and prospective passage of major review, but is not in itself a guarantee of passage of major review. It is also not intended as a consolation prize, and departmental recommendations for promotion must be developed with the utmost conscientiousness.

The following materials must be included in the department’s case for renewal and promotion to associate professor of professional practice. Please see Appendix B for instructions on submitting the dossier in pdf format files.

1) Statement from the candidate: The Dean of the Faculty of Professional Studies should ask the candidate to submit a complete, up-to-date curriculum vitae, as well as a full statement of teaching and current and planned scholarly activities. The curriculum vitae should indicate whether publications, listed as “forthcoming” have been accepted or contracted and when they are expected to be published. Entries for full-length books listed as “contracted” should also reveal whether readers’ reports exist, what portion of the work has actually been submitted to the press contracting it, and what the timetable is for completion.

2) A review committee report: The review of candidates for promotion to non-tenured associate professor of professional practice should be conducted by a reading committee of at least three senior faculty appointed by the Dean of the Faculty of Professional Studies. The committee should submit a written report to the school, and the Dean of the Faculty of Professional Studies should include this report among the materials forwarded to the Executive Vice President with the departmental recommendation. The report should address the candidate’s teaching and citizenship as well as her or his standing as a professional in the field. There should be a detailed analysis of teaching performance, including a discussion of courses taught, involvement in the school’s central teaching requirements, enrollment history, student and peer evaluations (synthesized), advising, and thesis supervision. The report should contain a specific recommendation on promotion and reappointment. In instances where the Committee votes not to recommend reappointment and promotion, the Dean of the Faculty of Professional Studies first advises the Executive Vice President of the outcome and then informs the candidate of the negative decision.

3) Letter of transmittal from the Dean of the Faculty of Professional Studies: In instances where the school wishes to recommend reappointment and promotion, the Dean of the Faculty of Professional Studies must submit a letter stating the case for promotion in full terms, incorporating the substance of the discussion of the relevant faculty committee, the details of the vote, and an explanation of the grounds given for any negative votes. NO REPORT ON THE STATUS OF THE REVIEW MAY BE GIVEN TO A CANDIDATE PRIOR TO THE EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT’S HAVING MADE A DECISION.

The promotion case must comment at length upon the candidate’s likelihood of passing the major review, here or at an institution of comparable stature, based on a full and complete evaluation of his or her work as a scholar and teacher.

The Dean of the Faculty of Professional Studies also should provide guidance in the letter of transmittal regarding the normal standards for passage of a major review within the particular disciplines or fields. For example, are journal articles, exhibitions, etc., alone a sufficient basis for determining stature? Is the normal assumption the publication and acclaim of one or more book length projects, having one’s work critically reviewed in prominent vehicles, etc.? Are there other kinds of work that constitute the basis for passage of a major review within a particular discipline?

The school’s recommendation for promotion to the rank of associate professor of professional practice should not be made unless the school believes, and can demonstrate, that the candidate’s teaching and scholarship or artistic contributions are likely to merit passage of major review at Columbia or an institution of comparable stature. Recommendation for promotion to associate professor of professional practice allows more scope for the recognition of promise and potential than an actual major review recommendation. It is a statement of probable passage of the major practice review, not a promise of it, and this circumstance should be made clear to the candidate as well as to the school.

A school vote not to recommend promotion and reappointment is a decision, which is conveyed to the Executive Vice President for Arts and Sciences by the Dean of the Faculty of Professional Studies.

Major Review (Seventh Year)

Those in their seventh year of counted service must be reviewed for possible reappointment beyond June 30, 2022.

The seventh-year review for reappointment is considered a major review.

The following materials must be included in the school’s case for renewal and promotion to associate professor of professional practice. Please see Appendix B for instructions on submitting the dossier in pdf format files.

1) Statement from the candidate: The Dean of the Faculty of Professional Studies should ask the candidate to submit a full and current curriculum vitae and a full statement of teaching and current and future scholarly plans. The curriculum vitae should indicate whether publications, listed as “forthcoming” have been accepted or contracted and when they are expected to be published, produced or held. Entries for full-length books listed as “contracted” should also reveal whether readers’ reports exist, what portion of the work has actually been submitted to the press contracting it, and what the timetable is for completion.

2) A review committee report: The review of candidates for major review should be conducted by a reading committee of at least three senior faculty appointed by the Dean of the Faculty of Professional Studies. Semi-blind letters of evaluation, which include a comparison list of appropriate benchmarked colleagues, are solicited by the school from recognized experts in the candidate's specialization. The referees are asked to assess the candidate’s qualifications and compare her/him to other prominent figures in the field. Based on its assessment of the candidate’s credentials and informed by the semi-blind letters, the committee should make a specific recommendation on suitability for passage of the major review. The committee’s recommendation should be framed in a written report to the school, and the Dean of the Faculty of Professional Studies should include this report among the materials forwarded to the Executive Vice President with the school’s recommendation. The report should provide a detailed analysis of the candidate’s work and describe in a comprehensive manner her/his position in the field, including a discussion of evidence in support of this assessment. Where published reviews are available, an annotated summary of the reviews should be prepared, and the summary should indicate the importance of a particular reviewer or review venue, where relevant. The report should also contain systematic information on the candidate’s teaching and citizenship. The detailed analysis of teaching performance should include a discussion of courses taught, involvement in the school’s central teaching requirements, enrollment history, student and peer evaluations (synthesized), advising, and thesis supervision. In instances where the Committee votes not to recommend passage of the major practice review, the Dean of the Faculty of Professional Studies first advises the Executive Vice President of the outcome and then informs the candidate of the negative decision.

3) Letter of transmittal from the Dean of the Faculty of Professional Studies: In instances where the school wishes to recommend passage of the major practice review, the Dean of the Faculty of Professional Studies is required to submit a letter stating the case for the action. The letter should situate the candidate within the overall context of the school and describe why her/his area of work is important to the school. It should incorporate the substance of the discussion of the relevant faculty committees, give the details of the vote, and provide an explanation of the grounds given for any negative votes. No report on the status of the review may be given to a candidate prior to the Executive Vice President’s having made a decision.

Those who will not be put up for major review, must receive written notification by May 15, 2021, indicating that their appointment will not be extended beyond June 30, 2022.

Continuing Reviews (Every Five Years)

After successfully passing the major review, a faculty member holding an appointment with a modified practice title will be eligible for renewable contracts of up to five years in length, subject to an appropriate review. The Dean of the Faculty of Professional Studies will appoint a threeperson reading committee to consider and recommend on reappointment.

The candidate will be asked to submit a curriculum vitae, a pedagogical statement and a statement of professional activities, along with supporting materials documenting work during the previous five years (samples of creative work, reviews, articles, etc.). Evidence of teaching performance will also be provided.

The review committee will consider the candidate’s on-going professional and creative work; teaching; and contributions to the division, the school and the University at large. While practice faculty are expected to demonstrate a continued commitment to their professional profile, distinction in teaching and mentoring and/or particular dedication to institutional service might weigh more heavily in the evaluation for renewal than in the major review. The review committee may request that the Dean’s Office obtain outside letters of reference and/or make inquiries of experts in the field; however, external references are not required. Upon completion of its review, the committee will prepare a written assessment of the faculty member and make a recommendation on reappointment. The recommendation on reappointment is forwarded to the Dean of the Faculty of Professional Studies.

If the Committee is unanimously in favor of reappointment, the recommendation is submitted directly to the Dean of the Faculty of Professional Studies. In instances where the Committee votes not to recommend reappointment, the Dean of the Faculty of Professional Studies first advises the Executive Vice President of the outcome and then informs the candidate of the negative decision.

Reasons for non-renewal may be based upon, but not limited to, the following:

1) Evidence of continuous and on-going poor performance in the classroom

2) Failure to maintain an active professional involvement at a high level of excellence as evidenced by the review

3) A shift in the ongoing and future goals, needs, specializations, and practices of the school’s curriculum that cannot be adequately met or fulfilled by the faculty member

Faculty who are not renewed shall be given an additional, terminal year of appointment.

In instances where the school wishes to recommend renewal, the Dean of the Faculty of Professional Studies is required to submit a letter stating the case for the action. The letter should describe the candidate within the context of the school, incorporate the substance of the discussion of the faculty, give the details of the vote, and provide an explanation of the grounds given for any negative votes. NO REPORT ON THE STATUS OF THE REVIEW MAY BE GIVEN TO 7 THE CANDIDATE PRIOR TO THE EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT’S HAVING MADE A DECISION.

Arts and Sciences Review of Positive School Recommendations

School recommendations on fifth-year reviews, Major Reviews, and Continuing Reviews for professional practice appointments are reviewed by the Promotion and Tenure Committee. In considering fifth year reviews and continuing reviews, the Promotion and Tenure Committee does not replicate or preempt a major review panel’s functions in any case brought before it and will not read a candidate’s publications, interview witnesses and solicit evaluations from outside the University. The responsibility will rest with the school to present a convincing case to the Promotion and Tenure Committee on the content and merit of the candidate’s work, on the effectiveness of the candidate’s teaching, and on the value of the candidate’s division, school, and university service.

The Promotion and Tenure Committee acts as an advisory committee to the Executive Vice President for Arts and Sciences, and after reviewing the school’s case, makes its recommendation to the Executive Vice President.

The Office of the Executive Vice President for Arts and Sciences will notify the school of the outcome of the review process. The school is expected to inform its faculty in writing immediately about the outcome of the reviews and to forward a copy of this correspondence to the Office of the Executive Vice President for Arts and Sciences. In addition, the Dean of the Faculty of Professional Studies and his or her designee will meet with each candidate completing the critical review to summarize progress to date and offer guidance regarding areas for attention in the coming period.

The rank of Associate in [Language] ] is appropriate for individuals who have native or near-native language proficiency and some training in language pedagogy, but who have had relatively little teaching experience. That experience may range from teaching during graduate training to fewer than two years of full-time teaching at the college level.

The rank of Lecturer in [Language] is appropriate for individuals who have native or near-native language proficiency, training in language pedagogy, substantial teaching experience with documented evidence of pedagogical excellence, and evidence of professional growth and activity in the field of language pedagogy either at Columbia or nationally. Evidence of such activity includes, but is not limited to creating textbooks or other forms of instructional materials and making presentations or publishing articles on language pedagogy or language acquisition language pedagogy or language acquisition.

It is the responsibility of the Executive Vice President for Arts and Sciences to approve the creation of every full-time lecturer-in-language position. A department wishing to appoint a new associate or lecturer in this career track must make such a request in writing to the Executive Vice President for Arts and Sciences as part of the unit’s regular Instructional Budget Statement.

By university statutes, all initial appointments are for one year only. Subsequent appointments may be for a term of one, two, or three years. Passage of the major review and subsequent continuing reviews carry the opportunity for reappointment for a term of up to five years.

Associates in [Language] are reviewed for renewal of appointment in the first, second, fifth and eighth year of service. Promotion to lecturer in language is possible at the time of the second-year review.

Lecturers in [Language] are reviewed for renewal of appointment in the first, second, fifth and eighth years of service. Promotion to senior lecturer in language is possible at the time of the eighth-year review.

To recognize high performance of a Lecturer in [Language] in a program the university will consider conferral of the title Senior Lecturer in [Language]. No promotions in rank or title are possible beyond Senior Lecturer in [Language]. Proposals to promote a Lecturer to Senior Lecturer may not normally be made before the eighth year of service. The completion of a successful eighth-year review does not necessarily entail promotion to Senior Lecturer in [Language]. Candidates not promoted at the eighth-year review may be brought up at the time of the continuing review. If a department elects to bring a candidate up prior to the next continuing review, the next review after the review for promotion will be a continuing review five years after the review for promotion. A department should propose candidates for promotion to Senior Lecturer in [Language] only when the following qualities are demonstrated:

(1) evidence of continued excellence in teaching;

(2)  success in carrying out administrative or other department responsibilities such as directing specific courses, contributing to the training of language teachers, or serving on department or university committees;

(3)  achievement and/or innovation in support of the department’s pedagogical mission, including but not limited to: contributing to the development of existing teaching materials; writing new language textbooks; developing methodological advances in teaching;

(4)  demonstrated capacity for leadership in the language teaching profession within and outside the University;

(5)  continuing involvement in the profession as evidenced by presentation of papers on language pedagogy or language acquisition at professional meetings and/or publication of scholarly articles in the field.

In instances of a positive vote by the department, the chair of the department will prepare a letter of transmittal to be sent to the Executive Vice President for Arts and Sciences. The letter will record the result of the departmental vote and summarize the basis for the department’s positive recommendation. It will include a discussion of the candidate’s teaching load and course enrollments and be accompanied by an analysis of teaching performance. The statement will analyze the available data and reports of teaching observations as they reflect both the instructor’s strengths and areas in need of attention. The letter should also speak to the department’s recommendations at the last review as well as to the candidate’s responses to them. The letter should be accompanied by the candidate’s full dossier: curriculum vitae, the statement of teaching philosophy, the statement of professional work in progress, samples of course materials such as syllabi, handouts and supplements to the text, and written reports of classroom observations and post-visitation discussions from each of the faculty members who observed the candidate’s 6 class and examined the student evaluations. Please see Appendix B below for instructions on submitting the dossier in PDF files.

In instances of a negative vote by the department, the chair of the department will notify the Executive Vice President for Arts and Sciences of the departmental decision. The chair will then notify the candidate in writing of the negative decision. Candidates not being recommended for renewal will be given a terminal year of appointment.

Departments must submit their recommendations to the Executive Vice President for Arts and Sciences by March 1, 2021. The Executive Vice President will then seek input from the Standing Committee on Language Lecturers. The committee will review the dossier and make a recommendation to the Executive Vice President for Arts and Sciences. The Executive Vice President will write to the chair of the department regarding the outcome of the review, with a request that the chair inform the candidate in writing with a copy to the Executive Vice President. Candidates must be sent letters informing them of their status no later than June 30, 2021 and in the case of non-renewal no later than May 15, 2021. It is the chair’s obligation to convey to the candidate any concerns about his or her performance as well as any improvement that will be expected at the next scheduled review.

In the fall the departmental chair is provided with the service record of each tenured associate professor in the department. Those who have completed five years or more of service beyond the award of tenure will be identified as potential candidates for review for promotion to full professor. While it is assumed that at least five years will be required to demonstrate the levels of sustained performance expected for promotion, there may be instances of exceptional scholarly achievement or of an offer from another institution that justify review before five years have elapsed.

With the agreement of the faculty member, the department conducts a review according to its by-laws. The candidate will be asked to provide a current curriculum vitae and a statement describing research, teaching, and service activities, and special achievements since the award of tenure. Evidence of scholarship, teaching, and service accomplishments since the award of tenure should also be provided. Only those at the rank of tenured professor1 in the department are eligible to deliberate on the case.

If the case is deemed sufficiently persuasive, a vote on the promotion is taken and recorded in a letter of transmittal from the departmental chair to the Executive Vice President for Arts and Sciences. The letter should summarize the departmental case for promotion and is accompanied by the candidate’s curriculum vitae, activities statement, and any reading committee report that may have been prepared.

The departmental recommendation and accompanying dossier are reviewed by the Promotion and Tenure Committee of the Arts and Sciences. If the Committee deems the dossier incomplete, it will request additional information from the departmental chair. A recommendation on the case is made by the Committee to the Executive Vice President for Arts and Sciences. If the recommendation is negative, the Committee will provide the Executive Vice President with guidance to be communicated to the candidate through the departmental chair.

The recommendation of the Promotion and Tenure Committee is advisory to the Executive Vice President for Arts and Sciences. Upon receipt of the recommendation of the Committee, the Executive Vice President makes a decision and notifies the departmental chair (In some instances, the Executive Vice President may solicit external opinions on the case, but will not do so as a matter of general practice). The departmental chair then informs the candidate of the outcome. In cases where the decision is positive, the departmental chair and the Office of the Executive Vice President work together to prepare the recommendation for promotion for submission to the Provost and the Board of Trustees.

If a review is conducted and promotion is not granted, the candidate should be informed of the basis for the declination and be provided guidance on areas for attention. A subsequent review would not be expected before at least two years from the prior review and until the basis for the declination no longer exists.

March 1          Departmental recommendation and materials are forwarded to the Executive Vice President

April 15          Promotion and Tenure Committees recommendations are forwarded to the Executive Vice President

May 1             Executive Vice President informs the department of the decision

June              Promotion is considered at Board of Trustees meeting

July 1             Successful promotion takes effect.