Progress toward Promotion (PtP) Review
Faculty in Non-Tenure-Track Positions — College of Education
Eligibility
Faculty who are not in tenure-track positions are eligible to apply for promotion within their title. Such positions include, but are not limited to, Clinical, Assistant In, Professors of Practice, Lecturers, Scholars, and Research Scientists. For example, a Clinical Assistant Professor may apply for promotion to Clinical Associate Professor, and a Lecturer may apply to become a Senior Lecturer.
Review Requirement
The College of Education requires a comprehensive review of tenure-track faculty in their third year at UF. For faculty not in a tenure-track position, the College similarly requires a comprehensive review be conducted in advance of the application for promotion. This review will occur in the faculty member’s third year in position, unless the School Director and faculty member agree to a different timeline. The PtP review occurs within individual Schools and should follow the process outlined in this document.
A faculty member who declines to be reviewed under this PtP process must do so in writing by submitting a letter to their Chair/Director.
Purpose
The PtP review is intended to:
- Provide a thorough evaluation of the candidate’s progress toward first promotion (i.e., assistant to associate)
- Provide the candidate with detailed feedback on the status of their progress toward promotion
- Put in place, when deemed necessary, procedures that will assist the candidate in meeting School, College, and University requirements for promotion
Promotion Criteria
The PtP review should be conducted with the promotion criteria in mind. Essentially, the criteria require distinction in the area of primary assignment and at least satisfactory performance in any other assigned areas.
When the faculty member and School Director have agreed to proceed with a PtP review, the School Director shall provide the faculty member with the College criteria for promotion and the process to be followed by the School. The promotion candidate will then complete UF’s promotion packet, excluding internal/external letters of reference. The weight of evidence in the packet should reflect the candidate’s actual assignment:
- A candidate with a heavy research assignment will provide more evidence of distinction in scholarship than in other domains
- A candidate with a heavy teaching assignment will provide more evidence of distinction in teaching than in other domains
- A candidate with a heavy service or administrative assignment will provide more evidence of distinction in those areas than in other domains
Process and Timeline
Packet Submission
The deadline for completion of the packet is February 1 of the year of the review.
Faculty Review Meeting
Faculty in tenure and non-tenure positions whose rank is higher than the promotion candidate shall review the packet before meeting to discuss the candidate’s progress toward promotion. The primary purpose of the meeting is to discuss the candidate’s progress and advise the School Director on what to include in the letter of review.
The outcome of the meeting should be a detailed and candid assessment of the candidate’s progress toward promotion. Any concerns over the candidate’s performance in any area should be clearly stated, and specific recommendations for addressing those concerns should be documented.
In discussing the PtP case, eligible faculty must attend closely to the candidate’s assignment — specifically, the percentage of time assigned to teaching, scholarship, and service. Depending on the candidate’s assignment, faculty may consider questions such as:
- Is the candidate’s teaching at or above School norms and expectations, or making steady progress in that direction?
- Has the candidate presented papers in appropriate venues, and are the number and quality of those papers acceptable?
- What significant contributions has the candidate made to course and/or program development?
- What evidence is provided of excellence in the domain of teaching?
- Does the candidate’s record suggest a teaching and/or research trajectory that is likely to lead to promotion?
- Is the candidate appropriately involved in professional service activities?
Secret Ballot
No sooner than one day following the meeting of eligible faculty, faculty will participate in a secret ballot to vote on whether they feel the candidate is making satisfactory progress toward promotion. The results of the balloting should be determined within one week of the faculty meeting.
School Director’s Letter
Based on input from the meeting of eligible faculty, the School Director will draft a letter to the candidate within two weeks of completed balloting. In addition to addressing the results of the faculty vote, the letter should:
- Identify areas of strengths and weaknesses in the candidate’s record
- Make clear recommendations on how the candidate may improve their packet and performance
- Provide thoughtful, constructive, and specific assessments and suggestions beyond the yes/no faculty vote
The draft of the School Director’s letter should be shared with the Dean, with any additional input incorporated into the final version.
Meeting with Candidate
Within four weeks of the faculty vote, the School Director will meet with the candidate to discuss the details of the PtP review letter, including supports that may be available to help the candidate address areas for improvement. The candidate and Director are encouraged to include the candidate’s mentor in this meeting.
Personnel File
A copy of the review letter will be placed in the candidate’s personnel file. The candidate may add a response to the personnel file related to the School Director’s letter. The letter of review and any related responses will not become part of the promotion packet.