A letter of recommendation/evaluation is required for all promotion and renewal action.

The intent of these letters is one of assessment in the three categories under review. This is particularly important in the teaching category where a corpus of student reviews, whether good or bad, needs to be acknowledged and addressed.

For instance, if there are negative reviews, is there a pattern to the comments or are they an anomaly? Are the negative reviews limited to a particular course or are they present regardless of the course taught? If there is a pattern, what is the faculty member doing to correct the problem?

The reasons for this level of scrutiny are many:

• it allows the college to celebrate and promote excellence in teaching;
• it provides an opportunity for instructors to be mentored and guided by their directors or chairs so that they may refine their teaching approach;
• it gives due respect to student voices;
• in extreme cases, it can protect students from inferior teaching by leading to dismissal.

When APT receives letters from directors or chairs that do not adequately address problems in the classroom, the committee has no choice but to delay consideration of promotion and to ask the director or chair to resubmit a letter.

Reiterating information found within student evaluations is discouraged.

Letters of evaluation will always remain confidential.

PROMOTION TO RANK OR TENURE

Letters of evaluation from the relevant chair and director are required.

Chairs and directors must review the files submitted to Academic Affairs by the candidate, as well as the candidate's student evaluations, before writing letters of evaluation.

After reviewing these files, chairs and directors write an evaluation that specifically addresses the three categories considered by APT, which are, in descending order of importance:
1. teaching effectiveness (45 percent)
2. professional achievement (33 percent)
3. service to the college and the external community (22 percent)

Letters must address each performance category under a separate heading. See information on performance evaluation for each of the three categories.

If there is any additional relevant contextual information (i.e., the faculty member’s role in and/or service to the program), it must be included under a separate heading.

Each letter must conclude with a recommendation for or against promotion.

PROMOTION WITHIN RANK
and
PROMOTION WITHIN RANK AND RENEWAL OF APPOINTMENT

For Promotion within Rank, a letter of evaluation from the relevant chair or director is required.
For Renewal of Appointment, a letter of evaluation is required from the the director.

Chairs and directors must review the files submitted to Academic Affairs by the candidate, as well as the candidate's student evaluations, before writing letters of evaluation.

After reviewing these files, chairs and directors write an evaluation that specifically addresses the three categories considered by APT, which are, in descending order of importance:
1. teaching effectiveness (45 percent)
2. professional achievement (33 percent)
3. service to the college and the external community (22 percent)

Letters must address each performance category under a separate heading.

If there is any additional relevant contextual information (i.e., the faculty member’s role in and/or service to the program), it must be included under a separate heading.

Each letter must conclude with a recommendation for or against promotion and/or renewal.

See information on performance evaluation for each of the three categories.

CHANGE OF STATUS

Adjunct Professor to Senior Adjunct Professor

A letter of evaluation from the relevant chair or director is required.

It is incumbent upon chairs to make the case for the promotion of their candidate. If the candidate has taught at CCA for less than 11 semesters, the chair’s letter should specifically address the timing of the recommendation.

Letters should address the three categories under consideration by APT:
1. teaching effectiveness
2. professional engagement/achievement
3. service to the program

If there is any additional relevant contextual information (i.e., regarding the faculty member’s role in the program or relationship to the field), it must be included under a separate heading.

Each letter must conclude with a recommendation for or against change of status.

See information on performance evaluation for each of the three categories.

Lecturer to Adjunct Professor

A letter of evaluation from the relevant chair or director is required.

It is incumbent upon chairs to make the case for the promotion of their candidate, especially if their submission of the faculty member’s file precedes four semesters of that person’s employment as a lecturer. If the candidate has taught at CCA for less than four semesters, the chair’s letter should specifically address the timing of the recommendation.

Letters should address the two categories under consideration by APT:
1. teaching effectiveness
2. professional engagement/achievement

If there is any additional relevant contextual information (i.e., the faculty member’s role in and/or service to the program), it must be included under a separate heading.

Each letter must conclude with a recommendation for or against change of status.

See information on performance evaluation for each of the categories.

For further information on promotions, see the Faculty Handbook