(formally Appendix Q)
Senior Off-Ladder Faculty include those appointed to, or promoted to, the titles of Senior Lecturer, Senior Associate, Associate Professor of Professional Practice and Professor of Professional Practice. Their appointments, promotions and subsequent reviews are governed by provisions in the Barnard College Code of Academic Freedom and Tenure (see Sections II. B. 2, III C. 4 and V. in particular). They serve as officers of instruction for their specialized expertise and superior competence in teaching, and are accorded full membership in the Faculty of Barnard College with its attendant duties, service obligations, and benefits (See A Faculty Guide to Barnard College, Sections II through VII).
Decisions on re-appointments of senior off-ladder faculty are based on establishment of a continuing department and College need for the specialized expertise and functions associated with the position, followed by a review evaluating the individual’s performance with particular reference to the quality of teaching and service.
With regard to continuing need, the College and the department are provided with an opportunity to study the totality of the functions performed by the individual in the context of both the current staffing profile as recommended by the Faculty Budget and Planning Committee (FBPC) and the expected continuing demands for such functions.
With regard to the subsequent performance review of the individual, the College and the department are provided with an opportunity to consider and comment on the individual's record since the most recent promotion, appointment or re-appointment. If re-appointment is recommended, the performance review will conclude by setting forth expectations for the individual's next appointment period and noting any areas which have been judged as falling below acceptable standards
Reviews of faculty in the Professor of Professional Practice titles will include their record of achievement in the area of special professional competence as set forth in the documentation of their original appointment and as amended through subsequent reviews and re-appointments.
Re-appointments to further single- or multi-year terms will be made after a three-step extended review commencing no later than the fourth year of cumulative service (see Code Section II. B. 2).
First, the department evaluates the contributions of the position to its program(s) and determines whether there is continuing need. If so, the department petitions the FBPC to affirm the line allocation. Deadline for petition to the FBPC is normally by April 1 of the fourth year, and a decision will be rendered by the end of that academic year. Chairs should refer to instructions contained in “Preparing a Petition for the FBPC to Affirm Line Allocation.”
After the department has been given assurance on the line allocation by the end of the fourth academic year, the department will initiate an extended major review of the faculty member’s performance in the fall of the fifth year with particular reference to the quality of teaching, including evidence of continued professional growth as a teacher, and service to the College, the University and the profession. As noted above, faculty in the professor of professional practice titles are also reviewed on the records of professional achievement in their own field. This department-level review is to be completed and the dossier submitted to the Provost by December 1 of the fifth year.
If the departmental evaluation is positive, the department may submit along with the dossier a request to the Advisory Committee on Appointments, Tenure and Promotion (ATP) for re-appointment for a multi-year term of up to five years . After reviewing the dossier, the ATP makes its recommendation, subject to the approval of the President. A faculty member not recommended for continuing service following the review will be offered a final one-year appointment in accordance with the provisions of notice found in Code Section V.D.
Once the FBPC and the President have affirmed continued need for the position, a thorough review of the individual's performance begins. This review is a responsibility of all tenured members of a department, not the Chair alone .
The faculty member under review should submit the following to the department by October 1st to ensure appropriate departmental review in advance of the department’s deadline for submission of the dossier on or before December 1st of the fifth year.
A complete CV in the general format as recommended by the ATP (Department Chair’s Manual, Appendix G). It should be marked in the margins to indicate new information since the last promotion, appointment or re-appointment.
A teaching statement, including reflective commentary on the teaching experience, on the development of course materials and syllabi, and on student ratings. The text is expected to be approximately three pages (single spaced).
A written summary of service to the department, College and the profession,. The text is expected to be approximately one page (single spaced).
Representative syllabi for past three to five years; other course material as appropriate.
Copies of any scholarship and evidence of creative activity related to the position definition, plus evidence of other professional achievements, including grant applications, as available.
For those in the Professor of Professional Practice series, other such material as determined to be relevant to judging professional achievement in the art form.
The Chair or the Chair’s designee should set up a timetable and internal departmental process to conduct the review, adhering to the deadlines specified above.
For Senior Lecturers and Senior Associates, the department chair may solicit external letters of reference from knowledgeable and well respected professionals who are in a position to make informed judgments on the individual's performance in relation to the stated rationale for the position. Such letters are not required for re-appointment reviews.
For the Professor of Professional Practice series, departments are expected to solicit four to six letters of reference from well respected professionals who are able to comment on the individual's teaching, service and creative work. Referees should be sent dossiers including a CV; the personal statements on teaching, service and professional practice; and evidence of the quality of teaching and professional practice. Faculty at Columbia may be included among those asked to serve as external referees. Exceptions to the expectation for external letters of reference may be granted in special circumstances upon recommendation of the Department Chair to the Provost.
Departments are expected to collect and review evidence of teaching quality based on the Guidelines on Methods of Teaching Evaluation for Tenure developed by the ATP (Department Chairs Manual, Appendix F).
The review also includes a formal interview between the individual and the tenured members of the department. This interview should encompass the following:
An analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of the individual's professional record in teaching and service;
Examination of any scholarship related to the position definition; and review of other professional achievements.
A discussion of the individual's plans for the development of his or her professional career during succeeding years of re-appointment, including plans to correct any deficiencies noted.
The outcomes of the formal interview should be incorporated into a letter from the Chair to the individual, with copies to all other tenured members of the department. It should provide a summary and evaluation of past professional development and achievements and should focus on specific advice and counsel on future efforts the individual should make in the areas of teaching and service. The letter should generally not exceed two pages in length. The individual should be asked to sign a copy of the letter acknowledging receipt and its contents, and may append a response if so desired.
The dossier should be submitted to the Provost by December 1st of the fifth year for review by the ATP. The Chair will be asked to present the case to the ATP. The dossier should include:
A complete CV in the general format as recommended by the ATP (Chairs Manual, Appendix G). It should be marked in the margins to indicate new information since the last promotion, appointment or re-appointment.
The statements by the candidate on elements of teaching, service and professional achievements since the last promotion, appointment or re-appointment.
The Chair’s letter incorporating the outcome of the formal review by the tenured faculty of the department, signed by the faculty member.
The faculty member’s response, if any.
Representative syllabi; other course material as appropriate.
Summary data from course evaluations received in the past two years, including typed comments from all students.
Copies of letters from external reviewers, if any.
Copies of any scholarly or creative work published by the candidate since the last promotion, appointment or re-appointment, including any grant applications or reviews of published work.
Upon recommendation by the ATP and the decision by the President, the Provost will inform the faculty member and the Chair of the decision on re-appointment, and may supply additional comments on the review for the benefit of the faculty member and department.
If favorable, the faculty member continues to be eligible for Professional Development Leaves under the service provisions in effect, and will be awarded $1000.00 to support direct professional expenses related to the position’s duties, e.g. travel, journals, books, student assistance. This fund supplements travel grants and mini-grants for which the faculty member is eligible to apply.
If negative, the faculty member will be notified of a termination date in accordance with the provisions of notice in the Code Section V.D.
On an annual basis in the following years, the Chair should discuss the individual’s professional progress and any changes in the department's situation that could affect continuing need. This review and update need not be elaborate and need not involve persons other than the Chair, unless particular problems call for special consideration. The Chair or the individual should consult with the Provost should either feel that particular problems exist.
The review process set forth above is intended as a guide, and is designed to assist faculty and departments in conducting Senior Off Ladder Faculty line allocation and performance reviews. Should a particular review process depart from the procedures outlined here, the review shall be considered valid if, in the opinion of the Provost, the process followed resulted in a fair and balanced review of the line allocation and the faculty member’s performance.
The decision to re-appoint Senior Off-Ladder Faculty is at the sole discretion of the college, and nothing in the line allocation or performance review process shall be construed to create a presumption of re-appointment by the College.
Last Updated 3/10/10