CON Promotion and Tenure for Academic Rank: Difference between revisions
| Line 69: | Line 69: | ||
====Definition of Substantial and Chronic Deficiency==== | ====Definition of Substantial and Chronic Deficiency==== | ||
<p style="max-width:70em !important;margin-left:3em; margin-bottom:15px;"><strong>Substantial</strong> - The faculty member’s evaluation in two academic areas (teaching, scholarship, and professional service) on the annual evaluation form has been evaluated. An unsatisfactory evaluation is determined when an individual does not demonstrate behaviors showing competence and accomplishments in a given academic area. | <p style="max-width:70em !important;margin-left:3em; margin-bottom:15px;"><strong>Substantial</strong> - The faculty member’s evaluation in two academic areas (teaching, scholarship, and professional service) on the annual evaluation form has been evaluated. An unsatisfactory evaluation is determined when an individual does not demonstrate behaviors showing competence and accomplishments in a given academic area.</p> | ||
<p style="max-width:70em !important;margin-left:3em; margin-bottom:15px;"><strong>Chronic</strong> - The faculty member’s evaluation in two academic areas (teaching, scholarship, and professional service) on the annual evaluation form has been evaluated unsatisfactory for two consecutive years. An unsatisfactory evaluation is determined when an individual does not demonstrate behaviors showing competence and accomplishments in a given academic area.</p> | <p style="max-width:70em !important;margin-left:3em; margin-bottom:15px;"><strong>Chronic</strong> - The faculty member’s evaluation in two academic areas (teaching, scholarship, and professional service) on the annual evaluation form has been evaluated unsatisfactory for two consecutive years. An unsatisfactory evaluation is determined when an individual does not demonstrate behaviors showing competence and accomplishments in a given academic area.</p> | ||
<p>Faculty member may appeal the Peer Post-Tenure Review recommendations on the grounds that the decision was capricious, arbitrary or prejudiced. The burden of proof is on the faculty member.</p> | <p>Faculty member may appeal the Peer Post-Tenure Review recommendations on the grounds that the decision was capricious, arbitrary or prejudiced. The burden of proof is on the faculty member.</p> | ||