Skip to main content

Continuing Contract and Promotion

Roles and Responsibilities

Roles and Responsibilities in the Mentor Model System

You, your mentors, your chair, and your faculty colleagues all have important roles to play in making the Mentor Model system successful.  And during your career you may play several different roles in the process such as applicant, mentor, chair, or CC&P Committee member.  The more you are involved in the system, the more it will benefit both you and your colleagues. Below you will find both your individual responsibilities as a faculty member and the other roles that play a part in the process.  

Faculty: Primary Responsibilities

Primary Responsibilities - Teaching

All faculty are to engage in activities which benefit their classrooms (Teaching). Criteria for assessing faculty positions for which a teaching load is not the primary responsibility will be determined by the supervisor and the faculty member in that situation. Additionally, departments may choose to create more specific benchmarks that are relevant to their specific areas.

The process of determining whether the faculty member is engaged in effective and innovative teaching will involve:

  • Examination of syllabi and teaching materials (assignment sheets, course shells, etc.)
  • Observation of the classroom (in person or online)
  • Discussion of teaching goals and practices between candidate and evaluators (CO3, etc.)

These examinations, observations, and discussions determine if the candidate accomplishes the following:

  • Revises and (re)organizes elements of a course (e.g. syllabi, assignments, class/online activities, etc.) based on feedback from students or colleagues or ideas from research/professional development
  • Demonstrates a commitment to student success (this might be shown through meeting with students individually or in small groups, providing timely feedback to students to help them avoid failing a course, volunteering in tutoring support locations such as the ASC or Writing Center, etc.)
  • Prepares for teaching sessions (this might be shown through lecture notes, daily schedules of activities, modules in Falcon Online, etc.)
  • Maintains currency in one’s field or other areas pertinent to teaching (in accordance with the new rules governing professional development in FLDOE Rule 6A-14.0411)

As appropriate, Candidates and Committees of Three may also consider Rule 6A-14.0411 from the Florida Department of Education.  See the Criteria Section of this Guide

 

Faculty: Secondary Responsibilities

Secondary Responsibilities - Areas of Specialization

All faculty must fulfill their primary responsibility in a satisfactory manner. Specialization allows for choices to be made in our secondary responsibilities; those interested in professional development have the opportunity to also direct their energies toward pedagogy (e.g. Master Faculty) and/or scholarship (e.g. contribution to our fields), or additional service.

Specializing within secondary responsibilities allows for faculty to choose between additional Service, Pedagogy, and/or Scholarship. These can be mixed and matched in several ways. The definitions of and the minimum suggested benchmarks for fulfilling each of these areas are explained below. Each department has created a matrix to meet the unique need of its department. The matrix should be shared with the CC&P Committee when updated so they are aware of what to consider. 

100% Service

66% Service and 33% Pedagogy or Scholarship

33% Service and 66% Pedagogy or Scholarship

33% Service and 33% Pedagogy and 33% Scholarship

An area of specialization will be declared when a faculty member submits a Declaration of Intent Form for continuing contract or promotion.  However, the area of specialization may be modified at a later time with the approval of the CO3 and the Chair via the submission of a new declaration of intent with all appropriate signatures. 

 

Service

At a glance:

100% Service: 3 meaningful service activities per year, on average, or equivalent.

66% Service:   2 meaningful service activities per year, on average, or equivalent.

33% Service:   1 meaningful service activity per year, on average, or equivalent (minimum service requirement for all faculty)

Candidates for continuing contract or promotion must demonstrate their commitment to the college through service, where service is defined as work that benefits the department, college, student, or, where appropriate, the larger community. Candidates are expected to demonstrate a pattern of consistent commitment to service. This may involve a range of activities including, but not limited to: participation in departmental business and activities, serving on college committees and in college governance, involvement in student activities, participation in interdisciplinary programs, mentoring of other colleagues, service to the larger community outside the college and, more generally, active participation in the college’s intellectual and cultural life. Candidates for promotion, who are subject to a higher level of expectations, must show evidence of continued commitment to college service beyond that achieved for continuing contract (See Criteria Section of this guide.

A meaningful service activity is ultimately defined at the departmental level, based on the needs and activities of that area. CO3s and departments, in determining whether or not an activity represents meaningful service, are encouraged to consider the amount of time required for the activity (for example, serving as faculty senate president might be considered as equivalent to 3 activities a year given the large time commitment it requires) and the ways in which the activity benefits the department and/or college. Additionally, the specific requirements of that department should be considered. For example, in departments where faculty do clinicals or teach 30 hours per week, rather than the standard 15, as part of their department work, meaningful service might look quite different. This determination can be made democratically within each department. Candidates are encouraged to communicate with their Chairs and CO3s ahead of time about their activities to ensure they are meeting expectations.

 

Pedagogy

At a Glance:

66% Pedagogy: 1 meaningful activity per year, on average, or equivalent for the period under evaluation.

33% Pedagogy: 1 meaningful activity every other year, on average, or equivalent for period under evaluation.

Candidates in this specialty complete an applied study of teaching and teacher training not aimed at professional publication. Candidates for promotion, who are subject to a higher level of expectations, must show evidence of continued commitment to pedagogy beyond that achieved for continuing contract (See Section VI.9 of existing Faculty Guidelines).

Candidates choosing a 66% specialization in pedagogy will complete at least one internal or external program per year. To satisfy a 33% specialization, candidates need to satisfactorily complete an internal or external program every other year, i.e. conferences, workshops, institutes and speakers focused on teaching. Please refer to the Professional Development Office webpage and your department matrix for applicable programs. 

 

Scholarship

At a Glance:

66% Scholarship: 2 National/Regional Conference presentation or 1 Peer-Reviewed publication or book in discipline in promotion period, or equivalent.

33% Scholarship: 1 National/Regional Conference presentation or 1 Peer-Reviewed publication or book in discipline in promotion period, or equivalent.

Scholarship is defined as the production of theoretical, conceptual, or creative work within one's discipline. The successful scholar is one who is actively engaged in making an impact in his/her field of study. This specialization is very individuated and housed in home departments. Publishing and conference presentations, or the disciplinary equivalent thereof, is the main expectation of this specialty.

We recognize the value not only of scholarship in a particular academic discipline, but also in the production of interdisciplinary scholarship, applied work and pedagogy. Accomplishments in this area may be demonstrated, as appropriate, by the following: scholarly writings submitted for review by one's peers, presentation of papers at professional meetings, creation of art or performance, serving as a session organizer or discussant at professional conferences, participation in scholarly activities such as seminars in which written scholarly work is required, service as a referee or reviewer for professional journals and/or publishers or professional conferences, invited lectures and performances, the receipt of grants or fellowships from which scholarly writing is expected, public performance, dissertation completion and/or the publication of journal articles or books. What counts as “equivalent” in evaluating scholarship will inevitably be a matter of judgment made by the CO3 and Chair in consultation with the candidate, or through pre-determined equivalencies established by the full department. These activities must represent a pattern of professional development, suggesting an intellectual and scholarly life that will continue after the awarding of Continuing Contract or promotion. Candidates for promotion, who are subject to a higher level of expectations, must show evidence of continued commitment to scholarship beyond that achieved for continuing contract (See Section VI.9 of Faculty Guidelines).Consideration should be given to candidates that submit reasonable papers to low-acceptance-rate journals and who receive positive feedback, but not acceptance. Such candidates can be considered having met the criteria for Continuing Contract or promotion if such efforts are deemed to exemplify the qualities of an active scholar intent on making an impact in their field of study.

Faculty: Process Responsibilities

Faculty Responsibilities in the Mentor Model Process 

The Mentor Model is a faculty driven process and faculty members are responsible for understanding the process and maintaining an awareness of their progress within the process and completing required tasks according to the timeline in this guide.  These task include:

  • Selecting a Mentor.
  • Submitting a  Declaration of Intent form when initially hired and for each subsequent promotion sought.
  • Meeting with their Mentor(s) at least once a year during process.
  • Checking with the Chair when it is time to be assigned a Chair Representative.
  • Submitting an Application for Continuing Contract and / or promotion during the fall of the 5th academic year of service by the proscribed deadline.
  • Arranging a formal Committee of Three meeting by the proscribed deadline.

 

Mentor Responsibilities: The Committee of Three

Mentors - The Heart of the Mentor Model System

The Committee of Three (CO3) is a group of advisers at the core of the process.  This group guides, encourages, and eventually evaluates each faculty member participating in the continuing contract and promotion process.  One member is selected by the chair, one member by the faculty member, and one member by the College-Wide Continuing Contract and Promotion Committee.

The first member of the CO3, the mentor, is chosen during the first year of a faculty member’s candidacy. The candidate should nominate three possible committee members from among the continuing contract faculty of the candidate’s own department. The chair may not be nominated. Nominees may be selected from other departments when chairs of those departments approve. Candidates may nominate faculty members who have already served on a CO3 at a previous stage in the candidate’s career. The chair selects one of the faculty members nominated by the candidate and this person becomes the first member of the CO3.

A second member of the CO3 is chosen two years before the candidate applies for promotion. The chair of the candidate’s department nominates three faculty members who hold continuing contract and emails these names to the candidate, the candidate selects one to serve as the chair’s representative on the CO3.

The final member of the CO3 is assigned by the chair of the CC&P Committee. This assignment occurs at the start of the academic year during which the candidate applies for continuing contract or promotion. Except under extraordinary circumstances, a faculty member should not serve simultaneously on more than three (3) CO3s.

If a member of the CO3 becomes unable to serve, or if a candidate or department chair wants to replace a member, a new member will be selected following the same process described previously.

Time will be made available during Spring Planning each year for all candidates to meet with their CO3s to discuss the candidate’s recent activities and overall progress toward continuing contract or promotion. This meeting, scheduled by the candidate, represents the minimum expectation for interactions between a candidate and the CO3; additional meetings may be scheduled as desired on the part of either candidates or committee members.

For a candidate who has applied for continuing contract or promotion, the spring planning meeting will include a formal interview followed by a CO3 discussion of the candidate’s work and a vote on whether to support the candidate or not. Additional information or documentation of activities may be requested from the candidate prior to the CO3 vote. Candidates must be granted a minimum of forty-eight hours to satisfy a CO3 request, and additional time may be granted by the CO3 as long as time permits a vote no later than January 31.

 

Chair Responsibilities

The Chairperson’s main duties can be divided into four main tasks: Coordination, Training, Contact, and Scheduling.

  • Coordination: First of all, given that members of the CC&P Committee go out to serve on candidates’ CO3s rather than having portfolios come to them, the Chair must coordinate the distribution of CC&P Committee members onto CO3s, making sure that none serve on a CO3 from their own departments. The selection for CC&P Committee members to each CO3 must be completed by November. Near the end of the process, after all CO3s and the full CC&P Committee has voted, the Chair is responsible for getting all Applications to the Administrators Council for review. 
  • Training: Second, the Chair is also in charge of the training for the system letting candidates, CO3 members and supervisor know about the deadlines for the system as well as the system’s requirements.
  • Contact: Third, the chair serves as contact person for the college in regard to the Mentor Model. As such they must also keep all paperwork and a running tally of who is on what which CO3, etc., including a master excel sheet documenting the following for each faculty member:
    • Name
    • Rank
    • Time in Rank
    • Secondary Responsibilities
    • CO3 Members
    • Chairs
    • AVP
  • Once the CO3s are set, the Chair should compile six email lists of all: (1) Candidates; (2) CO3 Members; (3) Candidate’s Chairs; (4) AVPs; (5) CC&P Committee Members; and then (6) one big master list.
  • Scheduling: Fourth, the Chair is ultimately responsible for ensuring that all Candidates and CO3s have a formal interview scheduled during Spring Planning or shortly thereafter. He/she is also in charge of working with the Administrator’s Council to scheduling all joint meetings.

Department Responsibilities

By the end of Spring Planning, candidates’ applications will be posted online by the Faculty Senate Nominating Committee. The Nominating Committee will then provide the appropriate* continuing contract faculty the information about where to review these materials and how to submit their votes regarding candidates. Voting faculty should take special note of the professionalism, collegiality, department and college fit of the candidate they are evaluating, as this vote will be seen as the primary judgment on those issues. Department voting will be concluded no later than January 31st of each year.

*Voting will occur within the same groups and through the same methods employed by the senatorial elections for Faculty Senate. This senatorial apportionment joins some smaller schools together for the purposes of electing a senator to represent them, and those same groups will vote together on candidates going up for continuing contract or promotion.

CC&P Committee Member Responsibilities

CC&P Committee members will be assigned to Committees of Three (CO3) by the Chair of the CC&P Committee, who will ensure that, whenever possible, these members are not from the same department as the candidate.

The CC&P Committee has two primary roles: overseeing the logistics to ensure a smooth process and evaluating any disputed applications.

Each CC&P Committee Member is responsible for:

  • Serving on up to 3 CO3s.
  • Participating in the formal interview and letter-writing process with the other members of the CO3.
  • Collecting the official version of each of the Candidate’s Applications and presenting them to the full CC&P Committee when it meets in February.
  • Ensuring they do not meet one-on-one with the Candidate to discuss their Application and only meet in the presence of the other two CO3 members.

II. Evaluation

As mentioned, individual members of the CC&P Committee participate in up to 3 CO3s per year. Joining the committee for the first time during fall planning of the candidate's evaluation year, CC&P Committee members have the opportunity to offer an outside perspective on what the candidate has done to fulfill primary and secondary responsibilities and offer feedback on the application. The CC&P Committee member will then participate in the official interview and the subsequent CO3 vote and recommendation letter for or against the candidate. The CC&P Committee member will then present their candidates’ applications to the full CC&P Committee for a final vote before the application proceeds to the Administrators’ Committee.

If any of the previous votes for a Candidate have been negative, the CC&P Committee may request information from the candidate. The CC&P Committee reviews all disagreements and then makes a final recommendation.

Provost/VP of Academic Affairs Responsibilities

The Chief Academic Officer (Provost or Vice President of Academic Affairs) will review all recommendations and inform faculty members of final continuing contract or promotion recommendations.  At the request of individual faculty members, the vice president may convene an appeals committee.

President's Responsibilities

The President will make recommendations to the Board of Trustees for approval of continuing contract and promotion.