While the new policy provides general guidance on how promotions will be reviewed at various levels, there are a number of questions that need to be discussed and resolved by departments and colleges that will be involved in recommending or reviewing instructor promotions. The outcomes of those discussions will very likely result in varied practices, both transitional and permanent, since the number of instructors is small in some colleges and substantial in others. This document lays out a proposed time line and guidelines for the first year of promotion reviews. The common university dossier format and departmental guidelines prepared by the English Department and Mathematics Department for possible adaptation by other departments are available on the provost’s Web site.

Time Line Instructor Promotion Reviews, 2007-08:

• August 31: Open, university-wide meeting to discuss this draft, common dossier format, and issues that need to be addressed. Department heads, deans, and instructors invited to participate. Comments and suggestions incorporated into draft documents by Provost’s Office.
• September 15: The common dossier format and transition guidelines will be distributed for use by candidates and departments.
• Fall 2007: Departments set their own deadlines for submission of dossiers by those who wish to be considered for promotion during 2007-08.
• November 1: Departments submit their version of proposed Transitional Guidelines for Instructor Promotion Dossiers to their dean and to Associate Provost Pat Hyer. The departments are encouraged to modify the transitional guidelines proposed by the English Department to meet their unique needs. The approval of the department (all faculty or departmental P&T committee, plus department head), the college P&T committee, and the dean are required. (Departmental documents may be submitted for approval earlier if ready.)
• No later than mid-December: Departmental committee makes written recommendations for instructor promotions to the department head (letter summarizing accomplishments and committee’s evaluation). It is expected that the departmental promotion and tenure committee as a whole, or a subset of its members, will review instructor promotions during the initial year.
• Late December-Early January: Department heads prepare their letters of recommendation to the dean/college committee.
• Mid-January: Dossiers with positive recommendation from either or both the departmental committee and department head are submitted to college-level committee for consideration.
• February: College committees convene to review and make recommendations for promotions to dean. During the initial year 2007-2008, it is expected that the college committee as a whole, or a subset of its members, will serve as the review committee for instructor promotions.
• March 3: Dean makes recommendations to provost on promotions to be approved; individualized letters of recommendation not required. Dossiers due to Provost’s Office.
• Spring 2008: Provost reviews and finalizes recommendations to the president and Board of Visitors. (This is an administrative review and promotion process since the dossiers do not go before a university-level review committee. Each dossier is reviewed at three levels—departmental, college, and provost—before being recommended to the president and Board of Visitors.)
• Early June 2008: Board of Visitors approves recommended instructor promotions along with promotions for tenure-track faculty, continued appointment faculty, and for extension agents and library assistant professors.
• August 10, 2008: Promotion adjustments go into effect for AY instructors. (July 1 effective date for CY instructors, if any.)

Process Guidelines:

The instructor career ladder review is intended to provide a practical and equitable process to validate the significant work of instructors, to reward academic excellence, and to provide greater job security for those with regular on-going appointments. The 2007-08 academic year is the initial review year for the first cohort of instructor promotions.

The salary increase from instructor to advanced instructor is $2,000. The salary increase from advanced instructor to senior instructor is $3,000. For successful candidates who move from instructor to senior instructor, the salary increase will be $5,000.

Promotion Dossier:

• Instructors seeking promotion are expected to develop a dossier summarizing their accomplishments using the common university format. The common university dossier format is available on the Provost’s website.

• The dossier format will be reviewed annually following the promotion process to determine if changes need to be made.

• Departments may request supplemental material and provide further guidance to candidates for dossier preparation so that the dossier submission adequately serves departmental needs and appropriately conveys the accomplishments of the candidates.

Issues Concerning Years of Service:

• Instructors must be on regular appointments to be considered for promotion. See section 2.3.1.6 of the Faculty Handbook. However prior years of service on a restricted appointment at VT may count toward the years of service required for promotion.

• Faculty members should have completed five years before consideration for promotion to advanced instructor and 10 years prior to consideration for promotion to senior instructor. (Promotion review would thus occur during the 6th or 11th year respectively.) These are minimal expectations for years of service. After the initial two-year transition period, “jumping” from instructor to senior instructor is not anticipated.

• During the transition period, instructors who have accumulated more than five years, but less than 10, may be considered for promotion to advanced instructor. Up to three years of VT service may then be credited toward a subsequent promotion to senior instructor.

• An individual hired into an instructor position may count as many as three years of service related to instruction at another institution toward the designated period required prior to review for promotion in rank. For example, instructors with three years of prior service credit may come forward for promotion to advanced instructor during their third year of service at Virginia Tech, which will satisfy the minimum of five years completed service prior to consideration for promotion. (See section 2.3.1.4 of the Faculty Handbook.)

• An individual may be hired at a rank higher than the entry-level instructor rank. For example, an instructor with 20 years’ instructional service at another institution may qualify initially for employment as a senior instructor; however, such a hire requires the prior approval of the department head and dean.
• In the two-year transitional period, if an instructor comes forward for promotion to senior instructor, and the departmental and/or college review committees feel that it is more appropriate for the candidate to be promoted to advanced instructor, they may so recommend.

Issues Related to Departmental Guidelines and Processes:

• By November 1—or before—departments should develop written guidelines including the criteria for promotion, the procedures that will be followed, and the membership of the review committee. This work should be accomplished with full input of the instructors in the department as soon as possible. To that end, guidelines developed by the English and Math Departments are available on the Provost’s website for the benefit of other departments to adapt as appropriate. These documents should be approved by department (all faculty or the departmental P&T committee, plus the department head). They also require approval by the college P&T committee and the dean.

• Each department may adopt its own criteria and guidelines for instructor promotions. Consistency across departments within a college is strongly encouraged. Consistency with overall criteria for each rank as outlined in the Faculty Handbook is required.

• Colleges with a small number of instructors may wish to adopt a common set of guidelines for all departments in the college.

• It is the responsibility of the departmental committee chair (or members or designee, depending on departmental practice) to prepare a thorough summary of the candidate’s qualifications for promotion and to reflect the evaluation of the credentials by the committee. The letter of the department head need not repeat this information, but may be a relatively brief statement from the chair’s perspective, along with the recommendation. Obviously a decision that is not in agreement with the committee decision should be more fully explicated and justified.

• For instructors who have a joint appointment, the instructor follows the guidelines of his or her “home” department. (For example, if the appointment is ¾ in one department + ¼ in another, the home department is the ¾ department.) The home departmental review committee is expected to seek input from the other department.

Issues Related to College Committee Membership and Processes:

• The timeline above assumes that the departmental and college-level P&T committees would be able to complete their review of dossiers for promotion and tenure for tenure-track faculty before addressing instructor dossiers. If a college prefers to review the instructor dossiers at the same time they review dossiers for tenure-track faculty, it is free to do so.

• Given that some college-level P&T committees are very large and contain representatives from departments that do not have instructor appointments, it seems reasonable that a subcommittee be charged with such responsibility. The subcommittee would be three to five faculty members appointed by the dean and drawn from the current membership of the regular college P&T committee. The majority of subcommittee members will represent departments with instructor appointments, whether or not there are any candidates from that department that year. Appointment of department heads should be avoided, given the small size of the subcommittee and the requirement for a separate recommendation from the relevant heads or chairs.

• Letters recommending promotion from college-level committees and from the dean may be succinct and need not repeat material well summarized at the departmental level. Instructors who are not recommended for promotion should receive written feedback on issues of concern.

• By 2008-09 each college must have an established, documented process for determining the membership and procedures for college-level review of instructor promotions. For those colleges with larger numbers of instructors, a special committee may be formed with substantial instructor participation. See Faculty Handbook section 2.3.1.6.