Date Approved: July 1, 2008
Download the file

Tenured faculty members who serve in full-time administrative positions in the School of Education and Human Development often need transition time when he/she chooses to return to the faculty.

All tenured faculty members who serve in full-time administrative positions such as associate deans and department heads are eligible to have teaching release time upon returning to their role on the faculty.

Specifically, for every 4 years served in any of these positions, the faculty member is eligible to have one semester off from teaching.

SEHD Support for Flexible Work Arrangements

Date Approved: November 5, 2013

The School of Education and Human Development has a vested interest in the career- long productivity of our faculty, staff members, and graduate assistants. To the extent allowable by law and TAMU policies and procedures, we commit to providing support for faculty, staff members’, and graduate assistants’ needs to care for their family (e.g., newborns, adopted children, elder family members, or extended illness of a child or spouse/partner).

The University, through existing policy, allows faculty and staff members to request paid time off to care for family members. In addition, there may be extenuating

circumstances in which a flexible work plan would help faculty, staff, and graduate assistants meet their professional and personal responsibilities. Available leave under FMLA might be exhausted (unavailable in the case of graduate assistants), or faculty, staff, and graduate assistants might need additional support in lieu of taking leave. In those instances, to the extent possible and consistent with University Rules, administrators within the School are encouraged to work within their communities to arrange work plans that provide faculty, staff, and graduate assistants with flexible ways of meeting their professional obligations. In all instances, departments must have adequate coverage and services must not be compromised.

Options for flexible accommodations might include adjusted teaching assignments for faculty; flex time and alternate work locations for staff; and a potential combination. In addition, a tenure track faculty member may also request an extension of the tenure clock (e.g., birth or adoption of a child, extended illness of a child or spouse/partner). Similarly, clinical faculty may request an extension to their third and five year reviews. Any decision regarding faculty reviews would need to be considered on an individual basis with support from the Department Head, Dean, and in the case of Promotion and Tenure Reviews, the Dean of Faculties and Associate Provost.

The following System Policies and University Rules will, in most cases, govern flexible work arrangements provided by the School:

• 31.03.05 Family and Medical Leave (not available for graduate students)
• 12.01.99.M2 University Statement on Academic Freedom, Responsibility, Tenure, and
• Promotion
• 31.03.02.MI Sick Leave
• 33.06 Hours of Work for Full-time Salaried Employees
• 33.06.01.M1 Flexible Work Schedule
• 33.06.01.M1.01 Flexible Work Schedule Procedures
• 33.06.01.M0.01 Alternate Work Location (not available for graduate students)

Center Evaluation Protocol

Evaluation Criteria: The following questions shall guide the center evaluation process:

1. Are the goals clearly defined for the center/institute?
2. What value does the center/institute add to the department, school, university, state, and/or nation?
3. Is the center/institute contributing to the accomplishment of priorities and goals of the school, department, and/or university without duplicating functions of other entities?
4. Is the center/institute generating external support?
5. Is the center/institute actively involved in research, new knowledge development, knowledge application, and/or knowledge dissemination?
6. Is the center/institute creating opportunities to support graduate students in SEHD?
7. Is the center/institute promoting diversity?
8. Has the center/institute made progress in accomplishing the stated goals?
9. Is the current leadership effective?

Assessment Process: The followings steps shall guide the directors and evaluation committee in the review process:

1. The Associate Dean for Research will submit a request to the center/institute director to conduct an on‐line self‐assessment of the center/institute this individual directs by October 1.
2. The director will use the online assessment form to respond to the evaluation criteria by March
3. Once the online self‐evaluation has been completed and submitted, the chair of the oversight committee will arrange for the committee to meet and respond to the self‐evaluation using the online format by May 1. (add link to evaluators assessment page)
4. Once the online evaluation committee review is complete, the feedback will be electronically submitted to the Dean by May 1.
5. The dean will make a summative decision regarding the center and communicate this information to the director by June 1.

Director Appointments:

• Terms of Appointment ‐ Directors will be appointed and/or reappointed by the Dean in consultation with the department head.
• Selection Process ‐ Prior to either an initial appointment or any subsequent reappointment to a new five‐year term, the appointment under consideration will be reviewed by the Dean of Education. In the event that the new Director is to be named following the assessment outlined in this protocol, recommendations from the report developed by the center evaluation oversight committee will be reviewed for the succeeding center director or processed to follow in the identifying the new director.
• Performance Evaluations ‐ Each director should receive annual performance reviews (e.g., A‐2) in accordance with school and university policies and procedures.

Course Buy-Out

Assumptions

1. There is some merit in achieving consistency in course buy-out policy across departments within the School.
2. The current system emphasizing negotiation with one’s department head is problematic, especially for junior faculty.
3. Absolutely equivalent policies in course buy-out procedures are not possible given the large differences in types of funding and costs of replacing teaching faculty across the different departments.

The SEHD Council of PIs, therefore, proposes this statement of principles to be followed by each department in formulating its individual course buy-out policy:

1. The current proportions of distribution of total salary savings to department and PI (55% and 25%, respectively) should be retained
2. If no expenditures are required to cover the teaching of bought-out course(s), then all salary savings costs (minus the School portion, 20%) should be distributed between the department and PI, as stipulated above.
3. The actual replacement costs for hiring an adjunct faculty, e.g., to teach the bought-out course(s) should be used to calculate what salary savings are “left over” for distribution between department and PI.
4. The faculty member’s contribution (from his/her 25% share of total salary savings) toward actual teaching replacement costs should not exceed 50% of those replacement costs.
5. Each department’s policy should be transparent and available for all faculty to read on a departmental website or equivalent.

SEHD Outside Consulting Policy

SEHD Outside Consulting Policy Purpose and Scope

This procedure serves to provide all individuals with faculty titles in the Texas A&M School of Education and Human Development with guidelines regarding participation in consulting activities. In particular, this procedure provides guidance for consulting and outside professional employment when the professional activity is related to one’s field or discipline and a fee-for-service or equivalent relationship with a third party exists.

2.00 GENERAL

The primary mission of the Texas A&M School of Education and Human Development is to serve the needs of the State of Texas through teaching, research and service. The first priority of full-time faculty is the accomplishment of the duties and responsibilities assigned to a position of employment with the School of Education and Human Development. The School has a commitment to allow faculty members to make their expertise and services available to educational institutions, business, industry, government, professional societies, and other appropriate entities to the extent that such outside services of a professional nature generally strengthen the individual employee and contribute to improvement of teaching, research and service programs. The School of Education and Human Development encourages the involvement of its faculty in extramural activities which are consistent with their primary responsibilities.

For a policy statement where outside employment is not directly related to one’s field or discipline and for other professional employees, see the applicable TAMU policy or TAMUS APRM B.4.3., Nonfaculty Outside Employment and Consulting.

2.01.1 DEFINITIONS

For purposes of this procedure, the term “faculty” or “faculty member” refers to individuals who carry a title of distinguished professor, professor, associate professor, assistant professor, clinical professor, clinical associate professor, clinical assistant professor, distinguished lecturer, senior lecturer, lecturer and assistant lecturer.

“Consulting” and “outside professional employment” are defined as professional activity related to one’s field or discipline, where a fee-for-service or equivalent relationship with a third party exists. The governing principle in categorizing such a relationship is that an individual agrees to use his or her professional capabilities to further the interests of a third party in return for compensation. This includes, but is not limited to, situations where the faculty member is on the party’s payroll, works as an independent contractor, or serves as a director, manager, or owner of a company engaged in activities related to his or her field or discipline.

Certain activities, such as lecturing and writing text books, reviews, and journal articles, are not normally considered professional outside employment unless they adversely affect the  employee’s performance of duty.

However, whenever such activity is to involve an honorarium or reimbursement for services (in contradistinction to travel expenses and text book royalties), employees should consult the head of their department, center or other unit as to the applicability of the outside professional employment procedures.

3.00 PREREQUISITES FOR APPROVAL

Consulting and outside professional employment may be authorized only if all of the following conditions exist:

1. 1. there is no limitation on the number of consulting days requested per month by the faculty member as long as the following criteria are met:
   1. days requested by the faculty member have been authorized by the department head and approved by the Dean;
   2. consistent with System Policy 35.01.01, requests for approval must certify that the requested release time will not interfere with the performance of the faculty member’s assigned duties and responsibilities within the System (including teaching, research and service responsibilities of the faculty employee);
2. it avoids unfair competition with private enterprise;
3. it does not bring the faculty member into a conflict of interest situation with the State of  Texas;
4. the consulting or outside employment activity is not represented as having the endorsement or sponsorship of Texas A&M University; and
5. it is approved in advance by the department head and dean or by their designee(s).

4.00 USE OF TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY SYSTEM PROPERTY AND PERSONNEL

The use of facilities, equipment, or personnel of Texas A&M University for consulting or outside employment activities is prohibited. However, to the extent that the Texas A&M resources are available to the general public, they are similarly available to the faculty for activities covered by this policy.

5.00 CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

The best and most accurate method by which to identify conflicts of interest is through the early and meaningful disclosure to the department head and Dean by the affected faculty member of any activities or relationships which could pose such a conflict.

Matters of conflict of interest may arise when a faculty member engages in consulting and employment activities with external entities. This is particularly true of those outside activities, such as direct and active management obligations in outside business entities, which normally conflict with the requirement that the primary loyalty of a full-time faculty member be the

School of Education and Human Development. The ownership and operation of other businesses may or may not result in a potential conflict of interest with the employee’s job. To avoid conflict of interest or potential appearance of conflict of interest, faculty should seek guidance in such situations.

Guidelines:

In assessing the potential for a conflict of interest the following list of activities deserves particular attention and is not considered to be all-inclusive:

1. ownership of substantial equity in a commercial enterprise that carries on activities closely related to the employee’s area of work;
2. holding of a line management position in a commercial enterprise that carries on activities closely related to the employee’s area of work;
3. participation in the day-to-day operations of a commercial enterprise that carries on activities closely related to the employee’s area of work;
4. assumption of a key, continuing role in the scientific and technical effort of a commercial enterprise that carries on activities closely related to the employee’s area of work;
5. transfer to a commercial enterprise of non-patented technology or information developed in Texas A&M University or one of the School of Education and Human Development’s programs and having potential commercial value;
6. buying, selling and/or trading other commodities which are closely related to the employee’s area of work;
7. service as an expert witness or consultant involving clientele, a sponsor of research, or other entity having an agreement with a Member of The Texas A&M University System. In these situations, the employee may be granted approval to provide expert witness testimony only in response to a valid and duly-served subpoena or at the request of the court. In accordance with TAMUS policy (APRM B.12, Expert Witness) faculty and staff members should seek TAMUS approval prior to giving testimony as official representatives of TAMUS or when using unpublished scientific data belonging to TAMUS; or
8. holding elected or appointed position with more than one entity of the federal, state or local government. In these situations, employees shall seek approval in accordance with TAMUS Policy (APRM B.2.10, Holding More Than One Of ice with Entities of Federal, State or Local Governmental Bodies).

5.00 EQUITY OWNERSHIP AND BUSINESS PARTICIPATION BY FACULTY IN ENTITIES DOING BUSINESS WITH THE TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY SYSTEM

Statement of Policy:

The mere fact of ownership by a faculty member of an equity interest or participation in a business entity having an agreement with The Texas A&M University System is not per se a violation of law.

Statutory Requirements:

Certain additional requirements exist in state law regarding agreements relating to the research, development, licensing, or exploitation of intellectual property conceived, created, discovered, invented or developed by the faculty member owning an interest in the contracting entity.

1. The faculty member is required by law to report such ownership interests to the Chief Executive Officer or designee on an annual basis. Said report should include the name of the entity and the amount and type of interest owned by the faculty member.
2. Such a faculty member may not serve as a member of the board of directors or other governing board or as an officer or employee of an entity having such an agreement relating to such intellectual property without approval of the Board of Regents of The Texas A&M University System.

Ownership of a Substantial Interest

If a faculty member or a member of his or her immediate family holds a substantial interest in, or participates in the management or the conduct of affairs of a business entity having a contract with a Member of TAMUS or if any work of the School of Education and Human Development and its faculty is being funded by the entity, the potential for a conflict of interest may arise. A faculty member has “substantial interest” in a business entity if any of the following conditions exist:

1. the faculty member or immediate family member has controlling interest in the business entity;
2. the faculty member or immediate family member has any participating interest, either direct or indirect, by shares, stock, or otherwise, whether or not voting rights are included, in the profits, proceeds, or capital gains of the business entity in excess of 10 percent of them;
3. the faculty member or immediate family member holds the position of a member of the board of directors or other governing board of the business entity; or
4. the faculty member or immediate family member serves as an elected officer of the business entity, or is an employee of the business entity.

Disclosure by Faculty Member

It is the responsibility of the faculty member to fully disclose such facts to the head of the department whether or not the substantial interest was owned prior to or acquired after the date on which the contractual relationship between any Member of TAMUS and the business entity commenced. The head of the department shall forward such information through the Dean of the School to the Dean of Faculties who will make a determination as to whether a conflict of interest exists.

Service at Request of Board of Regents

Upon request of the Board of Regents, an employee may legally serve as a member of the board of directors or other governing board of a business entity having an agreement between any Member of TAMUS.

7.00 FINDING OFCONFLICT OF INTEREST

If a finding of conflict of interest is made, TAMUS, TAMU, or the School of Education and Human Development will require that the faculty member take steps to minimize and/or eliminate such conflict. TAMUS, TAMU, and the School of Education and Human development reserves the right to cancel or require modification of the terms of any agreement whenever, in its opinion, a conflict of interest exists.

8.00 STANDARDS OF CONDUCT

Standards of conduct of state officers and employees as established by law are outlined in the applicable policy of Texas A&M University and in TAMUS APRM B.4.2, Standards of Conduct of State Of icers and Employees. Any employee who violates such standards through an outside employment or consultation arrangement may be subject to appropriate disciplinary action, regardless of whether an application for the outside employment or consultation has been approved.

9.00 REQUESTING APPROVAL FOR CONSULTING AND OUTSIDE PROFESSIONAL APPOINTMENT

Responsibility of Faculty Members:

It is the obligation of faculty to inform the head of their department and the Dean of the School of Education and Human Development of all outside professional employment activities (including renewals each fiscal year) prior to entering into any agreement, including those which involve arrangements dealing with intellectual property.

Procedure for Approval:

Requests for approval of consulting and outside employment shall be submitted in writing in accordance with the following procedures:

1. The employee will complete the “Faculty Request for Consulting and Outside Professional Employment” form (see Attachment A).
2. The employee shall provide a copy of correspondence, if available, in which the consulting offer is made.
3. The employee will ensure accurate information is provided regarding (if not included in item B):
   1. name and address of prospective employer (permission for outside employment or consulting will be granted only when the name and address of the firm, agency, or individual who is to engage the employee’s services is specifically stated on the application);
   2. the nature of the proposed work (except for classified consulting);
   3. total amount of time involved;
   4. when the work is to be performed (permission for consulting and employment on an ongoing basis shall be for no more than one year’s duration, and all authorizations shall terminate on August 31 of each year) travel and leave forms should be executed in accordance with University policy.
4. The employee will provide a justification of the benefit to the School of Education and Human Development and a statement concerning the potential conflict of interest concerns that can be identified.
5. If the employee has received or anticipates receiving a grant or contract from the employing firm, agency, or individual, information must be furnished concerning the nature of the grant or contract.
6. If the employee anticipates entering into a written agreement or contract resulting from the approval of this request, a copy of this agreement must be submitted with the request. If the employee enters into a written agreement subsequent to the approval of this request, then a copy of the agreement must be furnished for the approved outside employment to remain valid.
7. Requests for approval should be submitted through the department head to the Dean of the School of Education and Human Development. Requests from joint employees must also be approved by the appropriate official of each School where the individual is employed.
8. The original form will be returned to the applicant upon completion of the approval process. A copy of all applications/authorizations will be kept in the School of Education and Human Development’s files, and a copy will be sent to the department to be placed in the employee’s personnel file.

Part-Time Employment

Faculty holding less than a 50 percent appointment are not required to submit formal applications as outlined in this policy. However, part-time faculty are expected to comply with this policy and keep the appropriate official informed of the general nature of their other professional activities.

10.00 APPEAL PROCEDURE

A faculty member may appeal a finding of conflict of interest or other administrative decision made in conjunction with this policy through the applicable university appeal/grievance procedure.

See also:

APRM B.4.2., Standards of Conduct of State Of icers and Employees

APRM B.4.12., Faculty and Consulting, Outside Professional Employment, and Conflicts of Interest

APRM B.4.7., Faculty Academic Workload Rules and Regulations

APRM C.20., Use of Private Consultants and Professional Services

APRM B.12., Expert Witness

APRM C-10.5, Use of System Resources for Outside Professional Activities

TAMU PPM 2.2.8.5, Outside Employment and Consulting

TAMU PPM 2.2.8.6, Holding More Than One Of ice or Position With Entities of Federal, State or

 Local Governmental Bodies

TAMU PPM 2.3.2.6, Faculty Grievance Procedures Not Concerning Questions of Tenure, Dismissal  or Constitutional Rights

TAMU PPM 2.3.8, Standards of Conduct of State Of icers and Employees

TAMU PPM 8.1.10, Expert Witness

Faculty Development Leave Criteria Updated May 2016

Faculty Grievance Policy
Date Approved: December 5, 2006

1. Purpose, Overview, and Guiding Principles

The purpose of this policy is to provide a mechanism to address and resolve faculty grievances or conflicts within the School of Education and Human Development. Guiding principles of this policy include the aspiration of full and truthful participation, uniform treatment, and, confidentiality, to the extent permitted by law.

1.1 The grievances addressed in this policy may include, however, are not necessarily limited to issues associated with salary, workload assignments, individual conflicts, and working conditions.

1.2 In accordance with Texas A&M University Rule #12.01.99.M4, grievances involving tenure and promotion decisions, sexual harassment, dismissal, and constitutional rights and academic freedom will not be considered at the school level. These grievances are pursued through established avenues detailed by the University as outlined in Rule #12.01.99.M4

2. Grievance Procedures

2.1 A faculty member believing that they have cause for grievance not concerning questions of

tenure, dismissal or constitutional rights as outlined in Texas A&M University Rule #12.01.99.M4 should express their grievance in writing to their department head. If the matter is resolved at the departmental level, a letter of understanding explaining the resolution should be written by the department head and signed by the faculty member. This letter should be retained in the department head’s office. Depending on the nature of the grievance or conflict, the department head may or may not recommend mediation. Faculty mediation services are provided through the Office of the Dean of Faculties and Associate Provost.

2.2 If the matter cannot be resolved by mutual consent with the department head, and if the faculty member is in agreement, the grievance may be brought to the Executive Associate Dean for Faculty Affairs for review. The Executive Associate Dean in consultation with the Dean will either (1) decide on the grievance or (2) determine if the grievance warrants an investigation and recommendation from the school Grievance Review Committee (GRC).

2.3 A faculty member believing they have cause for grievance concerning their department head should express their grievance in writing to the Executive Associate Dean for Faculty Affairs.

The Executive Associate Dean in consultation with the Dean will either (1) decide on the grievance or (2) determine if the grievance warrants an investigation and recommendation from the GRC.

3. Grievance Review Committee

3.1 The GRC is an Ad-Hoc committee within the school, selected and convened by the Executive Associate Dean for Faculty Affairs. This committee shall be convened if (1) at the request of the faculty member, the grievance cannot be resolved at the departmental level and (2) if the faculty member is not satisfied with the outcome of the grievance and would like to petition the University Grievance Committee (UGC).

3.2 The GRC shall be comprised of 3 committee members. Depending on the nature of the grievance or conflict, care will be taken to ensure faculty diversity within the committee (e.g., gender, ethnicity, rank, department, tenure and non-tenure track faculty, etc.).

3.3 The GRC shall select a Chair from within the group through a process that is satisfactory to the committee.

4. Grievance Review Committee Process

4.1 The department head should direct the faculty member to present the grievance in writing to the Chair of the GRC through the Executive Associate Dean for Faculty Affairs.

4.2 The GRC holds sole responsibility for determining whether an investigation is merited. Submission of a formal letter will not necessarily lead to an investigation. If the GRC so determines, the grievant will be provided an opportunity to present their case at a hearing of the GRC.

4.3 In accordance with Texas A&M University Rule #12.01.99.M4, within 28 working days from receipt of a complaint to the grievance review committee (unless the issue has been resolved in the interim), the GRC shall hold a hearing of the complaint.

4.4 The GRC shall provide an opportunity for the party or parties against whom the grievance is made to respond to the concerns of the grievance.

4.5 The GRC shall request a hearing in which the parties to the grievance would have an opportunity to present their views and work to arrive at an appropriate resolution.

4.6 The decisions of the committee shall be presented to the Executive Associate Dean, as a recommendation, within 10 working days of the hearing.

4.7 The Dean shall issue a decision within 10 working days of receipt of the GRC’s decision. A copy of the report will be sent to the parties involved in the grievance. The Dean has the final school level authority to decide on the grievance.

5. Petitioning The University Grievance Committee (UGC)

5.1 In accordance with Texas A&M University Rule #12.01.99.M4, if a resolution cannot be reached at the school level, the faculty member may petition the University Grievance Committee (UGC) for redress. However, in accordance with Texas A&M University Rule #12.01.99.M4, “The UGC will not hear grievances that have not been heard by a school grievance committee.” The faculty member shall submit the grievance to the UGC through the Dean of Faculties and Associate Provost.

Faculty

SEHD Graduate Committee Faculty Policy

School of Education and Human Development

Graduate Committee Faculty Policy

Tenure and Tenure-Track

Dean’s Council Approved March 4, 2003

Revised March 3, 2015

Revised December 9, 2015

The Texas A&M University Policy on Graduate Committee Faculty implemented in 1998 states that appointment to membership, although considered an honor, serves functional purposes and must be earned. Membership appointment is designed to assure competence in the directing and counseling of graduate students, and in the teaching of graduate courses. Experience, knowledge of operational procedure, and continuous scholarship are among the factors that define competence. The University’s general expectation is that membership on the Graduate Committee Faculty is maintained through participation in the graduate program by teaching, by directing or administering graduate work, by doing research and publication, or by other direct and substantial contributions to the graduate programs of the University, such as by service on a Graduate Instruction Committee or by administrative assignments in graduate education. The Graduate Council expects that all Deans and Department Heads will regularly review the Graduate Committee Faculty under their direction, and will recommend withdrawal of the appointment of any member(s) who no longer merits membership on the Graduate Committee Faculty on the basis of his or her lack of contribution to graduate education. The Department Head shall notify any faculty member who is non-voluntarily removed from the roles of the Graduate Committee Faculty, and the faculty member has the right to appeal her or his removal through the PPM 2.3.2.6 (Faculty Grievance Procedures). School may establish criteria for Graduate Faculty status that go beyond the University criteria, and Departments may establish criteria that go beyond School criteria. This has been the case in the School of Education and Human Development (SEHD) since the adoption of the 1992 (revised 1998, 2015) SEHD (then College of Education) Graduate Committee Faculty Policy.
A graduate student in SEHD may not be a member of the Graduate Faculty. Membership on the Graduate Faculty of any faculty or staff member of Texas A&M University or The Texas A&M System and affiliated research organizations is forfeited upon a faculty or staff member’s admission to a graduate program at Texas A&M University.

The two categories of membership are: 1) Member, and 2) Special Appointment.

Possible Roles of Graduate Committee Faculty

Members of Graduate Committee Faculty

1. General qualifications for serving on advisory committees for master’s students only

Minimum qualifications for academic professional track faculty or professional staff employed by TAMU, designated TAMUS agencies, or affiliated hospitals and clinical organizations to serve in the various roles of the graduate committee faculty for master’s students only are described below each role in the following section.

Chair role:

The following minimum qualifications must be met for eligibility to serve in the chair role on advisory committees for master’s students.

(a)  qualifications (a)‐(d) listed below for co‐chair role

(b)  employment location near city of Texas A&M campus site (except for online programs).

Co‐Chair role:

The following minimum qualifications must be met for eligibility to serve in the co‐chair role on advisory committees for master’s students.

(a)  has an earned master’s or terminal degree;

(b)  has actively served on a graduate student’s advisory committee, or held/holds an administrative assignment in a graduate program at Texas A&M or another university;

(c)   has published a scholarly work as primary author or corresponding author, or appropriate evidence of professional accomplishments related to the discipline;

(d)  employed by Texas A&M University; Texas A&M University System agencies such as Texas A&M AgriLife Research, Texas A&M Forest Service, Texas A&M AgriLife Extension, TEES, TTI; or affiliated hospitals and clinical organizations with professorial rank.

Member role:

The following minimum qualifications must be met for eligibility to serve in the member role on advisory committees for master’s students.

(a)  has an earned master’s or terminal degree, or an earned bachelor’s degree and appropriate evidence of professional accomplishments related to the discipline.

Exceptions to the minimum qualifications of any of the various roles listed above may be requested as a part of the letter from heads of departments, through the Graduate Instruction Committee and Dean.

2. General qualifications for serving on advisory committees for doctoral students

Minimum qualifications for academic professional track faculty or professional staff employed by TAMU, designated TAMUS agencies, or affiliated hospitals and clinical organizations to serve in the various roles of the graduate committee faculty for doctoral students are described below each role in the following section.

Chair role:

The following minimum qualifications must be met for eligibility to serve in the chair role on advisory committees for doctoral students.

(a)  qualifications (a)‐(d) listed below for co‐chair role;

(b)  employment location near city of Texas A&M campus site (except for on‐line programs).

Co‐Chair role:

The following minimum qualifications must be met for eligibility to serve in the co‐chair role on advisory committees for doctoral students.

(a)  has an earned doctoral or terminal degree;

(b)  has actively served on a graduate students’ advisory committee, or held/holds an administrative assignment in a graduate program at Texas A&M or another university;

(c)   has published a scholarly work as primary author or corresponding author, or appropriate evidence of professional accomplishments related to the discipline;

(c)   employed by Texas A&M University; Texas A&M University System agencies such as Texas A&M AgriLife Research, Texas A&M Forest Service, Texas A&M AgriLife Extension, TEES, TTI; or affiliated hospitals and clinical organizations with professorial rank.

Member role:

The following minimum qualifications must be met for eligibility to be eligible to serve in the member role on advisory committees for doctoral students.

(a)  has an earned doctoral or terminal degree, or an earned master’s degree and appropriate evidence of professional accomplishments related to the discipline.

Exceptions to the minimum qualifications of any of the various roles listed above may be requested by heads of departments, through the Graduate Instruction Committee and Dean.

C. Faculty and Professional Staff Employed By Other Institutions and Organizations

Faculty and Professionals who are not employed by TAMU, TAMUS agencies listed in section B, or affiliated hospitals and clinical organizations are eligible to participate as a member of the Graduate Committee Faculty (if permitted by department guidelines), and may serve as co‐chair or member of advisory committees of master’s and doctoral students with appropriate approval.

Appointments of the aforementioned individuals are accomplished through use of the Personal Record Form and a letter, initiated by the head of the academic department, through the School Graduate Instruction Committee and the Dean. The letter must provide evidence that the nominee meets the qualifications for the desired role(s).

1. General qualifications for serving on advisory committees for master’s students only.

Minimum qualifications for individuals who are not employed by TAMU, TAMUS agencies listed in section B, or affiliated hospitals and clinical organizations are described below each role in the following section.

Co‐Chair role:

The following minimum qualifications must be met for eligibility to serve in the co‐chair role on advisory committees for master’s students.

(a)  has an earned master’s or terminal degree;

(b)  has actively served on a graduate students’ advisory committee, or held/holds an administrative assignment in a graduate program at Texas A&M or another university;

(c)   has published a scholarly work as primary author or corresponding author, or appropriate evidence of professional accomplishments related to the discipline.

Member role:

The following minimum qualifications must be met for eligibility to serve in the member role on advisory committees for master’s students.

(a)  has an earned master’s or terminal degree, or an earned bachelor’s degree and appropriate evidence of professional accomplishments related to the discipline.

Exceptions to the minimum qualifications of any of the various roles listed above may be requested as a part of the letter from heads of departments, d through the Graduate Instruction Committee and Dean.

2. General qualifications for serving on advisory committees for doctoral students.

Minimum qualifications for individuals who are not employed by TAMU, TAMUS agencies listed in section B, or affiliated hospitals and clinical organizations to serve in the various roles of the graduate committee faculty for doctoral students are described below each role in the following section.

Co‐Chair role:

The following minimum qualifications must be met for eligibility to serve in the co‐chair role on advisory committees for doctoral students.

(a)  has an earned doctoral or terminal degree;

(b)  has actively served on a graduate students’ advisory committee, or held/holds an administrative assignment in a graduate program at Texas A&M or another university;

(c)   has published a scholarly work as primary author or corresponding author, or appropriate evidence of professional accomplishments related to the discipline.

Member role:

The following minimum qualifications must be met for eligibility to serve in the member role on advisory committees for doctoral students.

(a)  has an earned doctoral or terminal degree, or an earned master’s degree and appropriate evidence of professional accomplishments related to the discipline.

Exceptions to the minimum qualifications of any of the various roles listed above may be requested by heads of departments, through the Graduate Instruction Committee and Dean.

Special Appointments

There may be times when the head of an academic department wishes to have qualified individuals serve on a student’s Advisory Committee without being permanent members on the Graduate Committee Faculty (e.g., the person might be employed at another university, in government, or in industry). An individual serving as a Special Appointment on a student’s Advisory Committee is not counted toward the minimum number of Graduate Committee Faculty necessary to form the committee. These appointments are accomplished by use of the Personal Record Form, and a letter, initiated by the head of an academic department to the Associate Provost for Graduate and Professional Studies, with the individual’s resume attached. The letter should state the merits of the individual being nominated and a list of the specific student advisory committees on which the individual will serve.

Faculty

Inderect Cost Returns Policy
Date Approved: March 2, 2010

This document addresses the allocation of indirect cost returns to the School as well as salary savings generated from grants and contracts. The document is intended to assist faculty members and Department Heads in preparing grant and contract budgets. Specifically, it helps faculty members reach decisions that best match their goals with respect to course “buyout”, extended contract, and/or funds to support their research program, and it helps Department Heads ensure the integrity of academic programs.

These proposed policies are intended to promote fiscal accountability, enhance the ability of School and Departments to support the extramural activities of its faculty and staff, and empower faculty to make informed decisions about how they develop budgets. A portion of salary savings and indirect cost returns are used to support administrative and other expenses associated with the management of grants.

Salary Savings from Grants and Contracts

Definition of Salary Savings. Salary savings refer to the replacement of E&G funds with other sources. Salary savings are generated when external funding replaces E&G (state) funding. When faculty or staff members are expected to expend a significant amount of effort on a grant or contract, this percent effort needs to be reflected in the budget.

This policy is to be followed by each SEHD department in formulating its individual course buy-out policy and how salary savings are to be distributed:

1. Any salary savings generated by external funding returned to the School will be distributed as follows:
   1. the Dean’s Office will retain 20%; the remaining 80% will be sent to the PI’s department to be distributed by i and ii below;
      1. if any expenditure by the department is required to hire faculty to teach course(s) that grant-funded faculty wish to buy out (course replacement costs), this amount will be subtracted from the 80% of salary savings left after the Dean’s office share;
      2. from the funds remaining after the Dean’s 20% and any course replacement costs are subtracted, 33% will be awarded to the PI and may be awarded as possible one time merit or for other state approved uses and 67% to the PI’s department.
2. Grant-funded faculty, particularly junior faculty, are encouraged to discuss with their department head any proposed exceptions to departmental course buy-out policy in order to accomplish the work scope of the project within budget limitations.
3. Each department’s policy (on dollars required on grant budgets for course buyout and the manner in which salary savings will be distributed) should be clearly articulated, accompanied by a -2- numerical example illustrating the policy, and available for all faculty to read on a departmental website.

Indirect (F&A) Cost Returns

Indirect Cost Return (F&A) distribution. Only a portion of the total F&A costs are returned to the School. It is recommended that the portion that comes to the School is distributed as follows:

• .33 to the PI.
• .34 to the Department of PI
• .33 to the School

Faculty

Non-Tenure Track Titles, Performance, & Rolling Contract

Date Approved:  May 6, 2014

Based on the latest Guideline to Faculty Titles from the Dean of Facilities and Associate Provost Office, the Faculty Advisory Committee proposes multi-five year rolling contracts for all non- tenured track faculty with the rank of associate or above and multi-three year rolling contracts for all non-tenured track faculty with the rank of assistant professor.

Guideline to Faculty Titles from the Dean of Facilities and Associate Provost Office

1. Faculty members appointed to Clinical Professor, Instructional Professor, Clinical Associate Professor, Instructional Associate Professor, and Senior Lecturer (exclusive of the adjectives research, visiting, or adjunct) will have annual appointments for at least the first three years, but will always receive 12-months’ notice if they are not to be reappointed. These appointments do not need to be full-time appointments, but intent to change the percent effort of the appointment should either be by mutual agreement of the faculty member and the Department, or after 12 months’ notice to the faculty member. (Section 3.4)
2. Faculty members in these ranks will normally be considered for promotion after five years. However, unless ‘time in rank’ is one of the criteria for promotion, nothing shall prevent a faculty member from seeking promotion at an earlier time. All requests for promotion from eligible candidates must be considered. Each annual faculty-performance evaluation must address the extent to which their performance is in line with the level of expectation for their current rank, and, if it applies, the extent to which they are making progress towards their next promotion. (Senior Lecturers can be promoted to an [Adjective] professorial title if their appointment responsibilities are expanded beyond solely teaching). Failure to receive promotion does not affect reappointment consideration. (Section 3.4.1)
3. Faculty members appointed to Clinical Assistant Professor, Instructional Assistant Professor, and Lecturer (excluding the adjectives research, visiting, and adjunct), will normally have annual appointments for their first five years of service. Notification of non-reappointment should be made as soon as possible, but in all cases they should be notified no later than one month after the Board of Regents has approved the next fiscal year TAMU budget. Faculty members who have continuously been in one of these ranks for five full-time-equivalent years during a continuous seven year period are entitled to 12-months’ notice if they will not be reappointed. (Section 3.5)
4. Faculty members in these ranks will normally be considered for promotion from these ranks after five years. However, unless ‘time in rank’ is one of the criteria for promotion, nothing shall prevent a faculty member from seeking promotion at an earlier time. All requests for promotion from eligible candidates must be considered. Each annual faculty-performance evaluation must address the extent to which their performance is in line with the level of expectation for their current rank, and, if it applies, the extent to which they are making progress towards their next promotion. (Section 3.5.1)

<Faculty

Primary Care Travel Grant

Primary Care Grants for Professional Travel

Approved by Dean’s Council May 5, 2015

Attending professional meetings is critical to career advancement in terms of getting one’s work recognized, learning about the work of others, networking, learning new skills, and participating in professional service. When the attendee is the primary caregiver for an adult or child, these responsibilities present an additional hurdle to attending meetings. While childcare sometimes is provided at meetings, it is usually at a substantial cost. These additional costs for child or elder care are not often reimbursable by federal grants or state accounts. For faculty and staff professional travel outside of Brazos County, the School of Education and Human Development will provide small grants to cover additional travel costs associated with primary care needs.

Any faculty or staff wishing to take advantage of such assistance must submit a Primary Care Application Form. The requested amount of support must be justified up to the maximum available of $500* per family per event. Funding is limited to one award per person per calendar year, and the event must be out of Brazos County. While applications will be accepted on a rolling basis, the requests will be evaluated by a committee of Faculty Advisory Council members for faculty requests and Staff Advisory Council members for staff requests. Requests can be submitted either before or after the travel, but receipts are required and must be turned in. Reimbursement will not be possible until all receipts and the application form have been submitted.

There is a limited pool of funds. In the event that the number of requests for grants exceeds the funding available, preference will be given to applicants in the early stages of their careers.

Applications are accepted on a rolling basis and are reviewed by the committee in October, February, and May annually.

SEHD Instructional Professor Guidelines

Date Approved: September 7, 2010

These revised guidelines are intended to bring the School of Education and Human Development in compliance with the new TAMU Systems Policy 12.07 governing Academic Professional Track Faculty. This new systems policy replaced the guidelines under which the instructional professor titles were approved by the Dean’s Council in 2008, and as a result, some of the changes are necessitated by the provisions in the new policy.
These procedures are intended to provide additional guidance for the review of instructional professors; they do not supplant TAMU rules regarding the retention of non-tenure track faculty.  Instructional professors in the School of Education and Human Development will have one-year renewable contracts, unless otherwise specified for exceptional reasons.

Faculty in these appointments will be expected to make significant contributions in the area of teaching but are required only to make significant contributions to either the area of scholarly research or creative work, or the area of service. Therefore, instructional professors must demonstrate evidence of performance in teaching and one other area, either scholarly/creative activities or service activities.

Instructional professors are evaluated annually in accordance with School and University policies for annual performance evaluations of faculty. This document provides guidance for the evaluation, continuation, and promotion of instructional professor faculty. In addition to the annual evaluation requirement, a departmental and school-level review will be required in the third year of appointment leading to the promotion review. When an instructional faculty seeks promotion (instructional assistant to instructional associate, instructional associate to full) they should consult with the department head and appropriate departmental faculty. Timelines for promotion are not tied to third-year or reappointment reviews.

Reappoint Review (Third-Year Review) General Guidelines

Third-year reviews for instructional professors take place in the spring of the initial third year of employment.

For purpose of review, visiting instructional professors are considered part time/short term and will not be evaluated in the third-year

Candidate’s Portfolio

Candidates for reappointment submit a portfolio of teaching, scholarly research or creative work, and/or service activities, and credentials.  The portfolio will contain, but not be limited to (A) the candidate’s dossier consisting of 1) a statement (not to exceed three pages) on goals, philosophies, strategies and emphases in carrying out his/her assigned areas of professional responsibilities, 2) curriculum vitae, and 3) evidence of quality performance in the areas of assigned responsibility including, but not limited to teaching, professional leadership, program development, scholarship, and/or service;  (B) a job description that has

been approved by the department head; (C) an A-1 form for the current year; and (D) A-2 forms for the previous two years.  This portfolio will be submitted to the department head no later than the first day of the spring semester. The dossier must provide evidence of effective teaching/plus evidence of scholarly research/creative work or service activities. Successful teaching can be demonstrated by student evaluation on teaching, evidence of student learning outcomes, peer review of teaching, course and program development activities, the use of technology to enhance teaching, internal/external grant funding to support teaching, etc.

Department Instructional Professor Review Committee

The department head will appoint an Instructional Professor Review Committee (IPRC) of 4- 6 members consisting of faculty members from the instructional associate professor rank or higher for review of instructional assistant to instructional associate and instructional professor rank or higher for review of instructional associate to instructional professor.  If the department has insufficient instructional professor faculty at the appropriate ranks, members of the following faculty groups from either the department or another department within the school with the appropriate rank can be used:  lecturer faculty group, clinical faculty group, tenured faculty group, providing that members have knowledge of the instructional faculty role.  The department head in consultation with the dean selects these committee members.

The candidate’s portfolio of teaching, leadership, service and professional/scholarly/creative activities, and credentials will be reviewed by the IPRC.  After a review of the candidate’s portfolio of teaching, service and professional/scholarly activities, and credentials, the IPRC will vote on reappointment.  This vote and associated recommendations will be forwarded in writing to the department head.  The IPRC recommendations should be based on the individual’s written job description and performance expectations.

Department Head Review and Recommendation

Upon review of the recommendations for reappointment by the departmental committee, the department head will make a recommendation to accept or deny the recommendation.  The head will forward his recommendation, along with results of the vote and recommendations of the departmental committee to the office of the dean for review by the School Lecturer and Instructional Professor Advisory Committee (LIPAC) and ultimately approval or disapproval by the dean.

School Advisory Committee Review

The School Lecturer and Instructional Professor Advisory Committee (LIPAC) review candidates for reappointment and candidates for promotion.  It is responsible for conducting a thorough review of each file that is submitted by departments.  It is also responsible for submitting in writing to the dean its recommendations for reappointment or promotion and a report of its vote on each file.  The committee also advises the dean on issues pertaining to appointment, review, and promotion, such as guidelines for promotion and procedures for conducting reappointment and promotion reviews.

Membership on the LIPAC consists of one representative from each department and a member at large. One instructional associate professor or instructional professor or one lecturer or senior lecturer is elected by each department’s instructional professor and lecturer faculty group for a 3-year term.  Additionally, an instructional professor or a senior lecturer is elected as school at-large representative.  All instructional professors and lecturers within these two faculty groups are eligible to vote for their departmental representative and for the at-large representative.  All members of the committee are expected to represent the School rather than to serve as advocates for their departments.

Dean’s Review and Decision

The dean will review all applications for reappointment and will inform the department head and the faculty member of approval or denial of the reappointment. When the dean does not concur with the departmental recoll11l1endation, the dean will inform the department head.

The department head shall then have the opportunity to present new evidence or new arguments to the dean to request a reconsideration of the decision.

Recommendations for Non-Reappointment and Termination of Employment

Termination of Employment:  Notice of non-reappointment, or of intention not to reappoint a faculty member, shall be given in writing in accord with the following   standards:

All notices of non-reappointment for instructional assistant professors with fewer than five years accumulated full-time service will be effective at the end of the current contract.

Consistent with University rules, an instructional professor who has held any faculty appointment other than assistant lecturer, or a visiting faculty title, for the equivalent of five or more academic years of full service within a seven-year period shall be provided a one-year notice if it is the University’s intent not to renew the appointment.

All decisions of non-reappointment for Instructional Associate Professors and Instructional Professors require one-year’s notice.

System policy 12.01, Section 6, will be adhered to when dismissing an instructional faculty for cause.

A decision to dismiss an instructional professor prior to the expiration of an appointment and a decision not to reappoint an instructional professor member shall be based upon adequate consideration of the individual’s professional pe1formance and shall not be made in violation of academic freedom or as a form of illegal discrimination.

The decision and the process to dismiss an instructional faculty for cause shall be decided by System policy 12.OJ, Academic Freedom, Responsibility, and Tenure.

School of Education and Human Development Procedures for Promotion Review

Suggested Criteria for Promotion

Instructional professors can be appointed at any academic rank as long as the faculty member meets the requirements for the rank.  The following are the recommended requirements for promotion to the respective instructional professor faculty rank:

Promotion to Instructional Associate Professor

Must meet the requirements for instructional assistant professor, demonstrate evidence of excellence in teaching and either scholarly/creative activities or service in addition to the following:

• At least five years in rank as an instructional assistant professor
• Consistent evidence of excellence in teaching at an institution of higher education
• Service to the program, school, university, and/or community, regional, and national organizations.
• Participation in program/curriculum development and/or other activities.
• Supervision of program and/or activities
• Evidence of continued professional development and professional activities
• Evidence of scholarly/creative activities

(Successful teaching can be demonstrated by some professional activities or: student evaluation on teaching, evidence of student outcomes, peer review of teaching, innovative program development and supervision, program leadership, using technology to enhance teaching, internal/external grant funding to support teaching; invitation to teach at domestic or international institutions of recognized excellence, selection for a department, school, or university outstanding teacher award; placement of students in academic or professional positions, etc.)

Promotion to Instructional Professor

Must meet the requirements for instructional associate professor, demonstrate evidence of excellence in teaching and either scholarly/creative activities or service in addition to the following:

• At least five years in rank as an instructional associate professor
• Evidence of excellence and leadership in teaching at an institution of higher education
• Evidence of excellence in supervision, program/curriculum development, and/or other academic activities
• Evidence of excellence in professional development activities
• Evidence of leadership and service in professional organizations (e.g., leadership in national/regional conferences, committee involvement in professional organizations, leadership in professional organizations, service as a program reviewer or on a journal editorial review board).
• Service to the school and the university

Evidence of scholarly research or creative activities (e.g., grant funding activities, scholarly publications in refereed journals, publication of textbooks and other teaching materials, presentations at national refereed conferences, peer-reviewed  creative activities, etc.)

(See additional indicators of successful teaching listed above)

Procedures for Promotion

The general requirement for time in rank before promotion consideration is five years. Under unusual circumstances, a request can be made to the Dean of Faculties and Associate Provost through the Dean of the School of Education to consider time in an equivalent faculty rank. For example, a senior lecturer who has served the required number of years and met or exceeded performance expectations may meet the requirement for instructional associate professor.

Promotion to Instructional Associate Professor and Instructional Professor should include the following elements:

General Guidelines

Instructional professor review for promotion within the School requires a review by the Departmental Instructional Professor Review Committee, the Department Head, the School Lecturer and Instructional Professor Advisory Committee, the Dean, and the Provost.  This review will be conducted during the fall semester.

Candidate’s Dossier

The candidate’s dossier includes (1) a statement (typically not to exceed three pages) on goals, philosophies, strategies, and emphases in carrying out his/her professional responsibilities in the areas of assigned responsibility (i.e., teaching, professional

development, supervision of programs and/or activities, scholarly activities, and service).  The purpose of this statement is to provide a context for review of the file at each level; (2) a current curriculum vitae and (3) evidence of quality performance in the areas of assigned responsibility including, but not limited to teaching, service, professional leadership, program development, and/or scholarship.  The evaluation must be based on written criteria.  The Department Head should stipulate the information that he/she deems necessary for the evaluation of the candidate’s performance that the candidate is expected to provide.

Department Instructional Professor Review Committee

The Department Head will appoint a committee of 4-6 members consisting of faculty members from the instructional associate professor rank or higher for review of instructional assistant to instructional associate and instructional professor rank or higher for review of instructional associate to instructional professor. If the department has insufficient instructional professor faculty at the appropriate ranks, members of the following faculty groups from either the department or another department within the school with the appropriate rank can be used: lecturer faculty group, clinical faculty group, tenured faculty group, providing that members have knowledge of the instructional faculty role. The department head in consultation with the dean selects these committee members.

For promotion, two additional members can be added to the committee. The first is a faculty member selected by the candidate. The second is one faculty member, instructional, clinical, lecturer, or tenured, that represents the candidate’s area of expertise (program). This member is selected by the department head in consultation with departmental progran1faculty.

Therefore, for promotion only, the IPRC may consist from 6-8 members.

The PRC will review the candidate’s dossier of teaching, leadership, service and professional activities.  The PRC will vote on promotions.  This vote and the committee’s   recommendations will be forwarded to the department head.  The committee’s recommendation should be based on the individual’s job description and appropriate performance expectations.  The departmental review committee is responsible for providing a written evaluation of the candidate’s job performance in the areas of assigned responsibility. This written evaluation provides the basis for the committee’s decision regarding promotion.

Provost Approval

If the dean approves the request for promotion, the dean sends a letter recommending promotion to the Dean of Faculties, pending approval by the Provost, President, Chancellor, and Board of Regents.

Informing Faculty Members

A faculty member shall be advised of the recommendation for or against promotion at each level of review in a timely manner.  In the event of a negative decision at the departmental level, the faculty member is entitled to a written statement of the reasons that contributed to that decision.

These Instructional Professor Guidelines will be reviewed in FY 2015 (or earlier, if needed) with respect to appointment and promotion criteria, evaluation criteria, and the role of Instructional Professors in the School of Education and Human Development.

Faculty

Recruiting and Hiring Temporary Faculty

Date Approved: September 4, 2012To guide the process for soliciting, collecting, sorting, and selecting part-time/temporary Faculty, we will adhere to the following guidelines.

Each department head will submit a request for approval to hire in the summer prior to the academic year. The request will be made to the Dean of Faculties and Associate Provost, through the Dean, listing the number of part-time/temporary faculty anticipated in each of the faculty titles for the coming year. Possible titles are Assistant Adjunct Professor, Associate Adjunct Professor, and Full Adjunct Professor; Assistant Lecturer, Lecturer, and Senior Lecturer; Visiting Assistant Professor, Visiting Associate Professor, and Visiting Full Professor.

For ongoing marketing, the department will post its position vacancies on its departmental website by creating a link to the job search announcement.  As applications are received, each one is logged on the Applicant Tracking Log Report found on the DOF website at http://dof.tamu.edu/dof/media/PITO-DOF/Documents/Guidelines/hiring/guidelines_for_hiring_faculty.pdf

As job openings become available in selected programs, the department head will authorize the program faculty under the leadership of the program coordinator to review the existing pool of candidates. If there are a limited number of qualified candidates among the existing pool, the program can engage in targeted solicitations and invite more qualified individuals to apply.

A committee (program faculty) reviews the applications, interviews applicants (by phone or in person), and selects the one most qualified from the applicant pool.

Suggested criteria for selection (Department can provide their own weight to each of these criteria):

• Content knowledge
• Firsthand knowledge or supporting evidence of teaching effectiveness
• Good understanding of program area and needs of students
• Experience in working with diverse populations

The department must be able to provide evidence that the individual selected was the most qualified for the job.  Therefore, accurate records must be maintained of the hiring process:

• Tracking log of applications received
• Applicants considered
• Selection criteria and weighted average
• Finalist, offer letter, hiring document

All documentation must be held by the academic hiring department for 2 years from the date of hire (section 5 of TAMU rule 12.99.99.M1).

Faculty

SEHD Tenure Promotion Guidelines 10-3-2017

Date Approved: October 3, 2017

Introduction

Context

The School of Education and Human Development (SEHD) Guidelines for Review, Tenure and Promotion describe school guidelines and procedures for conducting reviews and making recommendations for tenure and promotion for tenure-track faculty. The guidelines align with policies and procedures established by the Texas A&M University System and are supplemented by additional policies and procedures adopted by academic departments.

Current University Policy

University level policies and procedures for promotion and tenure are set forth in the Texas A&M University Statement on Academic Freedom, Responsibility, Tenure and Promotion (University Rule 12.01.99.M2, Approved June 20, 1997, Revised July 27, 2001, October 3, 2017), which supplements System Policy 12.01. The university has also established guidelines for annual and mid-term reviews. These rules and policies are available electronically:

• Faculty Annual and Mid-Term Review
• System Policy 12.01
• Faculty Recruitment

SEHD Criteria for Review, Tenure, and Promotion

General criteria for retention and advancement within faculty ranks are stated in the System and University policies, rules, and guidelines referenced above.

Faculty promoted to the rank of Associate Professor should exhibit clear evidence of accomplishment measured against the contributions of beginning associate professors in her or his discipline; a focused area of research/creative activity; competence in the area of teaching; and willing citizenship, as demonstrated by participation in departmental, school and university service activities.

Faculty promoted to the rank of Professor should exhibit an exemplary level of accomplishment as measured against beginning full professors in her or his discipline; evidence of a national or international impact in the level of research/creative activity; proficiency in the area of teaching; and evidence of valuable service activities. In most cases, promotion to Professor is based primarily on excellence in research/creative activities; however, in very rare cases, one can be promoted based on evidence of her or his teaching or service having a national or international impact on the field. In this case, the faculty member should still demonstrate clear evidence of research/creative activity accomplishments.

Faculty members should consult the specific expectations outlined by each department within the School.

SEHD Procedures for Review, Tenure, and Promotion

A faculty member who plans to apply for tenure and/or promotion should be familiar with these SEHD guidelines in addition to the department guidelines and the university policies, and rules and regulations.

A. Timelines

1. Probationary Period. The probationary period for non-tenured tenure-
track faculty shall be specified in their letter of offer and may cover any number of years up to the University maximum of seven. The semester of hire does not determine the “Tenure Clock;” the calendar year does. The start of a tenure-track faculty member’s mandatory consideration year (academic year) can be calculated as follows:
Calendar year hired+probationary period – 2 years = Fall semester of Tenure consideration year (e.g., regardless of the month, if contract start date is 2007 + 7 years of probation – 2 years = 2012. The mandatory review will start in 2012).
Sometimes, under extenuating circumstances, a faculty may initiate a request with the department head to extend the probationary period. The “Agreement Concerning the Extension of Probationary Service and Waiver” is used when a department wishes to extend the probationary service of a faculty member. This form is usually accompanied by a memo explaining why the probationary period needs to be extended. Alterations to the probationary period must be approved by the Department Head, SEHD Dean, and the Dean of Faculties.

2. Annual Reviews. Each non-tenured tenure-track faculty member not undergoing a Tenure and Promotion or Mid-Term Review shall receive written feedback regarding their progress toward tenure and promotion based on a review of their current A-1 and vita from both their Department Head and Department Review Committee. The department head will use the A-2 to provide feedback in a face to face meeting with the faculty.

3. Mid-Term Reviews. Formal mid-term reviews for non-tenured tenure
track faculty members shall occur during the spring of their third year. SEHD mid-term reviews follow the same procedures as promotion and tenure reviews up through the level of the Dean. In the case that a mid-term review does not have a positive outcome, the Dean may recommend an additional review be conducted the following year. Otherwise, the faculty member will be given a one-year notice of termination of employment.

4. Review for Tenure and Promotion to Associate Professor Prior to Mandatory Year. Non-tenured tenure- track faculty members may request consideration for tenure and promotion to Associate Professor prior to their mandatory year. Such requests should be made to the Department Head, and careful consideration should be given to the strength of the faculty member’s record in relation to departmental, school, and university performance criteria in the areas of teaching, research, and service. (If an early review does not result in a favorable decision for tenure, a review is conducted again at the mandatory time)

5. Promotion to Professor. Faculty members holding the rank of
Associate Professor may request consideration for promotion to Professor at any time. Such request should be made to the Department Head, and careful consideration should be given to the faculty member’s record in relation to departmental, school, and university performance criteria in the areas of teaching,
research, and service. The case for excellence in one or more of these areas must be made very clear as well as evidence of leadership and national or international impact.

B. School Review, Promotion, and Tenure Structure

The SEHD review, tenure, and promotion process has four levels: 1) Department Committee, 2) Department Head, 3) School Tenure and Promotion Advisory Committee, and 4) Dean.

1. Department Committee. Composition and operation of the Department Committee shall be determined by each department, consistent with University policies and rules, and shall be specified in departmental policies and procedures. The Department Committee is responsible for preparing the Department Evaluations of Teaching, Research, and Other Activities (these evaluations should not be prepared by the candidate or the Department Head) and
the Department Committee Report and Recommendation. Authorship of these statements must be identified and individuals who have a close relationship with the candidate should not prepare the evaluation statements. For example, to void conflict of interest, the candidate’s former graduate advisor or a co-author/ collaborator should not write the evaluation statements.
If committee members differ in terms of their evaluation, that should be noted in the evaluation statement, and the department statement should clearly communicate the areas of difference and explain their rationale. All negative comments from external reviewers should be addressed by the departmental committee and/or the department head. Members of the Department Review Committee should have the opportunity to review the candidate’s Evaluations of Teaching, Research, Service, and Other Activities prior to submission to the Department Head. The Department Committee Report and Recommendation should contain a record of the vote and should address the reasons for any negative votes or abstentions among committee members.
The departmental representative to the School Tenure and Promotion Advisory Committee may attend the department committee meeting but is not eligible to vote at the department level. The report should reflect that the faculty member abstained due to his/her service on the school-level committee.
Members are reminded that deliberations at the departmental committee review meeting must remain confidential and must not be shared with the candidate or with anyone outside of those eligible for membership on the committee.

2. Department Head. The Department Head is responsible for preparing the Department Head’s Recommendation. The Department Head’s recommendation should provide a composite evaluation of the candidate’s record and include sufficient information to support judgments regarding teaching, research, and service. Negative comments from reviewers and/or the Department Committee and negative votes or abstentions from the Department Committee should be addressed in the Department Head’s recommendation, even if these comments are factually wrong or misguided.

3. School Tenure and Promotion Advisory Committee. The committee has five members. Each department elects one tenured, full professor representative to the committee for a 3-year term. All tenure track faculty members are eligible to vote for their departmental representative and for the School at-large member. Individuals who hold administrative positions as Department Heads or who serve on the dean’s staff are not eligible to serve on the committee.

The fifth member is an associate professor representative elected as a school at-large representative who serves a 2-year term. The at-large representative cannot be from the same department for two consecutive terms. The at-large representative participates in discussions and votes in cases involving third year reviews and tenure and promotion to associate professor. In order to capitalize on the developmental opportunities for associate professors, the at-large representative may be present during discussions involving promotion to full professor but does not vote on promotion to full professor. In the event the associate professor representative is reviewed for promotion to Full Professor during this two-year term, the individual will not complete his/her term, and an election for a new 2-year position will be held.
This committee is responsible for preparing the School Committee’s Report and Recommendation. All members of the committee are expected to represent the School rather than to serve as advocates for their departments. The Report and Recommendation of this committee should include sufficient information to support its judgments on teaching, research, and service and should address the reasons for negative votes or abstentions among its members.

4. The Dean is responsible for preparing the Dean’s Recommendation and Summary.

C. External Letters.

1. Number. The department must aim to receive 6-7 letters from external reviewers although the minimum number required is 5. All letters that have been requested and received must be included.

2. Authors. Review letters should include at least one nominated by the candidate and one nominated by the department (Department Committee or program faculty). Letters should not be sought from individuals “tainted” by
close personal ties to the candidate (e.g., mentors, former students, close personal friends, frequent co-authors). Letters should not be sought from among the names
on the “do not contact” list provided by the candidates.

3. Institutions. Letters should come from “peer institutions or better” (i.e., top-
tier, Research Extensive universities) but letters from notable leaders in the field who are not within a peer institution are also acceptable. In such a case, a rationale must be provided as to why the letter was solicited in the Description of the Qualifications of the External Reviewers. For assistant to associate professors, letter writers should hold the rank of full professor, except for some rare cases where the associate professor appointed as an external reviewer has an exceptional record of scholarship and is in the process of being promoted to full professor at his/her institution.

4. Letter Samples. A sample of the letters or emails used to solicit external reviews should be included in the candidate’s file. It is not recommended that the solicitation letter asks if the candidate would be granted tenure and/or promotion at their institution. Instead the reviewer should be asked to evaluate the candidate’s work and its current and potential national and/or international prominence (or progress toward them in the case of mid-term reviews). The solicitation must contain the following statement: “Your review will be kept confidential; however, Texas is an open records state and your review could be requested and relinquished.”
Examples of letters are available from the office of the Associate Dean for Faculty Affairs.

5. Letter Availability to Candidates. Under Texas law, external letters are available to the candidate upon request to their department head in writing. These can be made available upon written request after the review process is complete.

D. Preparation of Dossier

1. Vita. The candidate’s vita should distinguish between peer-reviewed
(refereed) publications and non peer-reviewed publications. The candidate’s role in grant and contract activities should be clearly specified. It is advisable for the
vita to make clear the candidate’s role in multi-author publications. It is strongly encouraged that if any coauthors are the candidate’s graduate students (past or present), they are delineated in a manner so that this relationship is discernible.
The curriculum vita should be accurate, concise, and padding should be avoided.

2. Candidate’s Statement on Teaching, Research, and Service. These
statements should be concise and more than a summary of the vita. Rather, they should help a reviewer make sense of the candidate’s vita and clarify why the individual has chosen specific scholarship areas and how these areas will be developed in the future. Candidates should clearly state the impact of their work or potential for impact in the case of assistant to associate professors.

IV. SEHD Promotion and Tenure Estimated Calendar Dates

January of each year: Dean Notifies Department Heads of schedule and procedures for tenure track reviews to occur in the next academic year.
February of year prior to review: In consultation with Department Head (DH), candidate begins preparing dossier.
March: Through the Dean of Faculties, the Provost requests Deans to initiate tenure and promotion proceedings.
March-September: Department solicits external letters and completes departmental review process.
September: Departmental Review Committee (DRC) meets to discuss candidate(s) materials and vote on its recommendation(s). DRC recommendation(s) is forwarded to Department Head.
October: DH reviews candidate(s) material and DRC recommendation. DH recommendation is forwarded to College Review Committee.
November: College Review Committee (CRC) reviews candidate(s) material, DRC and DH recommendations. CRC recommendation is forwarded to Dean.
December: Dean reviews candidate(s) material, DRC, DH and CRC recommendations. Dean’s recommendation and candidate(s) tenure and promotion packets are forwarded to the Dean of Faculties.
January of year reviewed: Deans meet and review recommendations with the Provost and Dean of Faculties.
February: Provost forwards recommendations to President. President forwards recommendations to the Board of Regents through the Chancellor of the TAMU System.
May: Board of Regents reviews recommendations and makes final decisions
September 1 following the successful P&T review: Tenure and Promotion decisions become effective.

V. SEHD Third-Year Review Estimated Calendar Dates

January of each year: Dean Notifies Department Heads of schedule and procedures for tenure track mid-year reviews to occur in the next academic year.
September –Beginning of year three: In consultation with Department Head (DH), candidate begins preparing dossier.
September-February: Department solicits external letters and completes departmental review process.
February: Department Review Committee (DRC) meets to discuss candidate(s) materials and vote on its recommendation(s). DRC recommendation(s) is forwarded to Department Head.
March: DH reviews candidate(s) material and DRC recommendation. DH recommendation is forwarded to College Review Committee.
April: College Review Committee (CRC) reviews candidate(s) material, DRC and DH recommendations. CRC recommendation is forwarded to Dean.
May: Dean reviews candidate(s) material, DRC, DH and CRC recommendations. Dean’s feedback provided to candidate.

Faculty

Salary Savings Distribution May_07

Date Approved: May 14, 2007

This statement of principles is to be followed by each SEHD department in formulating its individual course buy-out policy and how salary savings are to be distributed:

1. Any salary savings generated by external funding returned to the School will be distributed using these guidelines:
   1. the Dean’s Office will retain 20%; the remaining 80% will be sent to the PI’s department;
   2. if any expenditure by the department is required to hire adjunct faculty for course PI is buying out is incurred, this amount will be subtracted from the 80% of salary savings left after the Dean’s Office share;
   3. from the funds remaining after the Dean’s 20% and any course replacement costs are subtracted, 33% will be awarded to the PI and 67% to the PI’s department.
2. Principal investigators, and particularly junior faculty, are encouraged to discuss with their department head any proposed exceptions to departmental course buy-out policy in order to accomplish the work scope of the project within budget limitations.
3. Each department’s policy (on dollars required on grant budgets for course buyout and the manner in which salary savings will be distributed) should be clearly articulated, accompanied by a numerical example illustrating the policy and available for all faculty to read on a departmental website.

Faculty

GUIDELINES FOR SUPPORTING EDITORSHIPS 2010

Date Approved: November 2, 2010

Context

Oftentimes, requests are presented to the dean’s office for potential support and commitment to enable faculty to compete for editorships of professional journals. These guidelines provide a uniform process to seek support for an editorship.

Rationale

Benefits from receiving an editorship of a quality professional journal provide recognition for both the faculty member(s) and the school and serve as tangible evidence that our school is providing service and leadership in promoting scholarship in the professional field or domain addressed by the journal. Further, opportunities for editing and requesting invited manuscripts are often among the responsibilities resident editors could offer to foster collegiality among faculty and students.

Assumptions

1. Supporting faculty members’ bids for editorships of quality journals is a goal of the School of Education and Human Development.
2. Financial support for an editorship will be shared between the faculty’s department and the school.
3. A formal proposal for support will be developed by the faculty member which will be formally reviewed, first by the department and then by the school regarding whether to provide support.
4. If the department approves the request and provides the needed support, then the process will end at the department level.
5. If the department is unable to provide financial support, then the request will be presented to the Dean for consideration.

Procedures

1.  Faculty interested in bidding for an editorship will develop a formal proposal (limited to 5 pages) that addresses the following issues:
   1. Discuss how this editorship will benefit fellow faculty, students, the department, and the school
   2. Discuss your commitment for assuming the editorship and why this responsibility should be supported with department and school funds.
   3. Provide an accounting of the support the publication provides to the editor of the journal
   4. Provide a detailed budget for each year of the editorship
2. A review process will be conducted on all proposals seeking financial support from the school. The dean will be responsible for the final decision regarding each proposal requesting such support.
3. Criteria for evaluating the proposals will include:
   1. Evidence of support provided by publisher
   2. Evidence of matching support to be provided by department
   3. Evidence that the journal is a quality journal and the number of faculty in the school that will benefit from an editorship being in the school
   4. An analysis of the benefits to the department and school to justify the proposed expenditures
   5. Description of the editorial roles and expectations
   6. Number of journals being supported within the school at the time the proposal is submitted
4. The review process will include:
   1. A departmental review of the proposal before being submitted to the school for review
   2. A school panel made up of SEHD Council of Principal Investigators will develop recommendations for support based on the departmental review recommendations and their own review of each proposal.
   3. A 30-day period for completing the comprehensive review of each proposal
   4. Recommendations submitted to the dean for a final decision

SEHD Support for Flexible Work Arrangements

Date Approved: November 5, 2013
The School of Education and Human Development has a vested interest in the career- long productivity of our faculty, staff members, and graduate assistants. To the extent allowable by law and TAMU policies and procedures, we commit to providing support for faculty, staff members’, and graduate assistants’ needs to care for their family (e.g., newborns, adopted children, elder family members, or extended illness of a child or spouse/partner).

The University, through existing policy, allows faculty and staff members to request paid time off to care for family members. In addition, there may be extenuating circumstances in which a flexible work plan would help faculty, staff, and graduate assistants meet their professional and personal responsibilities. Available leave under FMLA might be exhausted (unavailable in the case of graduate assistants), or faculty, staff, and graduate assistants might need additional support in lieu of taking leave. In those instances, to the extent possible and consistent with University Rules, administrators within the School are encouraged to work within their communities to arrange work plans that provide faculty, staff, and graduate assistants with flexible ways of meeting their professional obligations. In all instances, departments must have adequate coverage and services must not be compromised.

Options for flexible accommodations might include adjusted teaching assignments for faculty; flex time and alternate work locations for staff; and a potential combination. In addition, a tenure track faculty member may also request an extension of the tenure clock (e.g., birth or adoption of a child, extended illness of a child or spouse/partner). Similarly, clinical faculty may request an extension to their third and five year reviews. Any decision regarding faculty reviews would need to be considered on an individual basis with support from the Department Head, Dean, and in the case of Promotion and Tenure Reviews, the Dean of Faculties and Associate Provost.

The following System Policies and University Rules will, in most cases, govern flexible work arrangements provided by the School:

• 31.03.05 Family and Medical Leave (not available for graduate students)
• 12.01.99.M2 University Statement on Academic Freedom, Responsibility, Tenure, and Promotion 31.03.02.MI Sick Leave
• 33.06 Hours of Work for Full-time Salaried Employees 33.06.01.M1 Flexible Work Schedule
• 33.06.01.M1.01 Flexible Work Schedule Procedures 33.06.01.M0.01 Alternate Work Location (not available for graduate students)

Administrative Leave Procedure

The School of Education and Human Development awards Administrative leave annually based on the current year’s Performance Evaluation.  Following are two charts that are used in the allocation of administrative leave. Because Supervisors have an additional category on which they are evaluated the charts are separated for Supervisors and Non-Supervisors:

If supervisor, max points = 36
If not supervisor, max points = 32

Staff

Performance Evaluations

Performance Evaluations are conducted annually between April 1 and May 31. They are based on an employee’s performance in the prior year beginning April 1 and ending March 31st. The School encourages the use of stakeholder feedback as well as self evaluations in the preparation of Performance Evaluations. The School also encourages an ongoing dialogue between the supervisor and employee to effectively communicate an employee’s performance.

Primary Care Travel Grant

Primary Care Grants for Professional Travel

Approved by Dean’s Council May 5, 2015

Attending professional meetings is critical to career advancement in terms of getting one’s work recognized, learning about the work of others, networking, learning new skills, and participating in professional service. When the attendee is the primary caregiver for an adult or child, these responsibilities present an additional hurdle to attending meetings. While childcare sometimes is provided at meetings, it is usually at a substantial cost. These additional costs for child or elder care are not often reimbursable by federal grants or state accounts. For faculty and staff professional travel outside of Brazos County, the School of Education and Human Development will provide small grants to cover additional travel costs associated with primary care needs.

Any faculty or staff wishing to take advantage of such assistance must submit a Primary Care Application Form. The requested amount of support must be justified up to the maximum available of $500* per family per event. Funding is limited to one award per person per calendar year, and the event must be out of Brazos County. While applications will be accepted on a rolling basis, the requests will be evaluated by a committee of Faculty Advisory Council members for faculty requests and Staff Advisory Council members for staff requests. Requests can be submitted either before or after the travel, but receipts are required and must be turned in. Reimbursement will not be possible until all receipts and the application form have been submitted.

There is a limited pool of funds. In the event that the number of requests for grants exceeds the funding available, preference will be given to applicants in the early stages of their careers.

Applications are accepted on a rolling basis and are reviewed by the committee in October, February, and May annually.