The Appointments, Promotion, and Tenure (APT) Committee is a college-wide standing committee made up of at least nine faculty members, each of whom have taught at the College for a minimum of seven calendar years. Members serve three-year terms and are drawn from a broad range of disciplines.  Information about the selection of committee members can be found in the Faculty Handbook, Section 1.D.2.a. Selection of Standing Committee Members.

APT reports to the Provost and works with the Executive Committee on faculty policy and procedures. All matters pertaining to advancement in rank, change in status, and assignment of tenure come before APT according to procedures outlined in the Faculty Handbook, Section 2.C. Ranked Faculty Evaluations and Promotions and in the Collective Bargaining Agreement, Article 14. Classifications and Promotions. Central to these procedures is a periodic review of faculty by faculty.  

Please note that APT is a recommending body only. At the conclusion of its review process, APT makes a recommendation to the Provost who will make a decision about faculty advancement or a change in status. (The exception is in tenure cases, when the President determines the final outcomes based on recommendations from the Provost.)

The purposes of the review process are many: to provide oversight; to evaluate and contextualize faculty performance; and to aid the Provost in making informed decisions about faculty advancement.

The criteria for ranked faculty promotion are considered in the following order: 

1. Teaching (45%)
2. Professional achievement (33%)
3. Service to the CCA and the external community (22%)

These percentages indicate the relative significance of each category of accomplishment. Documentation of accomplishment in all three categories is required for consideration for promotion. Guidelines for the current requirements for documentation are provided directly to candidates by Academic Affairs. More information can be found in the Faculty Handbook, Section 2.C. Ranked Faculty Evaluations and Promotions.

The classifications and qualifications of adjunct faculty used in promotion reviews are outlined in the Collective Bargaining Agreement, Article 14. Classifications and Promotions.

The College acknowledges that Chair responsibilities may limit your ability to perform other kinds of work at the same level as non-Chairs.  While Chairs are evaluated according to the same criteria as other faculty, in faculty promotion reviews APT does take into account the potential impacts of serving as chair. For more information, see the Faculty Handbook, Section 2.C.1. Promotion within Rank.

In most cases, no, though in some situations a deferral may be possible (see below). For tenure-track faculty, the academic year of the pretenure review and tenure review should be stated within the letter of appointment. Tenured associate professors and professors are required to go through review for promotion in rank at least once every six years. Ranked Renewable faculty (RR, formerly known as Ranked Non-Tenure or RNT) are required to undergo review for reappointment on a three-year cycle. More information about eligibility and requirements for ranked faculty promotion reviews can be found in the Faculty Handbook, Section 2.B.3. Hiring and Reappointment of Ranked Non-Tenure (RNT) Faculty and Section 2.C. Ranked Faculty Evaluations and Promotions.

Adjunct I faculty who have taught five course lines at CCA are eligible for promotion to Adjunct II. Adjunct II faculty who have taught ten course lines as an Adjunct II or twelve total semesters at CCA are eligible for promotion to Senior Adjunct. The timelines for the promotion process for unranked faculty are detailed in the Collective Bargaining Agreement, Article 15. Classifications and Promotion. Eligible adjunct faculty who do not apply for promotion at the specified time lose eligibility to continue teaching in future semesters.

Associate Professors (tenured or ranked renewable) who are eligible for promotion to Professor may choose to defer review for promotion to Professor until a subsequent review.  (See the Faculty Handbook, Section 2.C.1. Promotion within Rank.)  However, Associate Professors (ranked renewable) must undergo review every three years for reappointment. Other deferrals are possible, but only with the approval of the Provost. If you are considering a deferral, you should contact your Chair as soon as possible so that a determination can be made about your eligibility for deferral.

Adjunct faculty may not choose to defer their reviews. However, in some instances, the Provost may choose to defer a promotion decision.

The recommendations that APT forwards to the Provost regarding ranked faculty promotion reviews are not tied to a specific percentage salary increase.  (See the Faculty Handbook, Section 2.C.1. Promotion within Rank.) As APT is a recommending body that does not make decisions regarding promotions or salaries, all decisions regarding salary are determined by the Provost.  A successful promotion typically results in a salary increase beyond the typical annual increase. In general, promotion within rank may result in a smaller increase, if any; promotion to rank may be accompanied by a larger increase, if any.

In 2023, the provost completed a comprehensive ranked faculty compensation study in collaboration with the offices of institutional research and human resources as well as academic leadership and deans. This work spanned several years and included consistent discourse and feedback from the executive committee (EC) of the faculty senate and EC leadership. As a result, salary bands were created for each classification of ranked faculty. When the bands were introduced,  faculty whose salaries did not fall within the bands received equity raises. 

The salary bands will be updated when annual adjustments to salaries are approved by the board of trustees and faculty will continue to receive merit based increases within promotion cycles. The primary goals of this policy are to increase pay equity and transparency amongst ranked faculty. 

The salary bands for the current academic year are as follows:

A successful promotion for an unranked faculty member will result in an adjustment of the per line rate to the rate appropriate to the new classification.  Unranked faculty per line rates are outlined in the Collective Bargaining Agreement, Appendix C Wage Table.

Promotion between ranks is not automatic.

A tenure-track Assistant Professor who is not granted tenure will be offered a final one-year contract.  A ranked renewable Assistant Professor who is not successfully promoted to Associate Professor after nine years at the Assistant Professor level will not be reappointed or renewed. Ranked faculty (both tenure track and ranked renewable) who are not promoted from Associate Professor to Professor may reapply three years later, or earlier at the discretion of the Provost. More information can be found in section 2.E.1. Nonreappointment of Ranked Faculty in the Faculty Handbook.

For unranked faculty, if the promotion is not granted, teaching eligibility will end at the conclusion of the current courses.

Ranked faculty members may file a grievance alleging significant failure to follow policies and procedures on decisions concerning nonreappointment and dismissal, but they may not grieve the validity of the academic judgment in the outcome of the decision. Decisions concerning promotion within rank are not eligible for grievances. All faculty may also present complaints of unlawful discrimination, harassment, and retaliation. More information can be found in the Faculty Handbook, Section 2.F. Academic Grievance Policies and Procedures.

Unranked faculty members who have been denied a promotion may resort to the grievance procedure, though in any such grievance, the academic judgements of the provost and the APT committee shall be respected.  For more information about the grievance procedure, please refer to the Collective Bargaining Agreement, Article 31. Grievance Procedure.

A number of factors influence the time it takes to complete a review. All Final decisions are communicated through an outcome letter sent via Workday by the end of the academic year of the review. 

For Adjunct II faculty and ranked faculty undergoing promotion within rank, the candidate’s materials are shared with the appropriate chair or dean for review. That chair or dean then submits a letter of recommendation. These letters are due throughout the academic year to stagger the workload of the letter writers. 

For pre-tenure, tenure, and full professor reviews, after the chair/dean letter is submitted, all materials are shared with members of the Initial Review Committee (IRC). This happens several weeks in advance of the IRC presentation. After the presentation, all IRC members have several weeks to submit a recommendation to the IRC chair, who then has a further deadline to submit their summary of the IRC meeting. 

Once all letters of support have been received, candidate’s files are shared with members of the APT committee several weeks in advance of their APT review date. There are on average 60 - 80 faculty being reviewed each year. The APT committee meets biweekly September through May, and reviews 5 - 7 files per meeting on average. After APT has met to discuss the file, the APT chair drafts minutes for each candidates with a recommendation. These minutes are shared back with the APT committee members for approval before being sent to the Provost’s office. At this point the completed application is reviewed by the Provost. The Provost then makes a decision regarding promotion and issues an outcome letter. 

Because of all of these steps and the many participants in the review and assessment of a file after it has been submitted, it may take until shortly after the end of spring term for some candidates to receive an outcome letter.

Please submit only the materials requested by Academic Affairs in the “Promotion Eligibility Notification” letter. Due to limitations of time and considerations of fairness, APT will not consider additional documents beyond what is requested of all candidates.

Please do not include information about health, family, or personal issues in your promotion application. This is to ensure that the college is upholding its responsibility to assess all faculty in a fair, equitable, and consistent manner. 

If you have health/family/personal issues that have affected your work and have impacted your ability to be successful, please discuss them with your program chair prior to submitting your application. You can also reach out to Human Resources to discuss whether an accommodation might be appropriate to address your needs and support you.

The “Promotion Eligibility Notification” letters from Academic Affairs encourage all faculty to meet with their program chairs during Spring Faculty Week to discuss their promotion applications, and perhaps again a second time in advance of the application deadline to receive feedback on submission materials.  

As part of the pretenure and tenure review processes, as well as promotions to Full Professor (both tenure-track and ranked renewable) candidates meet with the Dean of the appropriate Division. See the Faculty Handbook, Section 2.C.3.b. Reviews of Applications for Tenure and for Promotion to Full Professor for more information. Assistant Professors (ranked renewable) who are eligible for promotion to Associate Professor (ranked renewable) should also meet with the Dean of the appropriate Division to discuss the review.

APT is aligned with college-wide commitments to Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Belonging (DEIB). APT’s expectations for faculty teaching, professional practice, and service are shaped by an understanding of how racism and white supremacy impact faculty’s performance. APT recognizes how the professional practices of BIPOC and diverse faculty may not fit within established peer review processes or conventional modes of recognition, and how teaching evaluations can contain bias against women, BIPOC, and diverse faculty.

APT acknowledges that BIPOC and diverse faculty are often called upon to advance DEIB initiatives and to perform underrecognized labor in support of BIPOC and diverse students and peers, resulting in greater demands upon their time and energies. Chairs and faculty candidates are encouraged to be explicit about the ways in which teaching, professional practice, and service have been impacted by structural inequity and/or have advanced CCA’s DEIB goals. Ranked candidates are encouraged to list activities such as mentoring BIPOC and diverse students as part of their service.

APT ideally wants to see that the candidate has an effective pedagogical approach to teaching that is reflected in their Promotion Application, supported by their Chair’s assessment, and confirmed by student course evaluations. APT appreciates self-reflective and insightful statements that address accomplishments and/or challenges in the delivery of curriculum as well as strategies to improve student learning.

A variety of metrics are used to assess effectiveness of teaching methods. Consistent and positive course evaluations provided across numerous semesters and with a high percentage of student participation is one effective tool used to assess the candidate. Because APT reviews numerous semesters of course evaluations for each candidate, we identify patterns, we look for consistency of remarks, and we look for opportunities to support teaching effectiveness. If there are inconsistent, negative, and/or too few evaluations, it’s important for the candidate to reflect upon the reasons, and to provide context and clarity in their Promotion Application under Teaching Effectiveness. The Promotion Application is the best place for a faculty candidate to communicate how they teach and how impactful their methods are for reaching their goals. Lastly, the Program Chair and/or Dean’s support of the candidate’s effectiveness in the classroom is very important, as the chairs have an opportunity to provide feedback directly to the candidate between promotion reviews and can provide valuable feedback to APT about how the candidate’s teaching fits into each program at the college.

APT recognizes that course evaluations can reflect student biases and acknowledges research that offers evidence of bias against women and people of color in evaluations of faculty performance. APT is committed to identifying potential biases based on gender, racial, ethnic, and other differences. Additionally, APT recognizes that course evaluations reflect the student experience in the classroom, which is not the same thing as teaching effectiveness.  

The Promotion Application describes the Candidate Statement as “a thoughtful, thorough, and comprehensive assessment of your performance in the areas of evaluation defined below.” As part of the comprehensive assessment of teaching effectiveness, faculty are expected to address legitimate concerns expressed in the student evaluations, especially if they are recurring or especially serious in nature.

Academic Affairs expects that faculty achieve a 70% or higher participation rate on student course evaluations. APT does not penalize candidates for low return rates on course evaluations, but a higher average rate of return across numerous semesters will offer a more comprehensive representation of student responses to the candidate’s teaching. Therefore, APT advises candidates to encourage student participation in course evaluations. APT also recognizes that return rates were impacted during and immediately following COVID online teaching, and the APT committee takes this under consideration.

APT seeks to evaluate professional practices within the fields and disciplines within which the candidate’s work is situated, and in relation to program-specific and college-wide expectations appropriate for the specific promotion under consideration. We look for evidence of an engaged and active professional practice during the period under review. Please contextualize your professional practice by sharing details appropriate to your work such as client, your role in the project, exhibition/screening/presentation location and dates, publisher and publication date, medium and dimensions, or other relevant details.

The APT committee is made up of members from a range of different disciplines. Contextual background information will enhance your presentation and give the full group of evaluators a more accurate picture of your professional practice.

APT understands that some projects, particularly in the design field, require confidentiality. Within the legal boundaries, provide a generalized description of the type of project, your role in the project, the scope of the project, etc. For example, “I created back-end design for a user interface for a Fortune 500 company.” In the past, some candidates have submitted images of their confidential work with the brand logos removed and a note about the confidential nature of the work, which has been an effective manner of submitting professional samples without violating the confidentiality of the client.

Following the College Art Association guidelines, APT considers several forms of publication (whether in print or electronic format): peer reviewed, journal articles, essays and substantial entries in catalogs for museum collections or exhibitions, articles in conference proceedings, or co-authored books.

APT recognizes that some CCA faculty work in consulting, financial, legal, or technical fields in which professional practices do not result in texts, objects, or images that can be submitted as professional samples. In these instances, describe the kinds of clients you’ve worked for and what you did for them.  You might also describe the types of clients you work with, for example non-profit organizations, etc. Keep in mind that the faculty promotion review is an evidence-based review, so consider how reviewers can assess the quality and quantity of your practice in ways that are appropriate for professionals in your field, and in relation to what constitutes evidence of your practice in your field.

Links may be included as part of a larger submission but will not stand on their own.  A link to a portfolio website is not sufficient representation of your work.  The APT committee relies upon submitted professional samples in the files to assess professional practice.  If your work is in the form of web pages, please submit screenshots or PDFs as your professional samples. 

The Promotion Application limits candidates to twenty projects.  The application should include a range of samples that are representative of your larger body of work.  The full scope of your work will be evident in the CV and Faculty Record Report (ranked faculty only).  Please submit work that has been completed within the review period, though in some instances, works in progress are also appropriate for submission. While APT focuses primarily on the period under review, we’re aware that some types of projects require longer than the typical three-year review period.  In such cases, provide documentation of the work in progress and note presentations or coverage of the work in progress, as well as an anticipated date of completion. If you have a broad range of work, upload images of your most meaningful work, in the most professional contexts. 

Generally speaking, APT is most interested in work undertaken during the review period. However, in some instances work that was completed prior to the period under review continues to generate attention, for example through reviews, speaking invitations, translations, etc. In these cases, it is appropriate to continue to list these reviews, etc. as professional practice in the period even if the work itself dates from a previous review period.

If you take part in a collaborative project or are part of a collective, clarify what your role is in each collaborative project or in the collective.

The COVID-19 pandemic led to widespread and sudden disruptions of professional practice, resulting in the postponement or cancellation of long-planned events and opportunities, the loss of client-based commissions, and more. APT will consider professional activities that were canceled or deferred due to circumstances related to the pandemic, as these events and opportunities represent your professional status and achievements. APT’s expectations for faculty teaching, professional practice, and service are shaped by an understanding of the wide-ranging effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. In these circumstances, contextualize specifically how your practice was affected by COVID-19.

APT recognizes that the art world is changing and that artists will have shifts in exposure and opportunities. If your gallery has closed, note this in the Professional Practice/Achievement section of your Promotion Application. APT also recognizes that access to galleries and museums is not equally available to all artists, nor is this model appropriate to all artists’ goals.

Yes, even though your pro bono or community-based projects may differ from your primary professional practice, if they require your professional expertise or skills, they are considered part of your professional practice. As in all instances of professional practice, you should contextualize your work in terms that will be legible to non-specialists.

Please include a pdf of  full-length versions of books and articles in your file. For lengthy examples of professional practice (such as books), also include significant excerpts for example, the table of contents and an introduction, or a key chapter.

Some examples of service include: participating in student reviews; organizing symposiums or lecture series; substitute teaching; participating in a ranked faculty search (TT or RR) committee; participating on a committee or task force; membership on a college-wide governance committee; special projects requested by a program chair or dean; serving as an IRC member; contributing professional services (design, writing, etc.) towards a programmatic or divisional goal; consistent student mentorship; faculty mentor for a student organization; etc.

For information about service, please refer to the Academic Affairs Ranked Faculty Service page on CCA Portal. Please note that work related to a faculty member’s instructional duties, such as preparing or revising a syllabus, attending program, division, or college-wide meetings, or participating in assessments is not considered service. Coordinatorships or other work for which a faculty member receives a stipend or course release, including work that is considered part of the expected duties of Chairs or Deans, is not considered service either.

APT looks for evidence of academic citizenship at the program, division, and college-wide level, as well as engagement in the faculty member’s professional discipline and in the greater community.

Expectations for service from ranked faculty are commensurate with the number of lines a faculty member teaches. Thus, full-time tenure-track faculty who teach five courses per year are expected to provide more * service to the college than a ranked renewable faculty member who only teaches one course per year. See the Academic Affairs Ranked Faculty Service page for more information about service expectations as well as a guide to service opportunities across the college.

According to the Collective Bargaining Agreement, Article 21. Committee Service By Unranked Faculty Members, unranked faculty members are not expected to perform service to the College.  

The college-wide governance committees are not the only opportunity to provide college-wide service.  Discuss your interests with your program chair or dean, and see the Academic Affairs Ranked Faculty Service page for more information about service opportunities across the college.