|

I. Eligibility for Advancement in Rank
A. A Tenure-Track Instructor is eligible to be advanced to Assistant Professor when he/she has earned a
transcripted terminal degree.
B. An Assistant Professor is eligible to apply to be advanced to Associate Professor when he/she
1. Has served as an assistant professor for a minimum of four full-time years at Concordia
University St. Paul by the time of the promotion (see appropriate Term Faculty policy for
receiving credit toward advancement for years served as a Term Faculty with a terminal degree);
2. Has earned a transcripted terminal degree;
3. Has been recommended on the basis of the evaluation process indicated in Part II of this policy.
C. An Associate Professor is eligible to apply to be advanced to Full Professor, when he/she
1. Has served as an associate professor for a minimum of six years at Concordia University, St. Paul
by the time of the promotion.
a. During a transitional period a five-year eligibility will be in effect:
i. Associate professors who were advanced in July of 2013 will be eligible to apply in
fall of 2017 for a 2018 advancement.
ii. Associate professors who were advanced in July of 2014 or earlier will be eligible to
apply in fall of 2018 for a 2019 advancement.
iii. Associate professors who were advanced in July of 2015 will be eligible to apply in
fall of 2019 for a 2020 advancement.
2. Has earned a transcripted terminal degree.
3. Has been recommended on the basis of the evaluation process indicated in Part II of this policy.
II. Criteria Considered for Reappointment and Advancement in Rank
Advancement in rank is based on merit, rather than being automatic or routine. In addition to the guidelines, as
set forth by this document, the consideration is not an exhaustive measure of accomplishment and merit. These
guidelines are intended to be a guide, in part, for the faculty member’s process of compiling documentation.
Guidelines include the kinds of accomplishments that the committee will find pertinent for consideration for
advancement.
Advancement in Rank
1. Assistant Professor
What is an assistant professor? Typically, the assistant professor is the entry level into the community of tenuretrack
scholars and teachers at CSP. During this phase of a career, establishing oneself as a proficient teacher is
paramount. The assistant professor must engage students and show proof of their learning and progress. In
addition, the assistant professor begins to help build the CSP community through committees and other
activities. Much of the assistant professor’s scholarship is the scholarship of learning, fine-tuning techniques that
aid in student learning, and developing a scholarship agenda.
2. Associate Professor
What is an associate professor? The associate professor is an established member of the CSP community. With
mastery and control of teaching, the associate professor can move on to more service and to implementing the
scholarship agenda. Associate professors must prove membership into a community of scholars by evidence of
important scholarship: writing, presentations, knowledge creation, and exemplary service to their fields of
inquiry.
3. Professor
To be a Full Professor at CSP is a privileged position, but a position that assumes great responsibility. Full
Professors have the weight of the responsibility of community maintenance. Full Professors are responsible for
service, scholarship, teaching, and excellent deportment. They are the community role models. They are the
leaders and mentors in the community.
III. Documentation
Preparing to Apply for Advancement
1. The annual performance review, the professional development plan and the university rubrics provide
the basis for advancement preparation. The Advancement Committee meets regularly year round and is
available to provide mentoring and feedback regarding how a faculty member’s work fits into the
university rubrics.
2. All junior faculty should seek out mentors in their early years at Concordia University. These mentors
will help the candidates understand and become invested in the Concordia community.
3. In the year prior to being a candidate for advancement, the faculty member must conduct an honest
and intricate self-evaluation. Am I ready for advancement? Have I made sufficient achievements in all
three categories: teaching, service, and scholarship? Have I enough evidence of these achievements to
be considered a worthy candidate for advancement?
4. By the autumn of the year of advancement candidacy, the faculty member should consult with her/his
department chair and dean(s). The faculty member may ask each of these people to evaluate her/his
work against the rubrics and provide feedback. Prior performance evaluations should be used in these
discussions. The faculty member may meet individually with the chair and the dean, or jointly with
them. The department chair and dean have accountability to CSP to having only qualified candidates
apply for advancement.
5. If the candidate, the department chair, and the dean determine that the candidate is ready to be
seriously considered for advancement, the candidate should prepare a portfolio for advancement.
6. A potential candidate is unlikely to be advanced without the support of the department chair or dean,
but may petition with the VPAA to submit their portfolio.
******************************************************************************
Instructions for Faculty Applying for Advancement in Rank
It is expected that candidates being considered for advancement have the support of their department chair
and/or dean before applying for advancement. Faculty candidates being considered for advancement shall
make themselves available for the liaison meetings, the meeting discussion and any observations necessary for
consideration. The portfolio contains materials completed since the last advancement and should be organized
in the following manner:
1. Cover Page – a single page including: Name and Current Title, Department(s), College(s), Direct
Supervisor(s), Dean(s), Academic Year, Desired Position if advanced
2. Letter of Introduction and Overall Summary – 1-2 page letter introducing themselves that includes a
description of their roles and expectations at Concordia, based on the job description for which they
were hired and retained. The summary should include arguments in favor of advancement for the
candidate at this time. The applicant should specify their classification for their application, (Primarily:
faculty/administrator and Primarily: undergraduate/graduate), and include a brief rationale for these
classifications.
3. Required Overall Evidence
It is the candidate’s responsibility to make it clear to the Advancement Committee that all criteria for
advancement have been met.
a. Curriculum Vitae
b. Performance Reviews and Professional Development Plans (all since the last advancement)
c. Letters of Recommendation
 Immediate Supervisor
 Dean of College
 For graduate faculty; Associate Vice President for Graduate Studies
 CSP Faculty member within candidate’s discipline
 CSP Faculty member outside of candidate’s discipline
 Professional within the candidate’s discipline outside CSP (optional)
 Other letters of recommendation may be included within each portfolio section where
appropriate (optional)
4. Section Summaries and Evidence– 3 summaries up to three pages each – 1 summary for each of these
three sections is expected: Teaching, Scholarship and Service
In each Section Summary, candidates should select their two or three major projects and/or overarching
themes for each section area. These should highlight the candidate’s best examples in a given section
area, thus making these the best arguments for their advancement at this time. The candidate is
encouraged to be discerning and selective in the Section Summaries.
NOTE: If an activity could fall into a reasonable definition of more than one of the three sections, (e.g.:
Teaching and Service), the candidate is asked to select which Section is primary and which is secondary
for that activity in order to aid the committee in its process.
A. Teaching Section
a. Section Summary
b. Supporting evidence/documentation
i. Student reviews of teaching
ii. Supervisor reviews of teaching
iii. Peer reviews of teaching (recommended)
iv. Evidence of quality teaching as indicated in the criteria examples
c. Additional evidence narrative- additional evidence not included in the Section Summary
(Confirm portfolio size parameters with the Advancement Committee)
d. Please refer to the required thresholds and confirm that it is clear to the committee that
all Developing and Exemplary criteria have been met.
B. Scholarship Section
a. Section Summary
b. Supporting evidence/documentation -Evidence of scholarship as indicated in the criteria
examples
c. Additional evidence narrative- additional evidence not included in the Section Summary
(Confirm portfolio size parameters with the Advancement Committee)
d. Please refer to the required thresholds and confirm that it is clear to the committee that
all Developing and Exemplary criteria have been met.
C. Service Section
a. Section Summary
b. Supporting evidence/documentation -Evidence of service as indicated in the criteria
examples
c. Additional evidence narrative- additional evidence not included in the Section Summary
(Confirm portfolio size parameters with the Advancement Committee)
d. Please refer to the required thresholds and confirm that it is clear to the committee that
all Developing and Exemplary criteria have been met.
5. Other Proof of Evidence/Final Thoughts – a 1-2 page supplemental argument in favor of advancement
for the candidate at this time based on materials going beyond, or not recognized by the other sections
described in the Instructions.

Last modified: March 15, 2018