Resolution 195: To establish a Teaching Professor track

Passed: April 26, 2024
Vote results and Comments
Posted: December 2023
Sponsors: Faculty members on the Taskforce
Reviewed and supported by: AFPSF, CAPP, EPC and RTE Working Group (reviews at bottom of this page)

Resolution:

April 4, 2024
A Teaching Professor (TP) track with three ranks (assistant, associate, full) is proposed. The TP track will create attractive career paths for individuals whose contributions to education both in their unit and in their fields is at a high level and supported by rigorous review. The TP track will create a cadre of non-tenured, professorial faculty whose pedagogic expertise extends and complements what is already brought to campus by faculty appointed on the lecturer (L), clinical professor (CP), professor-of-practice (PoP), and tenure tracks. Furthermore, the TP track will strengthen Cornell’s ability to recruit and retain the very best educators.

Terminology and Acronyms

A substantial component of this proposal is concerned with “environmental impact”—how would a teaching professor track impact other titleholders whose responsibilities include teaching? Here are the “neighbor tracks” and the associated ranks:

the TT the tenure track (assistant, associate, full)
the L track the lecturer track (lecturer, senior lecturer)
the CP track the clinical professor track (assistant, associate, full)
the PoP track the professor-of-practice track (assistant, associate, full)

Faculty on tracks have titles, e.g., associate clinical professor. Titles have descriptions that are specified in Section 3.1 of the Faculty Handbook.There is TT teaching and RTE teaching. Important contributions to the teaching environment are made by visiting faculty, graduate students, and postdocs as well as those having the title “teaching associate” and “instructor”. However, this cohort of teachers does not impact the design of the proposed TP track.

Individuals who are hired into an RTE teaching position for the first time are said to be appointed. Current faculty can be renewed at the same rank, promoted to a higher rank, or transitioned to a different track.

Although the L track has two ranks, it is sometimes useful to distinguish between two types of senior lecturers:

SL refers to a senior lecturer who has not yet been renewed as a senior lecturer.
SL+ refers to a senior lecturer who has been renewed at least once as a senior lecturer.

Motivation

There are several interrelated reasons why it is important to create a TP track:
1. Equity. The university already recognizes the importance of specialized instruction through its creation of the CP and PoP tracks. It should now expand that recognition and create comparable opportunities for qualified individuals on the L track. Data provided to us through the Office of the Dean of Faculty underscores the need. Approximately 35% of all credit-hours-taught across the university are delivered by approximately 500 RTE faculty of whom over 370 (70%) are on the L track. Yet, none of those L track faculty have access to a professorial appointment.
2. Recruiting and Retention. In some fields it is increasingly difficult to compete with peer institutions who do offer professorial titles for teaching positions. These factors can make it difficult to recruit and retain the best teachers.
3. Professional Advancement. The two-rank L track, created over fifty years ago, does not inspire long-term commitment, creativity, and professional growth in the same way that a three-rank professorial track would. By creating a three-rank TP track we increase the opportunities to reward professional advancement of those faculty and the associated benefits that accrue to the educational environment, including activities such as curriculum development, pedagogical innovation, degree program leadership, and external visibility.

The Enabling Legislation Approach

When it comes to managing faculty appointments and promotions, Cornell operates as a loose confederation of colleges. University-wide descriptions of all the available titles are specified in the Faculty Handbook, but the implementation details are left to the colleges. Even for tenure reviews, the colleges have considerable latitude within the guidelines specified by the Faculty Advisory Committee on Tenure Appointments (FACTA).

With a few minor exceptions, RTE appointments, promotions, renewals, and transitions are totally controlled by the colleges — there is no university-level component to an RTE review. Thus, the colleges manage their lecturer, extension associate, and research associate track reviews with just a modicum of guidance from the Faculty Handbook.

The same is true for the existing RTE professorial titles, although for these tracks the Faculty Senate added a level of university oversight. Before it can use an RTE professorial title, the sponsoring unit is required to submit a proposal to the Faculty Senate in which it justifies the use of the title, and how it intends to handle appointments, promotions, renewals, and transitions. The required format of the proposal is detailed in the enabling legislation together with the steps that must be taken before use of the title is authorized. Through the enabling legislation mechanism, the Faculty Senate is effectively telling the colleges that an ad hoc implementation of these long-term professorial appointments is unacceptable, and that the university requires a carefully documented implementation plan before authorizing use of the title.

Guiding Principles

As much as possible, the T4 adhered to the following principles in its formulation of the TP title description and the enabling legislation.

P1. Respect the Diversity of Teaching Needs Across the Campus

The enabling legislation (EL) needs to be flexible enough to accommodate the fact that teaching needs vary across the disciplines and evolve with time. One college may initially avoid making TP appointments at the assistant or associate level and simply switch all its SL+ faculty to the TP track. Another college may choose to initially focus on the hiring of assistant and associate TPs. Still another may decide that for the time being, they have no need to make TP appointments.
Larger colleges will have to accommodate variation in TP usage across departments.

P2. The L Track Remains

The L track will exist for the foreseeable future. The TP track is intended for long-term members of the faculty, yet there will always be short-term teaching needs; and, it will take time for colleges to implement TP tracks. No change should be made to the L track title description at this time.

P3. Model the enabling legislation after what is already on the books for the CP and PoP Tracks.

High standards and rigorous review processes are essential components of an RTE professorial track. There must be evidence of dedication to the university and of impact beyond the immediate classroom or laboratory.

P4. Think through side effects.

Needlessly exclusionary title descriptions or divisive transition processes could create morale problems that undermine the teaching environment.

The Resolution

Whereas the current range of RTE teaching titles does not always meet the instructional needs of colleges and schools,
Whereas it is important for Cornell to staff its RTE teaching positions with the very best faculty given the large fraction of instruction that is handled by that group,
Whereas it is important that a teaching professor track be governed by carefully developed procedures for all appointments, renewals, and promotions,
Whereas it is equally important that there be carefully developed procedures for processing a request to transition an individual from the lecturer track to the teaching professor track,
Whereas all such procedures should be shared among the colleges to promote transparency and the dissemination of best practices,
Be it resolved that the title of teaching professor be added to the university’s “approved list of titles” and that the attached title description be adopted,
Be it further resolved that a college or school that wishes to use the teaching professor title must comply with the attached enabling legislation and have its proposal approved by the Faculty Senate.

Teaching Professor Title Description
April 4, 2024

Below is a Teaching Professor title description that is carefully modeled after the Faculty Handbook descriptions that already exist for the CP, PoP, and RP tracks. Title descriptions in the Faculty Handbook include “Administrative Notes.” The notes typically cover HR issues and various technical details related to appointments. We make recommendations as to what the notes should say, understanding that the Office of Human Resources, University Counsel, and the Provost typically contribute to this portion of the entry.

Title Description

The teaching professor titles are available only for long term, non-tenure-track faculty members whose efforts are devoted primarily to the teaching mission of the university and whose skill and independence are at the level of the tenure-track faculty. Assistant, associate, and full teaching professors are expected to achieve a similar level of professional expertise within their areas of responsibility as their counterparts on the tenure track. Teaching professors at higher ranks can demonstrate impact inside and outside the university through activities such as pedagogical innovation, curriculum development, and leadership roles. Consistent with their rank and local needs, teaching professors are also expected to contribute teaching-related service, especially in areas that concern advising, mentoring, curriculum, and the management of degree programs. The teaching professor titles may not be used to replicate the combined teaching and research responsibilities of the tenure track faculty. Accordingly, job duties of a teaching professor appointment should not require conducting research, publishing its results, or advising graduate research students. Teaching professors may choose to participate in such activities, especially when related to pedagogy, and should stay current with research in their area to best incorporate it into their teaching. Nevertheless, research activity must not be required for appointment, reappointment, or promotion along the teaching professor track. Decisions about appointment and promotion are made on the authority of the dean; approval by the provost or the Board of Trustees is not necessary. Promotion guidelines are comparable in rigor and process to those for tenure-track faculty. Teaching professors (all ranks) have university voting rights. See college-specific legislation for information about college-level voting rights. The titles “teaching professor,” “associate teaching professor,” and “assistant teaching professor” are available in a given college only upon satisfaction of a special approval process specified in the Faculty Senate’s enabling legislation.

Enabling Legislation for the Teaching Professor Title
April 4, 2024

A college or school (henceforth, simply “college”) that wants to make teaching professor (TP) appointments must submit for Faculty Senate approval a proposal that describes how it intends to implement the track. The content of the proposal and how it is to be processed are set forth in this document.

The creation of a proposal should involve consultation with RTE teaching faculty within the college, especially Lecturers and Senior Lecturers. Those faculty will be included among others as part of the college’s vote on the proposal, as described in Part II below.

Part I. Proposal Content

A. Justification A statement offering justification for adoption of the TP title is required. There must be an explanation as to why the current range of RTE teaching titles makes it difficult to realize important educational objectives. The practices of peer schools and experiences with respect to recruiting can be used in support of the justification.

B. Description of Position The proposed Faculty Handbook description of the TP title is as follows: The teaching professor titles are available only for long term, non-tenure-track faculty members whose efforts are devoted primarily to the teaching mission of the university and whose skill and independence are at the level of the tenure-track faculty. Assistant, associate, and full teaching professors are expected to achieve a similar level of professional expertise within their areas of responsibility as their counterparts on the tenure track. Teaching professors at higher ranks can demonstrate impact inside and outside the university through activities such as pedagogical innovation, curriculum development, and leadership roles. Consistent with their rank and local needs, teaching professors are also expected to contribute teaching-related service, especially in areas that concern advising, mentoring, curriculum, and the management of degree programs. The teaching professor titles may not be used to replicate the combined teaching and research responsibilities of the tenure track faculty. Accordingly, job duties of a teaching professor appointment should not require conducting research, publishing its results, or advising graduate research students. Teaching professors may choose to participate in such activities, especially when related to pedagogy, and should stay current with research in their area to best incorporate it into their teaching. Nevertheless, research activity must not be required for appointment, reappointment, or promotion along the teaching professor track. Based on that title description, the proposal should state expectations the college has for TPs. A description should be given of the kinds of impact that are important to the college and of the kinds of service opportunities that exist. Some examples appropriate to TPs at various stages in their career could include development of course materials that are released externally and used at other institutions; major curriculum development through internal department initiatives or through university-wide programs such as the Active Learning Initiative; or taking on leadership roles in degree programs, such as being a DUS or manager of a cluster of related courses.

C. Terms of Appointment

1. Degree Requirements The proposal should describe the degree requirements for appointment to TP positions. Candidates should usually hold a graduate degree that is appropriate to the level and field of instruction the individual will provide. In situations where such degrees do not exist, the proposal should identify alternative degree requirements. The proposal should explain whether higher TP ranks would entail higher degree requirements. Proposals may identify relaxed degree requirements based on teaching experience. For example, a proposal could state that if an individual is already appointed at Cornell or another university, and the individual has already demonstrated the quality of teaching accomplishment appropriate to TPs within the college, and the individual demonstrates a trajectory that promises a continued high level of achievement, then the dean may accept other degrees.

2. Searches Searches for open TP positions are expected to be national in scope with review procedures comparable to what is used for TT hires.

3. Processes Colleges that adopt the TP title are expected to document and publicize the processes that will be followed for all appointments, reappointments, and promotions. The proposal itself should briefly describe the following:

(a) The candidate’s input to a process, e.g., CV, teaching statement, list of possible reviewers, etc.
(b) The department’s input to a process, e.g., course evaluation summaries, peer reviews, etc.
(c) The department’s method for soliciting reference letters, e.g., number required, possible reliance on external references, etc.
(d) Who in the department is eligible to vote on the outcome, e.g., lecturers, senior lecturers, PoP’s (and which ranks), CP’s (and which ranks), other TPs (and which ranks), tenure-track faculty (and which ranks), etc.
(e) What is forwarded to the dean, e.g., a dossier, a recommendation letter from the chair that reports the outcome of a vote, etc.

The text associated with (a)-(e) does not have to be detailed at the level of an appointments manual but it should provide enough information to indicate a commitment to the fair evaluation of candidates.

Criteria for promotion along the TP track must be realistic. Professional growth requires time and resources. Candidates need access to both.

1. Appointment Lengths

TP appointments may be up to five years in length. Recognizing that the TP track is intended for long-term members of the faculty, and that job security is a concern among RTE faculty, the proposal should describe typical appointment lengths at each rank and how reappointment processes can be streamlined for established titleholders.

1. Support for Professional Development

The proposal should indicate the extent to which the college supports regular professional development opportunities for TPs, such as scholarly leave. Scholarly leaves would be used for professional development purposes in ways that benefit the college and its educational mission.

D. Limitations

To guard against erosion of the tenure system, TP appointments are to be limited in scope and limited in number.

1. Scope The proposed Faculty Handbook description of the TP title limits the scope of TP appointments to focus on teaching rather than research. The proposal should state any expectations that the college has regarding TP engagement with the research culture.

2. Numbers The proposal must also include a statement that limits the number of TP positions. It is up to the college to decide how to impose this limitation in a way that best meets its educational needs. Regardless of the chosen method, the proposal must explain why the adopted limitation makes sense given that Cornell is an R1 university. Accreditation needs must also be considered. Proposals that would allow the number of teaching-track faculty (including Ls, CPs, PoP, and TPs) to exceed the number of tenure-track faculty in the college must be accompanied by a justification of why the teaching needs cannot be met by tenure-track faculty.

(a) An example limitation As an example, one method for limiting the number of TP positions would be to relate R, the number of RTE teaching faculty in the college, to T, the number of tenure-track faculty in the college, as follows: R ≤ (X / 100) (R + T) The effect of this limitation would be that at most X percent of the faculty who have teaching in their portfolio (RTE teaching faculty plus TT faculty) are permitted to be teaching-track faculty. Choices of X from 0 to 49 would result in a TT majority. IRP data1 from Fall 2022 indicate that the various colleges currently satisfy this bound with values of X that range from 18 to 45. If this method is used, proposals would need to specify how R is to be determined in the college. A reasonable definition would be the same set of faculty identified as RTE Teaching Faculty in section I.G below.
(b) Tighter limitations Proposals can impose tighter and/or more specific restrictions on the number of TPs than the example method above.

Extension and research faculty could be incorporated in the limitations. The overall number of RTE faculty relative to the number of TT faculty could be limited. This overall limitation on RTE numbers is important to review if the college is already using other RTE professorial titles.

Proposals may impose restrictions at the department level as well as the college level.

E. Voting and Other Rights

Teaching professors (all ranks) have University Voting Rights. The proposal must define other rights and responsibilities associated with TP appointments, including voting status at both the department and college levels on matters that concern hiring, promotions, and reappointments.

Access to grievance and appeals processes must be described.

The creation of a TP track is an occasion for the college to address the inequities identified in Senate Resolution 189, “Structural Equity and Inclusion for RTE Faculty.” The proposal should comment on steps that will be taken to ensure a high level of integration of TP faculty into their departments. Issues such as inclusion at faculty meetings, inclusion on websites, and inclusion on email lists should be addressed.

F. Impact on Other Faculty Appointment Tracks

The proposal should briefly articulate an overall plan for RTE teaching in the college by describing how the TP track will be used in combination with the L, CP, PoP, and tenure tracks to advance the 1 See Table 1 in the September 2023 Senate presentation that explored the possibility of the TP title. Those IRP data do not seem to account for 0% TT appointments, thus making it appear that some colleges have fewer TT faculty than they do in reality. quality of education. The proposal should explain how the college intends to continue using the L track and/or the Senior Lecturer title. Changes (if any) in how the L, CP, and PoP tracks are implemented should be described.

Processes for handling L-to-TP and other faculty transitions need to be outlined. Questions to be addressed include the following. Will some transitions be automatic, and if so, when will they occur? If transitions will be considered by application, how and when will the application process occur? How will the destination TP rank be determined?

To be fair to current faculty, external hiring into the TP track should not begin until the internal transition-to-TP process has been fully defined and has begun to be implemented. After implementation begins, external TP hiring may occur in parallel with the internal transition process.

CP and PoP faculty can be considered for transition into the TP track. But according to the Assistant Professor title description in the Faculty handbook, “A tenure-track appointee who does not receive tenure may not be appointed to any other academic title. However, an individual may request a transfer to lectureship or other title status before the tenure review; neither the chair nor the dean is obliged to recommend this action to the provost.”

Colleges that are appointing discipline-based educational researchers (DBER) as tenure-track faculty should consider applications to open tenure-track positions by RTE faculty who are similarly skilled.

G. Definition of RTE Teaching Faculty

For purposes of voting on the college’s TP proposal, the proposal must designate a set of RTE faculty as “RTE Teaching Faculty.” These should be the RTE faculty in the college who have teaching as an important component of their responsibilities. A possible definition would be all full-time faculty who have appointments at any rank on the L, CP, or PoP tracks. This group of faculty will be one of the two voting constituencies, as described below in Part II. (Of course, after the TP track is created, TPs would also be considered RTE Teaching Faculty.)

Part II. Proposal Processing

A. Processing Within the College (or School)

The dean of the sponsoring college communicates the proposal to the Dean of Faculty with a cover letter that specifies the outcome of two votes:

• The TT Faculty Vote is a polling of all assistant, associate, and full professors who have full time appointments in the sponsoring college. The number of such faculty who support the proposal and the number who do not is to be reported in the cover letter together with the number of abstentions and the number of DNVs.
• The RTE Teaching Faculty Vote is a polling of all the faculty identified (as in section I.G above) as RTE teaching faculty. The number of such faculty who support the proposal and the number who do not is to be reported in the cover letter together with the number of abstentions and the number of DNVs.

In addition to reporting these results, the dean of the sponsoring college has the option of communicating the extent of faculty support outside of the above electorates, e.g., the extent of support among the emeriti faculty.

To receive Senate consideration, the following outcomes are required:
(a) at least two-thirds of the TT faculty must vote on the proposal and of those who do, at least one-half must support the proposal.
(b) at least two-thirds of the RTE teaching faculty must vote on the proposal and of those who do, at least one-half must support the proposal.

B. Processing by the Dean of Faculty

If the voting outcomes are satisfied, then the following steps are taken:

• The Dean of Faculty (DoF) shares the proposal and cover letter with the Committee on Academic Programs and Policy (CAPP).
• The DoF gives the sponsoring college the opportunity to present their proposal to the Faculty Senate.
• The DoF makes the proposal and cover letter available for public comment on the DoF website for a period of sixty days.
• At the end of the comment period, the DoF asks CAPP to review the proposal for compliance with the enabling legislation. (The review is strictly about compliance—CAPP is not to weigh in on whether not they think the proposal is a good idea.)
• If CAPP determines that the proposal meets the requirements of the enabling legislation, then the DoF (in consultation with University Faculty Committee) will arrange to have the Faculty Senate act on the proposal. Use of the title by the sponsoring college is authorized after a positive vote by the Faculty Senate and subsequent approval by the Office of the Provost.

This PPT Overview provides a quick summary and this one-pager identifies a number of important topics that were beyond the scope of the taskforce charge.

Background

On March 27, 2024 a Faculty Forum was held to discuss the teaching professor title. The Teaching Title Track Taskforce (T4) prepared preliminary documents for the March 27, 2024 Faculty Forum and public comments:

• Draft Resolution– March 27, 2024
• Draft title description– March 27, 2024
• Draft Enabling Legislation– March 27, 2024
• PPT Overview – March 27, 2024
• Future Topics for Discussion – March 27, 2024

The September 13, 2023 Faculty Senate presentation by Professor Emeritus Charles Van Loan and Senior Lecturer Michael Clarkson, Cornell Bowers Computing and Information Science faculty, identified key issues associated with developing a Teaching Professor track. The presentation included an overview of the use of the title at peer schools as well as history of Senate deliberations regarding fifty years of discussion of RTE teaching titles.

Senate Committees reviews:

Reviews are based on the Fall Senate presentation.

• RTE Working Group – T4 response to RTE WG comments
• AFPSF (Sept 2023)
• AFPSF (3/28/24) – T4 response to AFPSF comments
• EPC
• CAPP