1. University of Miami Miller School of Medicine
Educator Track

2. Educator Track:
Represents a community of academic scholars with terminal degrees, physicians or non-physicians, who devote their major effort to educational activities including teaching, research in instructional methodology, and/or educational administration.

3. How are Criteria for Promotion and Tenure Established?
Faculty Senate is responsible for the policies and procedures as outlined in the Faculty Manual (miami.edu/facultysenate)
Requirements for faculty promotion and tenure in the Miller School of Medicine are determined by the Faculty Council (medicalcouncil.miami.edu)

4. What is the process?
Faculty member discussed with division chief or department chair
Some departments have internal advisory committee review
Packet prepared with outside letters, Departmental Review and Vote
Faculty member asks to be considered
MSOM Appointment, Promotion, & Tenure (APT) Committee Reviews and Votes
Chair’s have opportunity for appeal of negative or split APT votes
Dean reviews APT recommendation and makes Dean’s recommendation
University Academic Personnel Board (APB) Reviews and Votes
Provost Reviews Recommendations, makes Final Decisions
University Board of Trustees Reviews and Makes Final Decisions on Tenure

5. General Timeline Event Estimated Date Survey Faculty January 2017
Initial document solicitation for candidates
January/February 2017
Solicitation letters sent out
March/May 2017
Responses from letters received
April – June 2017
Document compilation for each file
Final receipt of documents from faculty and department
June 2017
Departmental APT Committee Voting Meetings
May – July 2017
Completed files to Faculty Affairs
July 31, 2017
SOM APT Committee File Review
August – September 2017
SOM APT Committee Meeting
September 11-12, 2017
Dean’s review of files
October – November 2017
Coral Gables Academic Personnel Board Meeting
January – February 2018
Provost Review of files
February – March 2018
Board of Trustees Review of Files
April – May 2018
Results Announced (effective June 1, 2018)
May 2018

6. Evaluation of Merit:
A key is whether there has been significant and continuing growth, productivity and excellence in the activities relevant to the candidate’s track during the candidate’s time at his/her present rank.

7. Promotion from Assistant Professor to Associate Professor:
Evidence outstanding teaching (i.e. teaching portfolios)
Evidence of creative instructional/research contributions
Evidence of continued professional growth
Requires a record of substantial success in both teaching and scholarship (although in unusual cases an outstanding record in one of these activities and an adequate record in the other may be considered sufficient)
Recognition within his/her referral area (local, regional, state)

8. Types of Faculty Appointments Promotion Expectations Associate Professor
Clinical
Research/Grants
Scholarship
Teaching
Reputation
Service
Tenure-Earning
Evidence of clinical productivity (if clinician)
Evidence of major involvement in research program of high quality
Focused publications with evidence of impact in focused area
Evidence of development or significant teaching programs
National reputation-invited presentations, study sections, etc.
Significant evidence of participation in MSOM service
Research NA
Evidence of involvement in extramurally funded research program
Publications with impact factor > 10, approx 50% First or Senior author
Evidence of participation in teaching with quality
National reputation- invited presentations, task forces, study sections
Evidence of participation in MSOM service
Clinical Educator
Contributions toward advancement of clinical care
Not required
Evidence of scholarship (yardstick: avg. 1 pub/year)
Evidence of high quality teaching and participation.
Regional or state reputation
Evidence of participation in MSOM Service
Educator
Evidence of outstanding creative instructional or research contributions
Evidence of outstanding teaching (teaching portfolios)
State or regional reputation

9. Promotion from Associate Professor to Professor:
Evidence outstanding teaching (i.e. teaching portfolios)
Evidence of creative instructional/research contributions
Evidence of continued professional growth
Requires a record of substantial success in both teaching and scholarship (although in unusual cases an outstanding records in one of these activities and an adequate record in the other may be considered sufficient)
National recognition in the area of medical education

10. Types of Faculty Appointments Promotion Expectations Professor
Clinical
Grants
Scholarship
Reputation
Service
Tenure-Earning
Evidence of clinical productivity
Evidence of extramural funding (2 R01s or competitive renewal, at least one active)
Significant publication record with high impact and trajectory
International reputation
Substantial evidence of service to MSOM and UM
Research NA
Major research involvement (2 R01s or refunded continuation, at least one active)
Significant publication record with impact factor > 20
Continued national research reputation
Evidence of participation in MSOM service mission
Clinical Educator
Substantial evidence of contributions toward advancement of clinical care and knowledge
Not required, but participation in clinical trials is an asset
Continued evidence of scholarship (average of at least 2 publications/year since appointment or last promotion)
National reputation
Educator
Not required
Evidence of outstanding creative instructional or research contributions
Evidence of outstanding teaching (teaching portfolios)

11. Who Votes for What?
Voting is by faculty above the rank of the individual being considered on the same track.
Only tenured or tenure-earning faculty vote on individuals who are tenured or tenure-earning.
Only tenured or tenure-earning faculty provide consultative vote on new hires.

12. Getting Started: Seek Advice and Feedback from Others
Meet with your chair or division chief early in the process to gain his/her support and perspective
Share materials with a colleague, preferably one who has already successful gone through the process, and who doesn’t know you or your area well to be sure it is clear and interpretable

13. Items Needed for Promotion File
The faculty member is responsible for:
Candidate’s Personal Statement/Career Assessment (2 pages)
Candidate’s current CV in Standard UM Format
Minimum of five external review letters (arm’s length)- at least 2 must be from someone not recommended by the candidate.
Letters of acceptance for ‘in-press’ articles (as applicable)
Three publications (within last 5-7 years)
Educator Portfolio
Clinical Summary (for faculty with clinical responsibilities)
The Department is responsible for:
DF-15 form (completed by department)
4-5 potential reviewer names with titles and contact information
Chair Recommendation Memo
Summary of Departmental APT Committee Vote
Teaching Evaluation(s)
Scholarly Material Review Certification

14. Formatting Your Curriculum Vitae
Follow the UM format, but use subcategory headings to organize the material to tell your story
Be precise:
Consider using Summaries at beginning of CV Sections to give a snapshot of your work in each section (include categories applicable to your work). For example, for Publications:
Number of Peer-reviewed publications
Number of Book Chapters
Number of Books as Author/Editor/Co-Editor
Number of Non-Peer-reviewed publications
Number First Author /Corresponding Author Publication
Number of Team Science publications
Total Citations of your work
Number items; specifically your references/publications and clearly organize by type (e.g., peer-reviewed, book chapters, editorials)
Be accurate in your references (committee members will check pub-med); Include PMID if available and applicable
Clearly indicate Corresponding author (e.g. *) and T-Team Science (e.g., T) roles
Make your regional / national (for associate professor) and national / international (for professor) activities, impact and recognition clear
Highlight invited national/international presentations, service on editorial boards, participation/leadership of national (professional, NIH) committees and task forces)
Be concise: be conscious of committee member reader burden (they have lots to read)
Continually update your CV and materials
Link to UM Format:

15. Activity Insight / Digital Measures Database
COMING SOON
Online database to be used for CV, NIH biosketch, school-wide publication searches and LCME reports
Faculty involved in Promotion and Tenure cycle this year will be part of the pilot group prior to School roll-out
Pilot Training sessions forthcoming
CV to be entered by April 30, 2017
Currently working on the security measures to protect demographic data
Program will allow name, department, scholarly material and grant information to be searched by peers

16. Personal Statement/Career Assessment
Recommended length: 2-3 pages (2 is preferred)
Illustrate progressive advancement and impact: Tell your story, but do so concisely
Suggested outline:
Paragraph 1 – Early career and roots in science and teaching
Paragraph 2 – Development of your particular expertise (in research, education, administration, clinical care)
Paragraph 3 – Recognition of expertise by others (papers, panels, journal reviews, advisory and editorial boards)
Paragraph 4 – Comment on other areas (e.g. teaching, administration, service)
Paragraph 5 – Vision for your future – how will you continue to grow, excel, and increase scope of impact

17. The Educator Portfolio (Educator, Clinical-Educator, Tenure-Earning)

18. Teaching
Patient Care
Research

19. Teaching and Scholarship
Teaching ≠ Scholarship
Good Teaching
draws from relevant literature
is designed to enhance learning
observes and analyzes outcomes
uses available data to make improvements
When does good teaching become educational scholarship?
Fincher R, Work, J. Medical Education. 2006;40:293–295.

20. Educational Scholarship
Teaching becomes scholarship when it is successfully peer-reviewed,
and
made public through dissemination.

21. Documenting Teaching Activities & Educational Scholarship The Educator’s Portfolio
Teaching aims / philosophy of education
Self CME & mastery of subject
Time / availability / accessibility
Teaching performance
Advising & mentoring
Instructional innovation
Learner/faculty course - curriculum development
Educational research
Educational administration
Tiberius R. The Educator’s Portfolio.

22. Metrics for Educational Activities Educational Scholarship Matrix
TEACHING
Quantity
Documentation of the frequency and duration of teaching along with a description of one’s role should be presented in an easy-to-read, concise format. A listing of instructional materials authored with a brief description of their purpose, format, and length should be included. The use of tables and figures rather than narrative facilitates concise presentation.
Quality
Multiple sources and types of data should be used to demonstrate teaching excellence. Include comparative data of peer-group performance using the same source and method whenever possible. Summarize narrative comments using qualitative analysis methods.
Scholarship
A scholarly approach requires that instructors apply the principles and findings from the education literature (e.g., competency-based education, deliberate practice) to their teaching, along with development of associated instructional materials. Evidence of engagement with the larger education community can be documented.

23. The mediocre teacher tells. The good teacher explains.
The superior teacher demonstrates.
The great teacher inspires.
William Ward

24. External Reviewers
You will be asked to provide 8-10 reviewer names that may be contacted by your Chair for a letter of evaluation. You are required to have 5 “arm’s length” letters for your promotion package. At least 2 must be from individuals identified by your chair and not by you.
Reviewers should be:
academic leaders who can provide neutral expert opinions on your accomplishments, stature, and potential for future success.
at a rank at least equal to that which you aspire. Letters from Senior Leaders in non-academic institutions will be included in your file, but will NOT be considered as one of the 5 core letters.
neutral to you (should NOT be former mentors, preceptors, colleagues or collaborators).
Confidentiality is imperative. Once the reviewer list has been submitted, the candidate cannot be informed as to who has responded or what response was received.
Faculty Affairs will the solicitation requests, once approved by the candidate’s chairman, unless the Department indicates that they will handle the solicitation process themselves. If this is the case, the Department is required to follow-up with Faculty Affairs and provide weekly updates.
You may have letters of support from internal colleagues and/or collaborators at other institutions but they will not count towards the required 5 letters for your packet.

25. Guidelines for Determining “arm’s length” Reviewers:
Reviewer Qualifications
Details
Is this reviewer a current or former mentor/mentee?
Former preceptors, thesis advisors, lab directors, or other industry experts that have had a role in your training and development are NOT considered arm’s-length. Former students, and/or post-graduate trainees are NOT considered arm’s-length.
Is the reviewer from your former institution and/or region?
In general, reviewers should NOT be from your former institution, regardless of professional relationship. Former faculty members, Chairs, Deans and/or colleagues who directly interacted with you in the course of your duties at your former institution(s) are NOT considered arm’s-length. Candidates should NOT list more than one reviewer from the same institution.
Is this reviewer a current or former supervisor?
Former lab directors, Chairs, Deans that directly supervised your duties and/or training at other institutions are NOT considered arm’s-length.
Is this reviewer a close collaborator?
If the reviewer has collaborated in a grant, published or been a co-applicant with you, within the last five years, the reviewer is NOT considered arm’s- length. Beyond that five year window, the reviewer may or may not be neutral depending on the nature of the relationship.
Is this reviewer a close personal friend or a relative?
If the reviewer has maintained a long-standing relationship that has extended beyond professional meetings or occasional communications, the reviewer is NOT considered arm’s-length.

26. Mitzi Wilkinson, Director, Faculty Affairs
Resources/Contacts
Mitzi Wilkinson, Director, Faculty Affairs
Amanda Mesa, APT Coordinator
Faculty Affairs Website