FSD 85-187v1.R17
Faculty Affairs Committee
FAM 300
PROCEDURES AND CRITERIA FOR
PERFORMANCE REVIEW AND PERIODIC EVALUATION
VOLUME I: INSTRUCTIONAL FACULTY
CHAPTER 1
PROCEDURES FOR PERFORMANCE REVIEW AND PERIODIC EVALUATION
I. PREAMBLE
The purpose of evaluation is to develop and maintain high quality faculty who are intellectually and professionally active and who communicate effectively with students. The goal of evaluation is to ensure the protection of faculty, student, and institutional interests.
Peer judgment is vital to any evaluation process designed to maintain high academic standards. Peer evaluation occurs at the Department, College, and the University level. In addition, evaluation includes administrative review. Student opinion of faculty teaching is required for assessment of teaching effectiveness. Accordingly, the following sources of information are to be used in the process of evaluation:
A. Faculty Activities Report (FAR),
B. Student Opinion of Teaching Effectiveness (SOTE) and
Faculty Senate approved alternative student evaluation instruments, and
C. Classroom Visitation Reports.
The evaluation process is designed to evaluate teaching effectiveness, to assess faculty performance, and to provide constructive guidance to the faculty member in achieving intellectual growth and professional development.
Procedures contained in this document are in accordance with the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA). The CBA uses the term "Faculty Unit Employees" to refer to all persons in Bargaining Unit 3. In this Volume, the term "faculty" shall refer to all faculty unit employees who are instructional faculty. Faculty in the “Faculty Early Retirement Program” (FERP) are not eligible to serve on University and College evaluation committees. Faculty in the “Faculty Early Retirement Program” (FERP) may serve on Departmental evaluation committees when specific conditions are met (refer to FAM 315(FSD 91-01.R5). In any case where disagreement occurs between this Volume and the CBA, the CBA shall prevail.
II. EVALUATION
A. TYPES OF EVALUATION
There are two types of evaluation. First is performance review, which is applicable to all probationary faculty members for purposes of determining retention, tenure, and/or promotion. Performance review is also applicable to all tenured faculty requesting consideration for promotion.
The second type of evaluation is periodic evaluation, which is applicable to all faculty members not subject to performance review.
B. GENERAL PROVISIONS OF EVALUATION
Several general provisions apply to both performance review and periodic evaluation.
1. Only tenured faculty members and academic administrators may engage in deliberations and make recommendations regarding the evaluation of other faculty members. Evaluation criteria and procedures shall be available to faculty members before the evaluation process begins. No changes in such criteria or procedures may be made during the evaluation process.
2. At all levels of review, before recommendations are forwarded to the next evaluation level, faculty members shall be given a copy of each recommendation stating in writing the reasons for the recommendation. Faculty members have the right to respond or submit a rebuttal within ten days following receipt of the recommendation. A copy of the response or rebuttal statement shall accompany the Working Personnel Action File (WPAF), and shall also be sent to any previous levels of review. Upon request, the faculty member may be provided an opportunity to discuss the recommendation with the recommending party. This provision shall not require that evaluation time lines be altered.
3. Personnel recommendations or decisions relating to retention, tenure, promotion, termination, or any other personnel action shall be based primarily on material contained in the Personnel Action File (PAF). If a personnel recommendation or decision is based on reasons not contained in the Personnel Action File, the party making the recommendation or decision shall commit those reasons to writing, and this signed statement shall be placed in the Personnel Action File and a copy provided to the faculty member.
4. In cases of promotion, evaluation committee members must have a higher rank than those being considered for promotion.
5. Recommendations shall be confidential, except that the affected faculty member, the designated administrators, the President, and the peer review committee members shall have access to written recommendations.
6. Timetables for performance review and periodic evaluation are prepared at the beginning of each academic year by the Associate Provost for Academic Personnel and submitted to the Faculty Senate for approval.
C. EVALUATION COMMITTEES: Composition and Functions
1. Department Evaluation Committees
a. Composition: A Department Evaluation Committee shall be composed of three tenured elected faculty, two of whom must be at the rank of Professor, and the third shall be a Professor or an Associate Professor who is not presently being considered for promotion. The Department Chair may not serve on this committee. The committee shall elect a chair who shall hold the rank of Professor. Annually, the members of the department shall nominate and elect committee members from within the department or from related academic disciplines (refer to FAM 315(FSD 91-01.R5). A member of a department evaluation committee cannot serve concurrently as a member of a College Evaluation Committee or the University Evaluation Committee, but may serve concurrently on other department evaluation committees.
b. Functions: This committee shall conduct performance reviews at the departmental level as well as periodic evaluations for first, third, and fifth year probationary faculty, full- and part-time temporary faculty, and tenured faculty who have not been considered for promotion during the past five years.
2. Department Part-Time Temporary Evaluation Committee
A department may form a Department Part-Time Evaluation Committee, the sole purpose of which shall be the periodic review and evaluation of part-time temporary faculty. The Department Chair may not serve on this committee, but will prepare a joint evaluation with the committee. The decision on whether to form such a committee shall be made annually by a vote of the tenure track faculty of the department. This committee will be composed of at least three, but no more than five tenured, elected faculty from within the department.
3. College Evaluation Committees
a. Composition: A College Evaluation Committee shall be composed of four tenured full-time senior faculty members. At least three shall hold the rank of Professor, and one may be an Associate Professor who is not presently being considered for promotion. The committee shall elect a chair who shall hold the rank of Professor. Department Chairs or Associate Deans may not serve on this committee. Members shall be elected to staggered two year terms by the faculty of the college. In the case of college committees, no more than one member may come from a single department. A member of a college evaluation committee cannot serve concurrently as a member of a Department Evaluation Committee or the University Evaluation Committee.
b. Functions: This committee shall conduct performance reviews at
the college level.
4. University Evaluation Committee
a. Composition: The University Evaluation Committee shall be composed of one tenured Professor elected from each College by the tenure-track faculty of the College; one tenured Librarian elected by the tenure-track librarians; and one tenured SSP, AR elected by the tenure-track SSP,ARs. Department Chairs or Associate Deans may not serve on this committee. Library Evaluators may serve on this committee but must withdraw whenever a librarian they have evaluated is to be evaluated. Members shall serve two-year staggered terms. The Committee shall elect a Chair. A member of this committee cannot serve concurrently as a member of any evaluation committee at a lower level.
b. Functions: This committee shall conduct a performance review for faculty members at the University level in cases where recommendations from the Department, Department Chair, College, and Dean are not unanimous, as well as in cases involving non-retention, denial of tenure, or denial of promotion. This committee shall also serve as the higher level peer review committee for librarians and SSP,ARs. In addition, the committee shall rank faculty in promotion cases, basing their rankings primarily on previous recommendations and rankings. This Committee shall also conduct performance reviews in any case at the request of the President or designee.
D. INSTRUMENTS OF EVALUATION
1. Faculty Activities Reports (FARs)
FARs shall be submitted by all faculty members subject to performance review and by probationary and full-time temporary faculty members subject to periodic evaluation. These shall cover all three areas of evaluation: teaching, professional growth, University and/or community service.
The Faculty Activities Report should cover the following periods of time:
a. For all probationary faculty being considered for retention or tenure, the FAR should be cumulative since appointment.
b. For faculty applying for promotion, the FAR should be cumulative since the last promotion or since initial appointment, whichever is most recent. (NOTE: The FAR should include activities since the FAR submission date for the last successful promotion.)
c. For all others (e.g., tenured faculty subject to periodic evaluation and full-time temporary faculty), the FAR should be cumulative since the submission of the most recent FAR.
2. Supporting Documentation
Supporting documentation for activities must be attached to this report (for example, course descriptions, reprints of publications, appropriate evidence regarding speeches, consultations, performances, exhibitions, work in progress, etc.) as follows:
a. For probationary faculty being considered for retention, all supporting documentation since the last performance review.
b. For probationary faculty being considered for tenure and/or promotion, all supporting documentation since appointment.
c. For tenured faculty applying for promotion, all supporting documentation since the last promotion or since initial appointment, whichever is most recent.
d. For all others (e.g., tenured faculty subject to periodic evaluation and full-time temporary faculty), all supporting documentation since the last FAR was submitted.
Faculty members may include professional activities carried out prior to appointment. Pre-employment dates of such activities should be noted. The entire professional experience of the faculty member should be examined and considered, but primary consideration shall be given to the professional accomplishments during the appropriate time period as indicated above.
All FARs must be accompanied by an Index of Attachments.
When a faculty member reports collaborative professional growth activities or accomplishments, a Joint Activities Report form should be submitted with the FAR for each joint activity.
3. Classroom Visitation Reports
Classroom Visitations shall be conducted for all probationary faculty members, tenured faculty members requesting consideration for promotion, full-time temporary faculty members, and part-time temporary faculty members. Classroom visitations shall be conducted when requested by tenured faculty. The following guidelines must be met:
a. Classroom visitations shall be performed according to the following plan: during the six probationary years, the number of annual visitations for tenure-track faculty shall normally be in the sequence 2 1 1 1 0 1. If a faculty member is to be considered for tenure or promotion, there shall be a visitation scheduled in the Fall of that academic year, regardless of this sequence. Over a period of time, visits should be scheduled in as many different courses as possible and by a variety of visitors. At the request of the faculty member, or the Department Evaluation Committee and the Department Chair jointly, or the College Evaluation Committee and the College Dean jointly, additional visitations may take place.
Full-time temporary faculty members shall be visited in the Fall of each academic year. Part-time, temporary faculty members shall be visited the first time they teach a course. Subsequent visitations for temporary faculty may be scheduled whenever appropriate as determined by the Department Evaluation Committee or at the request of the temporary faculty member.
b. For probationary and tenured faculty, the course visitors and the course to be visited shall be selected jointly by the College Evaluation Committee and the College Dean, in consultation with the Department Chair, no later than during the third week of classes. The Department Chair shall in turn consult with the faculty member to be visited for concurrence before the formal assignment of visitors. For temporary faculty, course visitors and the course to be visited shall be selected jointly by the Department Evaluation Committee and the Department Chair.
All faculty members shall be informed in writing of planned visits. Notification shall take place not less than three days before the visitors have been notified of their assignments. All classroom visitation assignments should be completed by the end of the fifth week of classes.
c. Course visits for faculty in their first two probationary years shall be conducted by two tenured colleagues, of a rank equal to or higher than that of the faculty member to be visited. Where possible, at least one of the visiting colleagues should be from the discipline of the faculty member being visited. Normally both visitors shall visit the same course on the same date.
Course visits for all other probationary faculty and for tenured faculty applying for promotion shall be conducted by one tenured colleague, of a rank equal to or higher than that of the faculty member to be visited. Where possible, the visiting colleague should be from the discipline of the faculty member being visited. An additional visitor may be requested by the faculty member to be visited.
In the case of temporary faculty, one faculty member of the same or higher rank shall be assigned to visit.
There shall be mutual agreement between the visitor and the visitee regarding dates for classroom visits.
d. Classroom visitation forms will be sent by the College Dean's office to the visitors and the person to be visited prior to the pre-visit conference. Prior to the visit, a pre-visit discussion shall take place between the visitor(s) and the person visited. This discussion shall concern matters such as the course objectives, content and organization, approaches and methods used, and the relevance of the class to be visited to the overall course plan. The visiting colleague(s) shall arrange all meetings. The colleague to be visited shall furnish copies of syllabi, exams, and other materials to each visitor.
For online or hybrid courses, there shall be a mutual agreement between the visitor and the visitee regarding the nature of the classroom visit: student privacy issues if the visitee is to have access to student graded work (i.e. will the visitor have student or instructor-level access to the course website?); the time period for electronic access; and the methods for delivery of the online class materials including, but not limited to, discussion boards, chat room logs, online lecture notes and exams (e.g., electronic access or printed copy). An acceptable classroom visit could include, for example, a log of an online chat discussion plus the corresponding classroom materials to support the visitation (as in traditional classroom visits). In the case of a hybrid course, the visitor and the visitee should determine the most appropriate venue (i.e., online or in class) for the visitation.
e. No later than two weeks after the visit, each visiting colleague shall complete the Classroom Visitation Report form and present it to the faculty member visited. At this time a post-visit discussion shall take place concerning the contents of the report and suggestions for improvement. This stage of the evaluation process is intended to help the faculty member in the development of teaching capabilities and to enable him or her to benefit from the experience of colleagues.
f. The faculty member visited and the visiting colleague shall sign the Classroom Visitation Report. The original report for full-time faculty is transmitted by each visiting colleague with all materials to the College Dean's office, which in turn shall forward it to the Academic Personnel Office (APO) for inclusion in the PAF. The faculty member visited shall be given a copy of the report by the visitor.
For part-time faculty, the classroom visitation report remains in the College Dean’s office or the department office for inclusion in the PAF.
All classroom visitation reports are due in the college office by the date grades are due for that term.
g. The faculty member visited may submit to the College office a written statement of response or rebuttal to be attached to the report(s). This response or rebuttal shall be submitted within seven days following the post-visit.
h. The Classroom Visitation Report is not a recommendation regarding retention, promotion, or tenure decisions.
4. Student Opinion of Teaching Effectiveness (SOTE) and
Alternative Evaluation Instruments.
First year probationary faculty shall have all their first quarter classes SOTEd. These shall not be placed in their WPAF. In the subsequent two quarters of that first year, two classes per quarter shall be SOTEd. For years two and three, probationary faculty will have five courses SOTEd each year. For probationary faculty in their fourth, fifth, and sixth years of service, SOTEs shall be obtained in a minimum of three courses annually. SOTEs for tenured faculty members shall be obtained in two courses annually on a prearranged, regular schedule. A faculty member may request additional evaluations.
For Temporary Faculty:
Temporary Faculty hired from quarter to quarter will have all classes SOTEd.
Temporary Faculty holding one year appointments will have two-thirds of their classes SOTEd, or a minimum of two, whichever is greater. A faculty member may request additional evaluations.
Temporary Faculty holding three year appointments will have one-third of their classes SOTEd. A faculty member may request additional evaluations.
The following guidelines should be met for all SOTEs:
a. Faculty Senate authorized forms shall be used.
b. Whenever possible, the course selected for visitation should also be selected for the administration of SOTEs.
c. Courses to be SOTEd shall be jointly determined in consultation between the faculty member being evaluated and the department chair no later than the fourth week of classes. In the event of disagreement, each party shall select 50% of the total courses to be evaluated, on an annual, academic-year basis.
d. SOTEs shall be conducted in classes that are representative of the range of a faculty member's teaching assignments.
e. The person teaching the course shall not be present when student evaluation is conducted.
f. No earlier than the end of the quarter in which the student evaluation is administered, faculty shall receive a summary of results and shall have access to the original forms.
g. Both the results of student evaluation and the original forms will be included in the faculty member's PAF.
5. Alternative Student Evaluation Instruments.
Based on college or departmental guidelines, additional evaluation instruments such as student evaluations of supervision effectiveness (SESEs) may be used as supplements or alternatives to SOTEs.
E. FILES
1. The Personnel Action File (PAF)
a. A PAF shall be maintained for each faculty member. PAFs for tenured professors are kept at the college office. PAFs for part-time temporary faculty are kept at the college or department office. PAFs for all other faculty are kept at the APO.
b. A faculty member shall have the right to submit additional materials to his/her PAF and shall have the right to submit a written rebuttal to any material in his/her file. Only material identified by source may be placed in the PAF. Identification shall indicate the author, the committee, the campus office, or the name of the officially authorized body generating the material. The faculty member shall be provided with a copy of any material to be placed in the PAF at least five days prior to the placement.
c. A faculty member shall have the right of access to all material in his/her PAF, exclusive of pre-employment materials, except when the pre-employment materials are used in personnel actions.
d. The PAF may be inspected by the faculty member upon request to the appropriate office. A copy of all materials requested shall be provided within fourteen days of the request. If the faculty member believes that any portion of the file is not accurate, a correction or deletion of those materials may be requested. If the request is denied, the faculty member shall have seven days to submit the request to the President or designee. Within twenty-one days of the request to the President or designee, the President or designee shall provide to the faculty member a written response. If the President or designee grants the request, the record shall be corrected or the deletions made, and the faculty member shall be sent a written statement to that effect. If the President or designee denies the request, the response shall include the reason(s) for denial.
e. The PAF shall be held in confidence. Access to a faculty member's file shall be limited to persons with official business. The appropriate office shall log all instances of access to a PAF. This record shall be a part of the file.
2. Working Personnel Action File (WPAF)
a. The WPAF refers to the portion of the Personnel Action File used during the time of performance review or periodic evaluation of a faculty member. The WPAF shall include, where required, the following:
1. A FAR (and the Index of Attachments to the FAR) reflecting the cumulative record in all areas of evaluation;
2. Classroom Visitation Reports;
3. Student Opinion of Teaching Effectiveness (SOTEs) or alternative student evaluation instruments (summary reports and completed forms);
4. Responses and rebuttals;
5. Faculty authored reports from sabbatical leaves, difference-in-pay leaves, mini-grants, and other internal CSUSB grants;
6. All other evaluation materials appropriately included in the PAF;
7. All current and previous summary statements and recommendations resulting from the evaluation process.
b. Materials submitted to the WPAF by a faculty member for evaluation purposes shall be deemed incorporated by reference in the PAF, but need not be physically placed in the file. An index of such materials shall be prepared by the faculty member and submitted with the materials. Such an index shall be permanently placed in the PAF.
c. SOTEs (and alternative student evaluations) shall be retained in a faculty member’s WPAF for a period of at least five years. After a tenure-track faculty member is promoted and
tenured, the raw forms more than five years old shall be returned to the faculty member. In the case of a tenured faculty member, the raw forms more than five years old shall be returned to the faculty member after each periodic evaluation is completed. In the case of a temporary faculty member, the raw forms more than five years old shall be returned to the faculty member after each range elevation.
F. RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommendations shall be made following a thorough review of the WPAF relative to each applicable criterion. All participants who make recommendations shall, in addition, ensure that criteria are applied equally for each faculty member evaluated. If there are omissions of documentation, information or recommendations in the materials submitted for review, the materials may be returned for amplification. Any such amplification shall be provided in a timely manner.
G. DECISION
The President or designee shall receive the WPAF, review its contents and recommendations, and reach a decision. The President's or designee's decision shall be communicated in writing to the faculty member and shall state the reasons for the decision.
III. PERFORMANCE REVIEW
A. DEFINITIONS
1. Performance Review
Performance review is the process whereby decisions concerning retention, promotion, and tenure are made. Performance reviews are based upon information obtained from students, peers, and administrators in the manner described in this document. Upon completion of deliberations at each level of performance review, a copy of the recommendation shall be forwarded to the faculty member, who may respond in writing within ten days after receipt of the recommendation and/or request a meeting with the recommending party.
2. Probation
The normal period of probation shall be six years of credited service or full-time probationary service. A year of service for a faculty member in an academic year position is three consecutive quarters of employment within an academic year. Any deviation from the normal six year probationary period shall be the decision of the President or designee, following consideration of recommendations from the Department Evaluation Committee, the Department Chair (if applicable), the College Evaluation Committee, the College Dean, and the University Evaluation Committee, if applicable.
A probationary faculty member in the second year of service shall be notified by the President or designee of a final decision on retention no later than February 15. A probationary faculty member who has served more than two years of probation shall be notified by the President or designee of a final decision on retention or a terminal year appointment no later than June 1.
3. Tenure
Tenure is the right of a faculty member to continue permanent employment at the campus except when such employment is voluntarily terminated, or terminated by the employer pursuant to the provisions of a collective bargaining agreement or law.
The President or designee may award tenure to a faculty member after a six-year probationary period. Upon application by a candidate and consideration of positive recommendations from evaluation committees, Department Chairs, and/or College Dean, the President or designee may award tenure before the end of the six-year probationary period. Tenure shall be effective at the beginning of the academic year succeeding the year in which tenure is awarded.
4. Promotion
Promotion is the advancement to a higher rank of a probationary or tenured faculty member. A probationary faculty member shall not normally be promoted during probation. A probationary faculty member shall normally be considered for promotion at the same time he/she is considered for tenure. Probationary faculty members shall not be promoted beyond the rank of Associate Professor.
Upon application by the candidate and following consideration of positive recommendations from evaluation committees, the Department Chair, and/or College Dean, probationary faculty members may be promoted to the rank of Associate Professor. Promotion of a tenured faculty member shall normally be considered during his/her fifth year of service in the same rank. Upon application, and following consideration of positive recommendations from evaluation committees, Department Chairs, and/or College Dean, a tenured faculty member may be promoted to the rank of associate professor or professor prior to the fifth year of service in the same rank.
The President or designee shall notify the faculty member in writing of the final decision on promotion no later than June 15. Such notification shall include the reasons for approval or denial and shall indicate the effective date of the promotion.
B. PARTICIPANTS IN PERFORMANCE REVIEW
1. Faculty members. Performance review applies to all second, fourth and sixth year probationary faculty members, tenured faculty members applying for promotion, and probationary faculty members applying for early tenure and/or early promotion. Third and fifth year probationary faculty members may also be subject to performance review upon notification by the President or designee.
2. Department Chairs
3. Department Evaluation Committees
4. College Evaluation Committees
5. College Deans
6. University Evaluation Committee
7. President or designee
C. PROCEDURES FOR PERFORMANCE REVIEW
The performance review process is composed of a number of steps involving the accumulation of materials to be evaluated and the determination of recommendations at various levels of peer and administrative review.
1. Procedures governing performance review for faculty
a. Faculty members complete FAR forms and submit these to the Academic
Personnel Office (APO).
Prior to the beginning of the review process, the faculty unit employee subject to review shall be responsible for the identification of materials he/she wishes to be considered and for the submission of such materials as may be accessible to him/her. Evaluating committees and administrators shall be responsible for identifying and providing materials relating to evaluation not provided by the employee.
A specific deadline before the recommendation is made at the first level of evaluation shall be established by campus policy, at which time the WPAF is declared complete with respect to documentation of performance for the purpose of evaluation. Insertion of material after the date of this declaration must have the approval of the Department Evaluation Committee and shall be limited to items that became accessible after this declaration. Material inserted in this fashion shall be returned to the initial evaluation committee for review, evaluation, and comment before consideration at subsequent levels of review. If, during the review process, the absence of required evaluation documents is discovered, the WPAF shall be returned to the level at which the requisite documentation shall have been provided. Such materials shall be provided in a timely manner.
b. The APO assembles the WPAFs and submits these to the
Department Evaluation Committees and Department Chairs
for concurrent and independent review and recommendations. In the event
a department chair withdraws voluntarily or is asked by the
College Dean to withdraw from the evaluation process due to conflict of interest, the faculty member involved may choose to select the names of three department chairs within the college and submit these names to the College Dean. The College Dean shall select one of the nominated department chairs to prepare a substitute chair recommendation. This same procedure shall be followed in the case when a department chair is ineligible or unavailable to make a recommendation.
c. College Evaluation Committees and College Deans concurrently review WPAFs and prepare recommendations. In the event a College Dean withdraws voluntarily or is asked to withdraw from the evaluation process by the Provost due to conflict of interest, the faculty member involved may choose to select the names of two College Deans and submit these names to the Provost. The Provost shall select one of the nominated College Deans to prepare a substitute dean's recommendation.
d. If recommendations from the Department Evaluation Committees, Department Chairs, College Evaluation Committees, and the College Deans are unanimous, and do not involve non-retention or denial of tenure or promotion, the WPAFs are submitted directly to the President or designee for a decision. The President or designee may request a recommendation from the University Evaluation Committee in other cases as needed.
For all those cases involving disagreements between the recommending parties or for non-retention or denial of tenure or promotion, the WPAFs are submitted to the University Evaluation Committee for review and recommendation.
e. When making recommendations for retention, a Department Chair, College Dean, or an Evaluation Committee may recommend a performance review be required in the third or fifth probationary year. Such recommendations shall be placed in the “Additional Comments” section of the performance review.
The APO submits the WPAFs to the President or designee for decision. In addition to decisions regarding retention, promotion, or tenure, the President or designee may notify probationary faculty members that performance review is required in the third or fifth probationary year, following the same timeline as performance reviews for fourth year probationary faculty. In such cases, the classroom visitation schedule followed will be the same as for fourth year probationary faculty.
IV. PERIODIC EVALUATION
A. DEFINITIONS
1. Periodic Evaluation
Periodic evaluation is the process whereby faculty members who are not subject to performance review are evaluated. Those subject to periodic evaluation include temporary part-time and temporary full-time faculty, and first, third, and fifth year probationary faculty, and tenured faculty. Third and fifth year faculty applying for early tenure and/or early promotion will be subject to performance review, and therefore periodic evaluation will not be necessary. Periodic evaluation will also not be necessary for third and fifth year faculty members subject to performance review as a result of notification by the President or designee.
2. Purpose of Periodic Evaluation
The purpose of periodic evaluation for faculty is to evaluate teaching and, where applicable, professional growth and University and/or community service. Where necessary, steps may be recommended to improve performance.
3. Result of Periodic Evaluation
The result of periodic evaluation is to be a summary statement on the strengths and weaknesses of the faculty member in the areas of teaching, professional growth and University and/or community service. This statement may include recommendations for improvement. Upon completion, each summary statement is placed in the PAF and a copy is provided to the faculty member.
The results of periodic evaluation shall be given careful consideration whenever a subsequent appointment for temporary faculty is considered.
B. PROCEDURES FOR PERIODIC EVALUATION
1. Temporary Full-Time Faculty
a. Temporary full-time faculty submit FARs to the APO.
b. The APO assembles the WPAF.
c. The Department Evaluation Committee and Department Chair shall review the WPAF and jointly prepare summary statements of evaluation and submit these to the APO. In the case of temporary full-time faculty not assigned to a department, the College Evaluation Committee and the College Dean shall jointly prepare summary statements.
2. Temporary Part-Time Faculty
a. The College Dean's office assembles WPAFs consisting of Classroom Visitation Reports, SOTEs, and any other appropriate evaluation materials.
b. The College Dean's office submits the WPAFs to the Department Chairs and Department Evaluation Committees, or Department Part-Time Evaluation Committees, for joint review.
c. Department Chairs and Department Evaluation Committees, or Department Part-Time Evaluation Committees, jointly prepare summary evaluations and submit these to the appropriate College Dean's office.
3. Schedule for Periodic Evaluations of Temporary Part-time and Full-time Faculty
Temporary part-time faculty members appointed for two quarters or less, within an academic year, shall be evaluated at the discretion of the department chair or appropriate administrator. The temporary part-time faculty member can request that an evaluation be performed.
Temporary faculty members appointed for 3 or more quarters, within an academic year, shall receive a periodic evaluation by the end of the spring quarter.
Temporary faculty members with a 3-year appointment shall have a periodic evaluation during the spring quarter of the 2nd year of their appointment; such faculty members may be evaluated more frequently upon the request of the temporary faculty member or the President, or designee.
4. First, Third, and Fifth Year Probationary Faculty
a. First, third, and fifth year probationary faculty complete FARs and submit these to the APO.
b. The APO assembles the WPAF.
c. The Department Evaluation Committees and Department Chairs jointly
prepare summary statements of their evaluations and submit these to the
APO.
5. Tenured Faculty
a. See Chapter 4, Section II.
CHAPTER 2
CRITERIA FOR PERFORMANCE REVIEW
I. PREAMBLE
One of the hallmarks of university excellence is the sound academic balance of its instructional faculty. This balance results from a blend of excellent teaching, active and substantive professional growth, and professional service to the University and/or community. These criteria shall be applied to all persons seeking retention, tenure, and/or promotion as members of the tenure track faculty and to all faculty subject to periodic evaluation.
II. AREAS OF EVALUATION
A. TEACHING
The primary function of the California State University is the provision of rigorous, high-quality instruction. Evidence of teaching effectiveness is crucial to the overall evaluation process, with the recognition that teaching is a partnership between faculty and students.
Teaching effectiveness shall be evaluated by the quality of performance of the faculty member in varied aspects of instruction. These may include, but are not limited to, classroom instruction; studio instruction; laboratory instruction; supervision of individual projects; and supervision of fieldwork.
Those persons involved in the evaluation process shall recognize the existence of differences in teaching styles and student assessment standards.
While no single style or manner of teaching can be established as best for all instructors or for all students, faculty members are expected to work effectively with students individually and in groups. Evaluation of teaching shall be based upon the particular methods used by the instructor, and whether or not they are likely to produce the desired results.
Primary sources for evidence concerning the quality of instruction shall be faculty activities reports, classroom visitation reports, with appended materials gathered during the pre- and post-visit conferences; SOTEs; alternative teaching evaluation instruments; and syllabi and major assessment instruments for each new or revised course taught by the faculty member. The faculty member may include a teaching portfolio. Items appended to classroom visitations or included from other courses may include (but are not limited to) course syllabi, lab schedules, examinations and quizzes, hand-out materials, and other appropriately demonstrative materials.
Evaluation committees, Department Chairs (if applicable), and the appropriate College Dean shall consider all materials related to teaching, determine the appropriateness and quality of teaching, and evaluate the faculty member's teaching relative to academic rank.
Quality of instruction shall be evaluated in the following areas:
1. Command of Subject Matter
Credentials presented by a faculty member upon appointment attest to the faculty member's initial command of the subject matter. However, because refinement and change are inherent in any area of knowledge, faculty members must possess current knowledge within their area(s) of expertise.
2. Course Design/Preparation, Instructional Material, and Organization
Faculty members must design or prepare and develop a course that (a) is aligned with course goals, description, and mode of instruction (ig: lab, lecture, seminar); (b) is organized to include learning activities and strategies that will achieve course goals and enhance student learning; (c) reflects a reasonable allocation of time and resources; and d) has the appropriate use of instructional materials, including technology. A course syllabus will be designed and developed for each course. At the beginning of each course, faculty members should make clear to students the objectives, requirements, student assessment standards and methods, and plan for that course.
3. Effectiveness in Instruction
It is vital that faculty regularly review and modify course content to meet changing curricular needs. Instructional effectiveness requires that faculty members modify and incorporate course content to reflect relevance, timeliness, and comprehensive understanding of central issues and prevailing perspectives in the discipline. The course content is to be communicated and delivered using suitable instructional modes and teaching techniques/strategies for the type and size of class being taught.
In addition, effective teaching requires that content, organization, and delivery are suitable for both the overall course and the individual class sessions.
Successful experimentation with, and/or teaching research on, innovative teaching strategies and methods shall also be viewed as effective teaching.
4. Academic Assessment of Students
Fair and thorough assessment of student achievement is an important aspect of effective instruction. Assessment methods need to be consistent with program goals and course objectives. Methods of assessment vary markedly, but may include examinations, homework, term papers, laboratory reports, completed special assignments, seminar presentations, and other means appropriate to the type of class or instructional mode involved.
Faculty members should make clear to students what methods will be used to assess student work, and should apply standards appropriate to the level of the course and sufficient to make meaningful distinctions among different levels of student achievement. A faculty member's methods of assessing student achievement shall be documented by exemplary copies of items used, as appended to the classroom visitation report or the FAR. As part of a teaching portfolio, faculty members may also include examples of assessed student work.
B. PROFESSIONAL GROWTH
A certain level of professional activity and growth supports the primary mission of the University.
Evaluation committees and others involved in performance review recognize that no single method exists whereby faculty may demonstrate professional growth. Distinct areas of academic expertise have diverse methods of demonstrating professional growth. Even within the same department, differences among research, investigative work, or creative activity exist.
1. It shall be the sole responsibility of the faculty member to provide documented evidence of professional growth referenced in the FAR. Examples of items which may be used are books and articles, or evidence indicating their acceptance for publication, proposals, contracts, grants or programs; letters of invitation or appointment; reviews of creative activity written by professionally recognized persons; and other appropriate professionally generated materials pertinent to this area of evaluation. This evidence shall be submitted as part of the FAR.
2. The faculty member may consult with the Department Chair to ascertain that the FAR contains a thorough description of the faculty member's professional activities and reflects a true picture of professional growth.
3. A request for an external review of professional activities materials submitted by a faculty member may be initiated at any level of review by any party to the review. Such a request shall document (1) the special circumstances which necessitate an outside reviewer, and (2) the nature of the materials needing the evaluation of an external reviewer. The request must be approved by the President or designee, with the concurrence of the faculty member.
When the request to submit materials to an external review has been approved, the faculty member shall be asked to provide to the Office of Academic Personnel a list of names from which one or more evaluators may be chosen. Department Chairs, Evaluation Committees, and/or College Deans shall consider this list and, if appropriate, provide additional names to it. Academic Personnel will coordinate the selection of one or more suitable evaluators solely from this list and in agreement with the faculty member involved.
The following guidelines shall apply in selecting evaluators:
a. Evaluators shall not be the primary dissertation advisor of the candidate nor the chair of the candidate's dissertation committee.
b. Evaluators shall not be a collaborator or a co-author of any publication or research effort of the candidate.
c. Evaluators shall not be personal friends of the candidate.
d. To the greatest extent possible, senior and established scholars should be chosen for such evaluations.
A copy of the external evaluation shall be included in the WPAF and shall be considered an intrinsic part of the evaluation process.
4. The Department Evaluation Committee and the Department Chair must evaluate each item in the area of professional growth. They must also address the significance of the contribution and the quality of the form in which it is presented, i.e., a publication, a paper or presentation, a work in progress, etc. In addition, if the contribution consists of professional activity such as a consultantship, participation in a professional organization, or grant and award, the committee and chair must assess its significance and clarify the relevance of the format. Although it is the sole responsibility of the faculty member to provide documentation, if the Department Evaluation Committee or the Department Chair finds any deficiencies in the faculty member's documentation of professional growth, the committee or chair may request clarification, expansion, or additional information from the faculty member through the Office of Academic Personnel before preparing an evaluation. If the Department Evaluation Committee or the Department Chair has difficulty commenting on any items in the report, the committee or chair shall request clarification, expansion, or additional information from the faculty member through the Office of Academic Personnel before preparing an evaluation. In the event a faculty member fails to provide requested information or documentation, the Department Evaluation Committee or the Department Chair shall so indicate in their evaluation.
5. Evaluation Committees, Department Chairs, and the appropriate College Dean shall consider all materials submitted by the faculty member to determine the appropriateness and quality of professional activities in light of established criteria and evaluate the faculty member's professional growth relative to academic rank.
6. The following list of professional activities should be regarded as exemplary in nature and is not meant to be limiting, definitive, or prescriptive in its order. Work professionally evaluated by peers in the field is generally more significant. Some parts of this list are more appropriate to specific academic areas than others. The individual contribution to collaborative activities must be clearly stated on a Joint Activity Report form.
* Receipt of a fellowship, grant, contract, award, prize, or other indication of professional recognition.
* Active participation in seminars, conferences, meetings, or other activity leading to professional growth.
* Continuing education, retraining, and the development of new skills relevant to one's current or potential assignment. Evidence of these activities may be taking of courses, earning advanced degrees, or participating in professional conferences, seminars, workshops, institutes, or special programs which lead to systematic updating of knowledge.
* Presentations at professional meetings dealing with research, investigative activity, or creative activity.
* Publications, such as books or texts (whole or part thereof), journal, periodical, or any other type of academically specialized form such as music, script, software, etc. Professionally recognized or refereed publications are generally more significant.
* Creative activity culminating in a public display or performance such as might occur in music, art, drama, poetry reading, etc.
* Active leadership and/or service in recognized professional societies. (This activity may also be relevant to University Service.)
* Consultantships, whether paid or unpaid, of a professional nature.
* Editing, reviewing, indexing, abstracting, or performing other editorial work for professional or scholarly publications.
* Any other items of specific professional activity, such as work in progress, research related to instruction, research on how students learn and apply knowledge over an extended period of time, etc.
C. UNIVERSITY AND/OR COMMUNITY SERVICE
In addition to demonstrated teaching effectiveness and continued professional growth activity, faculty members must also participate in professionally related service to the University and/or community.
1. Scope of University and/or Community Service
Faculty are uniquely qualified to contribute to the mission of the University in a variety of ways, such as participating in institutional governance, evaluating the teaching of their colleagues, advising students, sponsoring student organizations, etc.
Community service related to the mission of the University brings recognition not only to the University but to the faculty as well. Service should be consistent with the teaching abilities, expertise, and leadership qualities of the faculty member, and should foster an intellectual relationship with the off-campus community. The term "community" may refer to local, regional, state, national, or international entities.
Service to the University and/or the community shall be demonstrated by documented evidence submitted with the FAR. The following list provides examples of items that may be used. This list provides examples only and must not be construed as limiting, definitive, or prescriptive in its order.
a. University Service
* Active participation in service to and/or governance of programs, departments, colleges, the campus, and/or the University System. If a faculty member is given reassigned time to perform such service or governance, this shall not be considered in evaluating the quality of such work. However, having received reassigned time may be considered when evaluating the quantity of such work.
* Attendance and active participation at program, department, and college meetings.
* Active participation on committees at all levels of the University and the University System, with emphasis on the departmental and the college levels while at the Assistant Professor rank.
* Participation in educational equity programs and activities.
* Authorship of documents, reports, or other materials pertinent to the University's mission or operation.
* Advisor or sponsor to student groups on campus.
* Assisting with grants, documents, contracts, proposals, reports, or other materials pertinent to the University’s mission or operation.
* Active participation in program, Department, College, Campus and/or University-wide Advisory Groups.
* Completion of classroom visitation reports.
* Academic and/or career advisement of students.
b. Community Service
* Service at local, state, federal, or international government levels.
* Consultantships to community service groups.
* Media presentations such as interviews, articles, speeches, or other presentations in newspapers, magazines, radio, television, or film.
* Lectures, speeches, talks, presentations, and/or displays given to schools, community groups, or the University community.
* Judge at science fairs, art shows, music contests, etc.
* Active participation and/or office holding in civic, educational, service, or humanitarian groups.
* Participation in community partnership activities which enhance social, economic, and cultural conditions.
c. Other items related to University and/or community service.
2. Evaluation of University and/or Community Service
a. The faculty member shall describe and provide documentation for University and/or community service. Evidence may include, but shall not be limited to, letters of invitation, memoranda documenting service, programs, membership lists, and other appropriate items. This evidence shall be attached to the FAR.
b. The evaluation committees as well as Department Chairs and the appropriate Dean shall evaluate the nature of the service to the University and/or community. They shall also determine if it is appropriate to the faculty member's rank.
III. EVALUATION RATING SYSTEM
The Department, College, and University Evaluation committees, the Department Chair and the appropriate Dean shall apply the established criteria to the performance of a faculty member relative to that faculty member's academic rank. The following ratings shall be used:
SUPERIOR - This rating reflects exceptional performance in an area of evaluation.
COMPETENT - This rating reflects satisfactory performance in an area of evaluation.
INADEQUATE - This rating clearly indicates performance in an area of evaluation that is below a satisfactory level.
IV. APPLICATION OF CRITERIA AND RATING SYSTEM
A. GENERAL PROVISIONS
1. To be reappointed for the third and fourth, and fifth and sixth years of the probationary period, the faculty member must be judged at least COMPETENT in teaching, professional growth, and service at current rank.
2. To be promoted, the faculty member must be judged SUPERIOR in teaching, professional growth, or service at the level of the academic rank to which promotion is sought. A rating of at least COMPETENT at the level of the academic rank to which promotion is sought must be received in each of the other two areas.
3. To be awarded tenure, the faculty member must be judged at the level at which he or she was appointed to the tenure track and be found SUPERIOR in teaching, professional growth, or service and at least COMPETENT in the other two areas.
4. Faculty members who request early promotion are judged by the same standards according to rank as faculty considered at the end of the normal probationary period.
5. Faculty members who request early tenure shall meet the same standards according to rank as faculty considered at the end of the normal probationary period. In addition, faculty members requesting early tenure shall have demonstrated an outstanding and sustained record of involvement and achievement, on this campus or elsewhere, indicative of a commitment to continued professional performance in teaching, professional growth, and service to the University.
6. Because the criteria for early promotion and early tenure are not identical, a faculty member may be granted promotion, tenure, or both promotion and tenure.
7. In progressing through the levels of Assistant Professor, Associate Professor, and Professor, an increasingly rigorous application of the criteria for SUPERIOR shall be applied.
B. COMPETENCY AND SUPERIORITY IN THE AREA OF TEACHING
1. Competency in the Area of Teaching
a. At the rank of Assistant Professor
During years two and three of the probationary period, the COMPETENT teacher at the rank of Assistant Professor must demonstrate command of the subject matter. Strong indications of developing abilities must also be demonstrated in the other teaching criteria.
During subsequent years, competence in all teaching criteria must be evident.
b. At the rank of Associate Professor
The COMPETENT teacher at the rank of Associate Professor must demonstrate proficiency in each of the four teaching criteria.
c. At the rank of Professor
The COMPETENT teacher at the rank of Professor must demonstrate proficiency in each of the four teaching criteria and also demonstrate a record of involvement and achievement indicative of a commitment to continued professional performance in teaching.
2. Superiority in the Area of Teaching
To be considered SUPERIOR in the area of teaching, the faculty member must meet the requirements set forth above for COMPETENT appropriate to rank. In addition to this, the faculty member must meet at least one of the following additional criteria:
a. A preponderance of evidence demonstrating excellence in teaching as indicated in classroom visitation reports, SOTEs (or alternative student evaluation instruments), the Faculty Activities Report, or additional appropriate documentation related to teaching.
b. Demonstrate a record of involvement and achievement indicative of a commitment
to continued professional performance in teaching.
c. A record of distinction for some aspect of teaching at or beyond the University.
C. COMPETENCY AND SUPERIORITY IN THE AREA OF PROFESSIONAL
GROWTH
Qualitative and quantitative standards should be used to assess professional growth.
1. Competency in the Area of Professional Growth
a. At the rank of Assistant Professor
During years two and three of the probationary period, the COMPETENT faculty member at the rank of Assistant Professor must demonstrate involvement in professional activities. In subsequent years, continued active involvement in and successful completion of some professionally evaluated activities should be evident. (See Chapter 2, Section II.B.6 for examples of professional activities.)
b. At the rank of Associate Professor
The COMPETENT faculty member at the rank of Associate Professor must demonstrate a record of active involvement in and successful accomplishment of professional activities. Successful accomplishment at this level normally requires
Some continued successful completion of professionally evaluated activities. (See Chapter 2, Section II.B.6 for examples of professional activities.)
c. At the rank of Professor
The COMPETENT faculty member at the rank of Professor must demonstrate a record of successful accomplishment and recognition in professional activities. (See Chapter 2, Section II.B.6 for examples of professional activities.)
2. Superiority in the Area of Professional Growth
To be considered SUPERIOR in the area of professional growth the faculty member must, as a minimum, have met the requirement set forth above for competence appropriate to rank. In addition to this, the faculty member must also have attained recognition beyond the University in research, investigative activity, and/or creative activity.
D. COMPETENCY AND SUPERIORITY IN THE AREA OF UNIVERSITY AND/OR
COMMUNITY SERVICE
1. Competency in the Area Service
a. At the rank of Assistant Professor
The COMPETENT faculty member should demonstrate a developing level of participation particularly at the departmental and college levels within the area of service. (See Chapter 2, Section II.C.1. for examples of service activities.) For the purpose of awarding tenure, the COMPETENT faculty member must demonstrate significant participation in the area of service.
b. At the rank of Associate Professor
The COMPETENT faculty member at this rank must demonstrate significant participation in the area of service. (See Chapter 2, Section II.C.1. for examples of service activities.) For a faculty member hired at this rank, a COMPETENT rating may be assigned for demonstrating sufficient progress towards achieving this standard by their third probationary year.
c. At the rank of Professor
In addition to significant participation in service activities, the COMPETENT faculty member is expected to provide effective leadership in some of these activities. (See Chapter 2, Section II.C.1. for examples of service activities.) For a faculty member hired at this rank, a COMPETENT rating may be assigned for demonstrating sufficient progress towards achieving this standard by their third probationary year.
2. Superiority in the Area of Service
A rating of SUPERIOR in this area is awarded for exceptional service that has been clearly documented as to quantity and quality.
To be considered SUPERIOR in the area of service, the faculty member must meet the qualifications set forth above for COMPETENT appropriate to academic rank. In addition, the faculty member must demonstrate unusual effectiveness or performance as a contributor or leader in the University, the off-campus community, or a combination of both.
CHAPTER 3
CRITERIA FOR PERIODIC EVALUATION OF NON-TENURED FACULTY
I. TEMPORARY FULL-TIME FACULTY
Temporary full-time faculty shall be evaluated according to their assignment, which is normally only in the area of teaching. Duties other than teaching shall be documented by the college dean or department chair either quarterly or annually, as appropriate, via a memo to be placed in the WPAF with the duties clearly identified. The applicable criteria are the same as for faculty subject to performance review. For temporary full-time faculty who will be evaluated in professional growth and/or service to the university and/or community, evaluation committees and Department Chairs shall, jointly, apply the established criteria in a manner which reflects the scope of the duties specified in the temporary full-time faculty member's WPAF, and reflects the appropriate proportion among the areas being evaluated. In all cases, temporary full-time faculty will be expected to perform activities equivalent to 45 WTUs per academic year.
When a temporary full-time faculty member is assigned to a college instead of a department, the periodic evaluation shall be performed jointly by the college evaluation committee and college dean.
II. TEMPORARY PART-TIME FACULTY
Temporary part-time faculty shall normally be evaluated only in the area of teaching. If assigned duties other than teaching, the activity shall be documented by the college dean or department chair either quarterly or annually, as appropriate, via a memo to be placed in the WPAF by the second week of the term with the duties clearly identified. These duties will be evaluated as part of the review. The applicable criteria in evaluating this area are the same as for faculty subject to performance review.
When a temporary part-time faculty member is assigned to a college instead of a department, the periodic evaluation shall be performed jointly by the College Evaluation Committee and College Dean.
III. FIRST, THIRD AND FIFTH YEAR PROBATIONARY FACULTY
Probationary faculty members in their first, third or fifth years shall be evaluated in the areas of teaching, professional growth, and service to the University and/or community. The applicable criteria in evaluating those areas are the same as for faculty subject to performance review.
CHAPTER 4
PERIODIC EVALUATION OF TENURED FACULTY
I. PURPOSE:
The purpose of periodic evaluation of tenured faculty is to assure continuing quality education within the University. The program is designed to maintain excellence in teaching, professional growth, and service to the University and community. This process is intended to be both positive and supportive.
II. PROCEDURE:
A. Each academic year, tenured faculty who are no longer required to have performance review and who have not been reviewed during the previous five (5) year period shall be subject to periodic evaluation. Whenever more than 25% of such tenured faculty in a department are scheduled for periodic evaluation, the Department Chair may determine by a lot a one-year postponement of sufficient reviews to reduce the number to less than 25%.
Also subject to periodic evaluation are tenured faculty whose previous evaluations resulted in a decision to review prior to the normal five (5) year period.
B. During the Fall Quarter of the evaluation year, those tenured faculty subject to periodic evaluation shall submit a FAR to their college office. The report shall be cumulative over the previous five (5) years, or since the last evaluation.
C. The following materials shall be assembled into a WPAF.
1. A FAR covering the previous five (5) years, or since the period covered by the last evaluation.
2. SOTEs and alternative student evaluation instruments for the previous five (5) years, or since the time of the last evaluation.
3. Other materials deemed relevant by the instructional faculty member.
D. The Department Evaluation Committee and the Department Chair shall jointly review the assembled file and prepare a summary report, using the format found in Appendix 8, commenting on the overall effectiveness of the faculty member's performance, outlining strengths and weaknesses, specifying remedies if any, and indicating when the next review shall take place. A copy of this report shall be given to the faculty member who shall have the right to submit a written response, which may be a rebuttal.
E. The WPAF, summary report and response, if any, shall be forwarded to the appropriate College Dean for review. The Dean, the Department Chair, the Chair of the Departmental Evaluation Committee, and the faculty member shall meet to discuss the contents of and any recommendations contained in the report. The report, along with a statement from the College Dean formalizing the time of the next scheduled evaluation, shall then become a part of the PAF.
F. The review process for the evaluation of tenured faculty shall be completed in accordance with the Timetable for Periodic Evaluation and Performance Review.
III. CRITERIA:
Tenured faculty members shall be evaluated in the areas of teaching, professional growth, and service to the University and community. The applicable criteria in evaluating these areas are the same as for instructional faculty subject to performance review.
IV. EXCLUSION
Members of the Department Evaluation Committee shall not participate in their
own review; that is, faculty undergoing Periodic Evaluation may serve on a department
evaluation committee, but must recuse themselves for their own review.
V. DELAYS IN REVIEW
Although the CBA is silent on delays in the review process, the University recognizes that unforeseen emergency situations may arise so that a delay in review is inevitable. Reasons for a delay must be serious and compelling. Requests for a delay in review must be made in writing with specific reasons stated for the delay. These requests must be submitted to the Department Chair. Delays of no more than one year may be granted except in exceptional circumstances, such as a multiple year leave of absence, when more than one year may be granted by the College Dean upon recommendation by the Department Chair in consultation with the Department Evaluation Committee.
CHAPTER 5
DEPARTMENTAL GUIDELINES FOR THE
EVALUATION OF PROBATIONARY AND TENURE TRACK FACULTY
I. OVERVIEW
Each academic department has the option of preparing written discipline/program specific guidelines for application of criteria in the areas of teaching, professional growth, and service contained in the Procedures and Criteria for Performance Review and Periodic Evaluation. These discipline-specific guidelines must strictly conform to the university-wide criteria, and are intended to provide guidance to faculty on those items that tend to have greater applicability for their academic area. The departmental guidelines are not intended to supersede the listing of criteria contained in the campus document nor to impose any pedagogical technique, and as such may not eliminate or exclude any criterion listed in the areas of teaching, professional growth and service.
II. GUIDELINES
The department evaluation guidelines are expected to conform to the following specifications:
A. Teaching
Departments may describe, in general terms, instructional techniques or pedagogical approaches, which are perhaps better, suited for the discipline/program.
B. Professional Growth
Departments may indicate which of the professional activities listed in the Procedures and Criteria for Performance Review and Periodic Evaluation are more appropriate for the discipline/program, and may suggest how best to engage in those activities to achieve professional accomplishments. Guidelines must avoid setting specific quantitative goals, since each evaluation committee must evaluate both quantitative and qualitative aspects of professional activities and achievements. Additionally, strict rank ordering of items shall be avoided, but clear identification of the most appropriate professional growth activities is encouraged.
C. Service
Departments may indicate which service activities listed in the Procedures and Criteria for Performance Review and Periodic Evaluation may be more appropriate for the discipline/program, given rank and experience of the faculty member.
III. PROCEDURE FOR APPROVAL
Department Chairs are responsible for ensuring that the guidelines are developed, or amended, with the full participation of all tenured and tenure-track faculty in the department and in consultation with the appropriate College Dean. Guidelines and any subsequent modifications must receive approval from a majority of the Department faculty, and approval through the normal faculty senate process, prior to implementation. Faculty senate consideration shall be limited to determining whether or not the proposed guidelines fall within the general parameters of the Procedures and Criteria for Performance Review and Periodic Evaluation document.
IV. DISTRIBUTION OF GUIDELINES
Department Chairs are responsible for distributing copies of department guidelines each fall to faculty involved in the review process. For new faculty, Chairs shall both provide a written copy of the guidelines and meet with the individuals to discuss the content of guidelines.
FSD 85-187v1.R17
Approved by the Faculty Senate
Dorothy Chen-Maynard, Chair Date
Reviewed by the Academic Affairs Council
Louis Fernández, Provost and Date
Vice President for Academic Affairs
Approved by the President
Albert K. Karnig Date
APPENDICES
1. FORMAT FOR FACULTY ACTIVITIES REPORT
2. FORMAT FOR JOINT ACTIVITY REPORT
3. FORMAT FOR INDEX OF ATTACHMENTS
4A. FORMAT FOR DEPARTMENT CHAIR RECOMMENDATION
4B. FORMAT FOR DEPARTMENT EVALUATION COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
5A. FORMAT FOR COLLEGE DEAN RECOMMENDATION
5B. FORMAT FOR COLLEGE EVALUATION COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
6. FORMAT FOR UNIVERSITY EVALUATION COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
7. FORMAT FOR PERIODIC EVALUATION FOR TENURED FACULTY, FULL-TIME LECTURERS AND FIRST, THIRD, AND FIFTH YEAR PROBATIONARY FACULTY
8. FORMAT FOR PERIODIC EVALUATION FOR PART-TIME FACULTY
9. CLASSROOM VISITATION REPORT
10A. SOTE OVERVIEW
10B. STUDENT OPINION OF TEACHING EFFECTIVENESS
10C. FACULTY SUPPLEMENTAL COMMENT FORM
10D. TEACHING IMPROVEMENT SUPPLEMENTAL QUESTIONS
11. TIMETABLE FOR PERIODIC EVALUATION AND PERFORMANCE REVIEW
12. SCHEDULE OF CLASSROOM VISITATIONS (CV) AND STUDENT OPINION OF TEACHING EFFECTIVENESS (SOTE)/STUDENT EVALUATIONS OF SUPERVISION EFFECTIVENESS
