Some of the provisions in this Section have been superseded by the new faculty collective bargaining agreement (The Agreement between the California State University and the California Faculty Association). Therefore, when consulting this section of the Faculty Handbook, refer also to the Agreement and to PM 90-11.
D. PERSONNEL POLICIES: APPOINTMENT, RE-APPOINTMENT, TENURE, PROMOTION
Professional Personnel Files
Adjunct Faculty: Procedures for Recommending and Designation
Coaching Track Personnel Practices
University Library: RTP Policies and Procedures for Librarians
Evaluation of Tenured Faculty
Code of Ethics in Personnel and Review Processes
(Reference PM 79-31, 12/26/79 and Revised by PM 85-04, 4/15/85.)
Confidentiality in personnel and review processes is fundamental to the maintenance of their integrity. Accordingly, the following Code of Ethics does apply:
1. No member of a committee1 who has access to faculty personnel files, personal resumes, or professional award or grant application information, and is therewith making judgments, evaluations, and recommendations, or is otherwise placed in confidence in personnel matters, shall divulge that information to, or discuss the substantive deliberations of the committee with anyone outside the committee, except as authorized by the rules in the Faculty Handbook regulating that process. The above rules shall not prohibit the free and open discussion of general procedures and criteria used by the various committees, as long as such disclosures do not reveal the identity of the individuals involved.
2. Therefore, no non-committee member shall solicit such information from the committee members, or attempt to influence or exert pressure on committee members, outside the prescribed process.
3. Only the committee chair or an appropriately designated committee member shall serve as spokesperson for the committee when public reports are made or in response to inquiries made by applicants or faculty whose materials are being or have been reviewed.
4. Statements and recommendations, both public and private, must not misrepresent the conclusions of the deliberative process.
In addition, to support the spirit of collegiality and the integrity of committee deliberations, which may be jeopardized if procedures are not observed, and to provide for due process faculty should observe the following:
When a faculty member serves in a consultative and/or representative capacity on a committee dealing with personnel matters, and perceives a lack of compliance with the procedures, He should attempt to resolve his/her concerns privately with the chair of the committee. If these concerns are not resolved to the satisfaction of the concerned committee member, He may request the Chair of the Academic Senate to meet with him/her in closed session with the Executive Committee. When so requested, the Chair of the Senate will call such a meeting. This meeting will be for the purpose of discussing procedural issues only, as indicated in 1. above. At this meeting, the Executive Committee will decide whether there should be further investigation. If so, it will notify the appropriate administrator.
Policy on Access to Faculty Professional Personnel Files
(Adopted May 12, 1969; Revised July 15, 1970, January 14, 1971, July 13, 1972, June 1976, and March 1977; Edited August 1978; Reference June 5, 1979 Presidential Letter to Chair, Academic Senate; Revised by PM 82-33, 10/15/82; PM 82-38, 11/24/82; and PM 82-40, 12/14/82.)
Good personnel practice dictates that any academic employee should be clearly aware of judgments which have been made about her/him which relate to evaluation of her/his professional and personal merit and the basis on which such judgments have been and will be made. In addition to routine personnel records normally kept by the Director of Human Resources which should always be available for inspection, professional materials which are used for recommendations and for decision-making on personnel matters should be used only with the prior knowledge of the individual who is the subject of such action.
So that any academic employee will be aware of materials which have been included in any of her/his personnel files and so that such materials will be established as the sole basis of ultimate decision-making in personnel matters without permitting the use of materials not included in such files relating to the academic employee, the following policies are in effect at the California State University, Dominguez Hills for professional personnel files of academic employees maintained in the Office of the Associate Vice President of Faculty Affairs.
The paragraph above does not restrict any RTP Committee's or academic administrator's right or responsibility to discuss or comment upon these materials or to receive clarification of any materials submitted for the committee's consideration. If any new or substantively different information is presented during such clarification, this information will be recorded and included in the academic employee's file and the employee will be informed of that action.
II. General Policy about Professional Personnel Files
A. These policies and procedures apply to all academic employees who qualify for academic or academic-related tenure.
B. References herein to file, personnel file, or professional personnel file, or words to that effect, means the official file maintained in the Office of the Associate Vice President of Faculty Affairs which is used directly for RTP purposes. Any other files maintained on the campus are not covered by this policy statement. However, such files are to receive similar careful handling and control. See the statement in the Faculty Handbook about "Privacy Rights of Students and Employees."
C. Personnel files shall be open to inspection by the academic employee who is the subject of the file and by any committee or administrator authorized to review the file in the course of official personnel business. See section on "Code of Ethics in Personnel and Review Processes".
1. The only committees which are authorized to have access to the files shall be the University RTP committee, School RTP committee, Department RTP committee or other appropriate RTP committees, and in some circumstances Grievance and Disciplinary Action committees when a discipline case is before the committees.
2. Other personnel who are authorized to have access to the files shall be the department chairperson or head of the subject's administrative unit, the dean of the subject's school or administrative unit, the Associate Vice President of Faculty Affairs, the Vice Presidents, and President of the University.
D. Materials shall be authorized for placement in faculty personnel files by personnel and/or committees mentioned in C 1 and 2, and by the individual who is the subject of the file. (On February 1, 1971, the President's Council requested the RTP Committee to inform the school dean of any rebuttals or evidence submitted by a faculty member during the RTP deliberations period which might affect the dean's recommendation.) Each item added to a file will be dated as of the accession date.
E. Each academic employee in the University may examine her/his file. Whenever any new materials (other than that submitted by the academic employee to his/her own file or that submitted through the normal RTP process and the employee received a copy) are added to the academic employee's file in the office of the Associate Vice President of Faculty Affairs the employee will be provided with a copy. (See article 11 of the Unit Three Contract.) A written record must be kept in the file indicating who had access to the file and on what date.
F. Confidential letters of recommendation or confidential placement files used in the course of the original appointment of the subject academic employee shall not be accessible to her/him and constitute an exception to the access rule in II. After the academic employee attains tenure. such materials shall be destroyed unless the originator has requested their return.
III. Custody of the Personnel Files
A. The academic employee professional personnel files will be maintained in the office of the Associate Vice President of Faculty Affairs (or other appropriate place) in file cabinets marked for controlled access as specified in I.
1. The individual academic employee may review her/his file in the office of the Associate Vice President of Faculty Affairs during the hours of the business day.
2. Any files that have been checked out must be returned to the office of the Associate Vice President of Faculty Affairs by the close of business the same day. If an exception is necessary, the administrator or the chairperson of the committee reviewing the files shall be responsible for their security until they are returned.
B. Under no circumstances may employee personnel files be removed from campus.
C. In accordance with Education Code 24317, faculty may have material in their personnel files duplicated at their own expense.
IV. Definition of Materials in Personnel Action Files
(PM 82-33, 10/15/82)
A. Only materials relevant to the last five years of an individual faculty member's activity shall be maintained in the file, with the following exceptions:
1. For probationary assistant professors, associate professors, and professors eligible for RTP review for re-appointment or tenure, the files shall be kept in toto.
2. For tenured associate or full professors, materials shall be kept from the time of the original promotion to that rank or from the time of appointment, if appointment was made at that rank.
B. The materials to be retained include: PTE printouts and student narratives; current professional resumes; and Supplementary Information Forms and Indexes.
C. Materials removed from the file by Faculty Affairs and returned to the faculty member under this policy shall be identified as such by a cover letter attached to the materials packet.
Personal Information Management
The Board of Trustees in Section 42396.2 of Title 5, California Administrative Code, have declared the following principles of Personal Information Management for The California State University:
(a) There should be no personal information system the existence of which is secret.
(b) Personal information should not be collected unless the need for it has been clearly established in advance.
(c) Personal information should be appropriate and relevant to the purpose for which it has been collected.
(d) Personal information should not be transferred outside The California State University unless the transfer is compatible with the disclosed purpose for which it was collected.
(e) Personal information should be used as a basis for a decision only when it is accurate and relevant.
(f) There should be procedures established by which a person may learn what personal information about him or her has been retained by The California State University and where lawful, have those records disclosed to him or her, pursuant to the provision of this Article.
(g) There should be established within The California State University procedures by which a person may request in writing addition to or deletion of personal information about himself or herself which does not meet the principles in this section. Such requests should be honored within a reasonable length of time or the person should be permitted to file a concise statement of dispute regarding the personal information which shall become a permanent part of the record, or, the disputed personal information should be destroyed.
(h) Precautions should be taken to prevent the unauthorized access to or use of personal information retained by The California State University.
California Information Practices Act of 1977
The Information Practices Act of 1977 (Section 1798, California Civil Code) became effective July 1, 1978, and has application regarding employee records. The Legislative Council's Digest of the Intent of the Act is set out below for convenient reference.
(a) Make legislative findings that the right to privacy guaranteed under the State and Federal Constitutions is being threatened; that technology has greatly magnified the potential risk to individual privacy; and that it is necessary that the maintenance and dissemination of personal information maintained by state agencies be subject to strict limits.
(b) Establish an Office of Information Practices in the Executive Office of the State Personnel Board to administer the provisions of this bill.
(c) Not apply to records containing non personal information, as defined.
(d) Require each state agency maintaining a system of records, as defined, containing personal or confidential information, as defined, to file with the Office of Information Practices a notice containing particular information concerning each system of records maintained by the agency.
(e) Require state agencies to, among other things, (l) maintain personal or confidential information only if necessary and relevant to accomplish a constitutional or statutory or federally mandated purpose; (2) collect such information directly from the individual who is subject thereof if practicable; (3) maintain all such records with accuracy, relevance, timeliness and completeness, and (4) disclose to individuals asked to supply information various details regarding the agency, the purpose of and authority for obtaining the information, whether disclosure is optional, and the consequences of failing to comply.
(f) Prohibit the disclosure of personal and confidential information except where a particular disclosure would be consistent with one of several specified conditions.
(g) Require an accounting to be made of particular disclosures. The accounting would include the date, nature, and purpose of the disclosure and the name, title, and business address of the person or agency to whom the disclosure was made.
(h) Permit individuals to inquire and be notified as to whether an agency maintains records containing personal information about such individual.
(i) Authorize access by an individual to records containing personal information about such individual.
(j) Permit an individual to request that an amendment be made to records containing personal information and permit an individual to request a review of a refusal by an agency to amend a record.
(k) Permit an individual to request a review of an agency determination that a particular record contains confidential information.
(l) Permit an individual to file a civil action against an agency where an agency fails to make a review of an individual's request that a record be amended, where an agency refuses to permit an individual access to any record pertaining to such an individual, and where the failure of an agency to comply with this bill results in an adverse effect upon the individual. The bill also specifies recoverable damages, and provides that the rights and remedies set forth therein are non-exclusive and are in addition to all those rights and remedies which are otherwise available.
(m) Specify penalties for certain willful violations of the bill. This bill would require agencies to insure that no record containing personal or confidential information is modified, transferred, or destroyed to avoid compliance with any of the provisions of the act and would authorize an individual to bring a civil action in accordance with specified provisions in the event that a state agency failed to comply with such provisions.
Since the caliber of a University faculty is the single most important index to the overall quality of the institution, policies and procedures affecting the initial selection of faculty, as well as re appointment, tenure, and promotion, inevitably exert a central and long-lasting influence. Only if concern for excellence is emphasized in each phase of faculty selection and evaluation can there be any reasonable expectation of achieving and maintaining a general regard for excellence throughout the institution. Also, see the section on "Nepotism".
Provisions for formal consultation are set forth in Section 42701 of Title 5, California Administrative Code:
Consultative Procedure. It is the policy of the Trustees that faculty be consulted on academic personnel matters. Each campus shall develop campus-wide procedures whereby-only members of the faculty who are tenured, and such department chairmen and academic administrators as the campus procedures shall provide, may participate at any level of consideration in the deliberations or vote on recommendations relating to appointment, retention, tenure, or promotion of faculty. The procedure shall provide that those making such recommendations should consider information from other faculty members and any other source, including, but not limited to students....
California State University Dominguez Hills is an Equal Opportunity, Affirmative Action, Section 504, Title IX employer. When making appointments refer to the manual, Affirmative Action Program: Procedures on the Recruitment and Employment of Employees, and to PM 77-21, 7/21/77, for the Unified Affirmative Action Committee Policies.
The President approved as policy at California State University Dominguez Hills the resolution adopted by the Staff Council and endorsed by the Academic Senate at its meeting on April 6, 1978, that no one shall be denied employment, retention, or advancement on the basis of sexual preference/orientation. (Ref: PM 78-13, 5/17/78.)
See also PM 89-04 (7/27/89) and Amendment #1 (1/11/90) on Guidelines for Search Committees.
Federal Regulations for Non-Discrimination in Employment on Basis of Disability
The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 requires institutions receiving federal funds to create a more open and accessible working environment for handicapped persons. Section 504 of the Federal Handicapped Regulations states that: No qualified handicapped person shall, on the basis of handicap, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or otherwise be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity which receives or benefits from federal financial assistance. The American with Disabilities of Act of 1990 (ADA) makes it unlawful to discriminate in employment against a qualified individual with a disability.
A copy of the Federal Handicapped Regulations (Section 504) appears in the Federal Register, Vol. 42, No. 86, Wednesday, May 4, 1977, Part IV, 22676-22702. The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 prohibits discrimination on the basis of handicap by the federal government, federal contractors and by recipients of federal financial assistance. If you were covered by the Rehabilitation Act prior to the passage of the ADA, the ADA will not affect that coverage.
The following passages and based on the language contained in ADA. A "disabled person" is someone who has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits a major life activity. The ADA also protects individuals who have a record of a substantially limiting impairment, and people who are regarded as having a substantially limiting impairment.
A substantial impairment is one that significantly limits or restricts a major life activity such as hearing, seeing, speaking, breathing, performing manual tasks, walking, caring for oneself, learning or working.
An individual with a disability must also be qualified to perform the essential functions of the job with or without reasonable accommodation, in order to be protected by the ADA. This means that the employee must:
*be able to perform those tasks that are essential to the job, with or without reasonable accommodation.
Factors to be considered in determining whether or not an accommodation would impose an "undue hardship" include: (l) the overall size of the program with respect to the number of employees, number and type of facilities, and size of budget; (2) the type of operation, including the composition and structure of the workforce; and (3) the nature and cost of the accommodation needed.
Employment tests or other selection criteria that screen out (or tend to screen out) disabled persons (or classes of such persons) may not be used unless: (l) the test score or criteria used is shown to be job-related for the position-in question; and (2) alternative job-related tests or criteria that do not screen out disabled persons are not shown by the Director of the Office of Civil Rights to be available.
Employment tests should be selected and administered to ensure that results accurately reflect an applicant's or employee's job skills or aptitude (or whatever other factor the test purports to measure) rather than any impaired sensory, manual, or speaking skills (except where those skills are the factors that the test purports to measure).
Employers may make pre-employment inquiries into an applicant's ability to perform job-related functions.
The specific employment activities covered by Section 504 include:
(1) Recruitment, advertising, and the processing of applications for employment;
(2) Hiring, upgrading, promotion, award of tenure; demotion, transfer, lay-off, termination, right of return from lay-off, and rehiring;
(3) Rates of pay or any other form of compensation and changes in compensation;
(4) Job assignments, job classifications, organization structures, position descriptions, lines of progression, and seniority lists;
(5) Leaves of absence, sick leave, or any other leave;
(6) Fringe benefits available by virtue of employment;
(7) Selection and financial support for training;
(8) Employer sponsored activities, including social or recreational programs; and
(9) Any other term, condition, or privilege or employment.
Decisions concerning employment should be made in a manner that ensures an absence of bias based on handicap and that does not limit, segregate, or classify applicants or employees in any way that adversely affects their opportunities or status because of handicap.
Criteria for Appointment
A university faculty member is a teacher, a scholar, and a professional person who works within an institutional setting. In the initial appointment of new faculty members, consequently, each of the following criteria is relevant:
1. Indications of excellence in achievement or promise as a teacher. Such indications as the following should be considered:
1.1 The record of preparation and education in the candidate's area of specialization including university degrees and other evidence.
1.2 The record of experience in teaching.
1.3 Reputable evidence of teaching competence provided by the candidate in the form of letters, evaluation records, or other means.
2. Evidence of scholarship.
Such evidence as the following is ordinarily available and should be considered:
2.1 Dossiers provided by college or university placement services.
2.2 Additional recommendations provided by colleagues, department chairpersons, or other individuals who know the candidate's work well.
2.3 Research work already completed or indications of research ability.
2.4 Publications (if any) such as articles, monographs, or books in the candidate's field of specialization or in related fields; significant presentations made to scholarly or professional groups.
2.5 Grants, awards, fellowships, honors, or other recognition of scholarship.
3. Indications of ability to work constructively in the professional environment.
Although it is recognized that considerable latitude of judgment will be encountered, efforts should be made to obtain such information as the following:
3.1 Judgments by colleagues and administrators of effectiveness of the candidate's participation in departmental, school, and college-wide affairs.
3.2 Judgments drawn from personal interviews with the candidate.
Procedures -- The recommendation for the initial appointment of a faculty member originates within the school to which he will be assigned. The dean of the school, after consultation with representative faculty members from the department or area concerned, will forward the recommendation to the Associate Vice President of Faculty Affairs together with the complete file for the candidate (including dossiers, recommendations, reports of interviews, correspondence, and other relevant material). The Associate Vice President of Faculty Affairs will review the recommendation which will be acted upon by the Vice President of Academic Affairs.
Two-Year Appointments for New Probationary Faculty (PM 89-05)
The initial probationary appointment of a full-time faculty member shall normally be for a period of two years. During the first year of service, faculty members will normally be evaluated during the semester following their first semester of teaching. The review will occur, when possible, after student PTE evaluations have been collected and analyzed.
Appointments Beginning with the Fall Semester
In their first year, faculty members whose appointments begin in the fall semester will be reviewed during the spring semester through the Periodic Evaluation process outlined in Article 15 of the Unit Three Agreement and according to the process and timeline currently used for the review of full-time lecturers. That is, the faculty member will be evaluated by the department chair, the department RTP committee, the school RTP committee, and the school dean. In subsequent years, the faculty will be evaluated through the normal RTP performance review process by the department chair, the department RTP committee, the school dean, the school RTP committee, the University RTP Committee, the Vice President for Academic Affairs, and the President.
Appointments Beginning with the Spring Semester
The policy outlined above shall not apply to faculty whose appointments begin in the spring semester. The first evaluation of these faculty will take place during the subsequent fall semester through the regular RTP performance review process.
Appointment of Full-time Lecturers with Previous Service
The policy is also not applicable to new probationary faculty who have been employed as full-time lecturers at Dominguez Hills for two or more years without a break in full-time service. These faculty will be subject upon appointment to review through the normal RTP performance review process.
Terminal Degree Requirements and Equivalencies: Appointment, Re- appointment, Tenure, and Promotion of Teaching Faculty Without the Doctorate (Adopted May 27, 1975)
The doctorate is the usual terminal degree expected of an academic employee teaching at California State University, Dominguez Hills, and it is normally expected that the appointee will have it in hand when arriving for faculty service. The doctorate is usually required for tenure and promotion; however, there may be rare exceptions to this standard. (See subsequent section, "Criteria for Tenure and Promotion".) At the time of appointment, therefore, the degree status will be noted, and a statement made for the personnel file outlining whether or not (and when) the doctorate is expected, and whether certain equivalencies should be maintained for re-appointment, tenure, and promotion.2 In fields where the terminal degree is not the doctorate, distinction should have been achieved in at least one of the categories outlined in "Criteria for Promotion, Evidence of Scholarship," in order to be appointed. To be reappointed, to gain tenure, and to be promoted, continuing distinction is required.
Following are areas in which degrees other than the doctor's degree
are normally accepted as the terminal degree.
|Business Law||J.D. (ABA accredited)|
|Communications||Ph.D., but exceptions may be made for outstanding achievement in more than one item under section two of Criteria for Promotion.|
|Education||Ph.D. or Ed.D., with occasional exceptions to fill "specialty positions" and to hire practitioners who must have at least the MA and a minimum of five years experience judged to be of exceptional performance.|
|Medical Technology||Master's Degree in Medical Technology or a doctorate in a closely related discipline.|
|Theater Arts||Ph.D. usually, M.F.A. in Technical Theater|
(See Unit 3 Agreement)
The University accepts the following general principles, adopted in a resolution of the Statewide Academic Senate.
1. Full and meaningful faculty participation shall be involved in all cases.
2. Recommendations shall originate with the lowest organizational unit practicable, usually the department.
3. When department and other organizational units, whether because of newness, size, leaves of absence, or other reasons, are inadequate to make personnel recommendations, they shall be assisted by other appropriate faculty.
4. Recommendations and decisions shall be based only on professional competence and professional performance.
5. Administrative recommendations and decisions should normally be in conformity with the recommendations of appropriate faculty committees, provided that such committees are in mutual agreement. Administrative decisions should be made with full explanation of reasons to the appropriate faculty committees when such decisions are contrary to the recommendations, or when the decisions result from a choice between conflicting committee recommendations.
6. Each department chairperson and each dean is expected to meet annually with each probationary faculty member to keep him/her apprised of his/her strengths and weaknesses, possible means of improvement, and the current prospect for re-appointment or tenure.
In addition, on November 7, 1973 the Academic Senate of California State University, Dominguez Hills, adopted the following (edited by the 1992 Faculty Handbook subcommittee):
1. All evaluators are responsible for maintaining a high standard of evaluation based on the Personnel Action File.
2. It will be the obligation of all RTP Committees to turn back for reconsideration any evaluation which does not adequately conform to these standards.
Summary of RTP Review
(Revised per PM 82-06, 2/25/82 plus editorial clarifications)
1. Each faculty member up for review submits annually to Faculty Affairs a Supplementary Information Form (SIF), reporting professional accomplishments subsequent to previous reports.
2. The department chairs, department committees, school deans, school RTP committees, and the University RTP committee all forward the originals of their RTP evaluations to Faculty Affairs for the Personnel Action File and send a copy to the faculty member concerned.
3. The departmental RTP committee prepares an evaluation and recommendation for each person up for review.
4. The department chair prepares separate evaluations and recommendations. Where appropriate, evaluations will be solicited from interdisciplinary, minor, or external program coordinators.
5. The school (or equivalent) dean prepares an evaluation and recommendation.
6. The school (or equivalent) RTP committee, reviews the file and prepares its evaluation and recommendations. It submits a promotion list in priority order.
7. The University RTP Committee reviews the RTP file and prepares its evaluations and recommendations. This committee compiles a priority list for promotions. The University RTP Committee does not review Librarians or academic-related Student Services Professionals unless a special request is made.
8. The President, the Vice President of Academic Affairs, and the Associate Vice-President of Faculty Affairs meet with University RTP Committee to review the evaluations and recommendations.
9. The President is responsible for RTP decisions.
This process includes the principle that any committee or individual who writes evaluative RTP statements and recommendations will provide reliable evidence and specific data to support her/his recommendation. If a subsequent reviewing individual or committee deems this evidence or data not to be satisfactory, the file may be returned to the previous level of review.
Responsibilities of Departmental and School RTP Evaluators
(Reference: PM 80-06, 3/3/80; PM 90-11, 8/15/90)
Departmental and school RTP evaluators are expected to comment specifically about those aspects of a faculty member's performance that can only be evaluated by those familiar with the discipline, the degree program, the modus operandi of the department or school, and the professional environment, which are specific to the individual faculty member.3 provides as follows: The committee at the firs tlevel of RTP review shall provide a written critical evaluation of the candidate's scholarly, research, or creative activity as evidenced in the RTP file) It is important for these RTP evaluators to provide, as much as is feasible, a comparative context within which the faculty member's record can be reviewed. Some illustrative but not exhaustive examples for each of the three RTP criteria follow:
1. Teaching Performance
a) How do this faculty member's PTE scores compare to those of other faculty teaching comparable courses?
b) If available, how do the teaching materials, course teaching outlines, examinations, and other course preparation documents compare to those used by other faculty teaching comparable courses?
c) If available, how do the subjective student evaluations, and/or documented individual student comments compare to those of other faculty teaching comparable courses? All other RTP committees and RTP reviewers shall continue to assess the candidate's scholarly, research, or creative activity as evidenced in the RTP file.
d) Are there any special factors-e.g. student population served, level and difficulty of course content, whether the course is required, etc.-influencing the student evaluations of this faculty member's teaching?
2. Scholarly and Professional Performance
a) The tenured faculty members in each department have produced a statement describing activities they deem to be scholarly or creative (PM 90-05, 5/21/90). How does this faculty member's record of scholarship (publication, creative activity, consulting, etc.) compare, specifically, with that of other faculty members in the appropriate department and/or school?
b) What is the nature of the faculty member's publications? For instance, are they in leading journals, refereed journals, published by respected presses? etc.?
c) How does this faculty member's attendance at, and membership in, various scholarly and professional organizations compare to that of other faculty members? Is this faculty member active in these organizations or merely a dues-paying member?
a) How does this faculty member's attendance at, and participation in, various committees compare to that of other faculty members? Does this faculty member chair groups, participate effectively, or merely attend some of the meetings?
b) Does the faculty member actively seek out ways to serve the academic community?
RTP Evaluations for Teaching Faculty with Multiple Academic Assignments (Reference: PM 80-06, 3/3/80, revised with President Gerth's 9/8/81 approval; PM 87-05, PM 90-05, 5/21/90).
Faculty members whose primary academic assignments do not coincide with their assigned departments, will be subject to review in the unit in which the primary duties are carried out or in the assigned department; except no review will be required in a unit when there has been no teaching or scholarly activity in that unit since the last review. Each unit will review the entire file, but will emphasize in its evaluation performance within that unit.
In any year during which a faculty member's service is subject to review in more than one unit, unless the RTP file includes a prior agreement to the contrary between the units involved and the faculty member, the relative weights to be given, at the University level of RTP evaluation and review, will follow these principles:
a) Teaching: Teaching performance in two or more units will be weighted according to the amount of teaching in each unit in the period under review, except that in all circumstances at least some weight must be given to performance in the assigned department.
b) Scholarship: The criteria for scholarship may be different in different fields, and the faculty member's assigned department requires that department have important input into the evaluation of his or her scholarship. All the reviewing units specified above will prepare an evaluation of the faculty member's scholarship. The greater weight in the final evaluation of the faculty member's performance as a scholar is to be assigned on the basis of quality of scholarship in any field relevant to the faculty member's assignments. However, in the absence of evidence of scholarship of higher quality outside the assigned department, the assigned department's criteria for scholarship shall be given the greater weight.
c) Service: Service in two or more units will be evaluated with the greater weight being given to performance in the area of primary assignment, whether or not that coincides with the assigned department.
Since promotion and tenure review are cumulative, there must be full RTP review and evaluation prepared by each unit in which the faculty member has been assigned or has taught a significant number of courses subsequent to the last RTP review. If a faculty member has served full time in different units in different years, the relative weight given to performance in each unit should be closely related to the number of years' service in each.
Evaluation of Released/Assigned Time Activities in the RTP Process
(Reference: PM 80-18, 7/7/80)
Activities for which faculty receive released or assigned time shall be evaluated on the same basis (quality and merit ) as teaching, scholarship, and community service. If released or assigned time has been given for an activity, it must be so stated on the Supplementary Information Form so that RTP evaluators may distinguish such activity from comparable activities performed without benefit of released or assigned time.
Procedure for Placement of RTP Evaluations in Personnel Files
The following procedures were established 1/14/77 to clarify the personnel review process and were revised as or the 1986-87 RTP cycle via PM 86-09 (9/9/86). (Also see "Code of Ethics in Personnel and Review Processes".)
ln order to ensure separate evaluations at the various steps of the RTP review, as well as consistent placement of documents in personnel files, the routing outlined below is to be followed:
|RTP Evaluator||Address Original Evaluation To||Distribute Copy (five days prior to inclusion in file)|
|Departmental Committee||RTP File of Person Being Reviewed||Faculty member only|
|Departmental Chairperson||RTP File of Person Being Reviewed||Faculty member only|
|School Dean||RTP File of Person Being Reviewed||Faculty member only|
|School RTP Committee only||RTP File of Person Being Reviewed||Faculty member only|
|University RTP Committee only||RTP File of Person Being Reviewed||Faculty member only|
|Vice President of Academic Affairs only||RTP File of Person Being Reviewed||Faculty member only|
Criteria for re-appointment to each subsequent year of pre-tenure service will consist of establishing evidence that the faculty member has fulfilled the expectations which led to her/his original appointment. In each successive year there shall be evidence of actual accomplishments as well as indications of continuing professional growth.
The submission of annual reports by probationary faculty of accomplishments and "Perceived Teaching Effectiveness" forms by the faculty member, together with evaluations supplied by department committees, program coordinators or department chairs (if applicable), and school deans are the basis upon which school committees and the University RTP Committee make judgments on the quality of teaching, scholarship, professional achievement, and constructive work within the professional environment.
An overriding consideration for re-appointment will be the combined judgment that the faculty member will be likely to qualify for tenure. Should there be substantial indications during pre-tenure years that an individual will not qualify for tenure during the appropriate year, she/he shall not be reappointed on receipt of letters of re appointment. Faculty members are requested to reply to the President's Office within two weeks.
A faculty member will be evaluated during each of the pre-tenure years, and accumulation of positive evaluations, year by year, will be regarded as progress toward tenure. Tenure decisions will be based on fulfillment to an appropriate degree of the same criteria as those used for promotion.
At California State University Dominguez Hills it is the policy of the committees on re-appointment, tenure, and promotion to make no tenure recommendations until a faculty member has completed a minimum of two consecutive semesters of service at this University.
Early Tenure Guidelines
(Adopted 1/6/75 and Revised by PM. 78-11, 5/17/78)
Early tenure is granted rarely and only for unusually meritorious performance as a faculty member at California State University Dominguez Hills. In order for a member of the instructional faculty to be granted early tenure they must demonstrate outstanding performance in teaching and in one other area of evaluation. Non teaching faculty must demonstrate outstanding performance in their professional assignment. The demonstration of unusually meritorious performance requires substantial documentation which may not be possible on the basis of a relatively short period of time spent at this institution. Therefore, evidence relating to professional performance at another institution will, if submitted, be given consideration. However, the granting of tenure is based primarily on evidence of merit demonstrated in performance at California State University, Dominguez Hills.
A faculty member who has completed the period of pre-tenure service and who has reached the top salary step of his/her rank, and who possesses the usual terminal degree in his/her discipline (normally the doctorate) will normally be considered each year for promotion. In cases of unusually meritorious performance, a faculty member may be considered for promotion although he has not satisfied the above stipulations.
Promotion in rank constitutes recognition of a faculty member's professional achievements. The criteria of good teaching, scholarship, and participation in University and community affairs are interrelated, but individuals achieve distinction in various ways and degrees and, therefore, circumstances may justify placing greater weight on a candidate's outstanding achievements in one or another area. However, since good teaching is recognized as the primary function of the State University System, teaching effectiveness shall be the most important criterion for promotion.
Withdrawal from Consideration for Promotion
(Paragraphs two and three added per PM 78-30, 11/2/78)
A faculty member may choose not to take advantage of his/her right to be considered for promotion when such consideration is otherwise mandatory. To withdraw from consideration, the faculty member must withdraw in writing, and a copy of the withdrawal statement will become part of the RTP file.
A decision to withdraw from consideration shall not affect, either positively or negatively, future promotion decisions. (See Article 15 of the Unit Three Contract.)
(Reference: PM 78-12, 5/17/78.)
Early promotion is granted rarely and only for unusually meritorious performance as a faculty member at California State University, Dominguez Hills. In addition, for instructional faculty, outstanding performance in teaching is a prerequisite for consideration for early promotion; non-teaching faculty members must demonstrate outstanding performance in their professional assignment. The demonstration of unusually meritorious performance requires substantial documentation which may not be possible on the basis of a relatively short period of time spent at this institution. Evidence relating to professional performance at another institution, if submitted, will be given consideration; however, promotion is based primarily on evidence of merit demonstrated in performance at California State University, Dominguez Hills.
Withdrawal from RTP Consideration
(Reference: FPC 83-14, Revised, and PM 83-09, 6/27/83.)
Two weeks before the deadline for submission of the Supplementary Information Forms (SIFs), the office of Faculty and Staff Affairs shall distribute written reminders to all faculty eligible for promotion who have not officially withdrawn from consideration.
An individual whose SIF has not been submitted by the deadline date is automatically withdrawn from consideration for promotion. The late submission of an SIF does not reactivate a file for review during the current RTP cycle. However, in cases of extenuating circumstances, an extension of the deadline date may be requested, in writing, from the appropriate school level dean if such request is submitted PRIOR to the deadline date. If the extension is granted, the dean will establish a new deadline.
(Reference: PM 84-11, 5/9/84 and PM 85-06, 4/30/85)
The following list of particulars is illustrative of professional achievement, but is not exhaustive. Not all examples must be used and they may be adapted to fit the needs of individual departments or areas within the University, and other evidence may be added.
In applying the criteria below, care is to be exercised to assure that evaluations and recommendations are based only on professional competence and professional performance as documented in the file.
1. Evidence of teaching performance. Such evidence as the following will be considered.
1.1 A representative sample of course materials (including, but not limited to, course outlines, syllabi, statements of goals and objectives, requirements, lists of texts and other materials, sample assignments, copies of examinations) must be submitted for those classes in which the PTE evaluations are automatically included in the RTP file, so that the materials can be evaluated at the department level for appropriateness of level and coverage, scholarly currency, and helpfulness to students.
1.2 Indications of the ability to fit course content and teaching strategies to the level and purpose of each course (e.g., general education, upper division, elective courses, sequential relation to other courses).
1.3 Student evaluations of a faculty member.4
1.4 Evidence of independent work and activities of the faculty member or his or her students beyond the usual requirements.
2. Evidence of Scholarship or Creative Activity. (Revision adopted May 27, 1975.) Such evidence as the following will be considered, and distinction in at least one of these categories is required for faculty appointment without the doctorate in the teaching field.
2.1 Significant research resulting in publication and reports.
2.2 Publications in learned journals and periodicals in the teaching field (which may or may not be research-related, depending on specialty).
2.3 Significant consulting, paid or unpaid, in fields closely related to the teaching discipline; or evidence of related research, paid or unpaid, from which no publication necessarily results, even though propriety reports may be writtenCprovided that the quality and originality of these activities is attested by recognized experts in the field or by equivalent evidence. (Added by PM 80-06, 3/3/80)
2.4 An outstanding regional, state, or national reputation in the field of specialty in at least one of the following examples: publishing, teaching, speaking, consulting, performance, production, or related activities.
For creative rather than research-oriented disciplines, appropriate examples are:
For Fine Arts or Theater Arts FacultyCa regional and/or national exhibition, production, or performance record, or a record of creativity resulting in published or performed works evaluated by peers and department chairperson.
For Communications FacultyC-a record of continuing publication in significant newspapers or periodicals with regional or national distribution, or a record of continuing production of radio, television, or film material which has regional or national distribution.
2.5 Active participation through papers, panels, symposia, etc., in meetings and conferences of professional organizations.
2.6 Significant activity in the leadership of professional organizations such as holding office, committee membership, etc.
2.7 Effective sharing of research findings, consulting experience, and related activities with colleagues and students for the general benefit of the University community.
2.8 Receipt of significant awards, commissions, prizes, honors, or grants.
The policy below was adopted upon the recommendation of the Academic Senate, on October 10, 1985 (PM 85-11).
Activity for completion of a terminal degree (as defined by the appointment letter) shall not be counted under the criterion of scholarship for RTP purposes. It shall only be considered in fulfillment of obligation for pre-tenure review. Scholarship which utilizes terminal degree material (for example, dissertation chapters) beyond the satisfaction of degree requirements shall be deemed acceptable for RTP purposes.
3. Evidence of effective functioning in the institution and in the community.
Such evidence as the following will be considered:
3.1 Effective participation and contributions as a member of departmental, interdisciplinary, school, University-wide and system-wide committees.
3.2 Effectiveness in student advisement.
3.3 Participation in student activities as sponsor or advisor.
3.4 Availability for consultation with students.
3.5 Representation of the University in community groups or agencies (other than those of a purely social nature) e.g., speeches, consultantships, committee memberships.
Candidates in the RTP cycle should also be aware of the following policy.
All processes that involve personnel actions respecting a faculty member should include an up-to-date professional resume. This particularly refers to re appointment, tenure and promotion reviews.
All personnel actions forwarded to the President for review should be accompanied by a current professional resume including the following: (l) all post secondary education with precise indication of the discipline(s) in which all advanced degrees are held (with dates); (2) all relevant professional employment (in reverse chronological order) with indications of other activity for any period in which professional employment was not held (such as military service); (3) a list of all publications in the reverse order of their appearance (separated into books, articles, chapters in books, and government or other reports but not including self-issued publications respecting which there has been no review other than the author's own appraisal); (4) a list (in reverse chronological order) of papers presented at professional meetings as well as other panels chaired, organized or participated in; (5) a list of papers or publications in progress (with anticipated completion dates); (6) a list of courses taught by the faculty member at CSUDH or elsewhere; (7) the names of three or more off-campus individuals, in the case of faculty up for tenure or promotion, who are familiar with his/her professional contributions; (8) consultancies to corporations, government agencies, or other institutions; and (9) any other information relevant to the personnel action under consideration.
The object of this requirement, standard in personnel review processes
on almost all campuses, is to permit the faculty member to include in a
single summary document key information relevant to his/her personnel action.
Clinical Sciences - Supplemental Criteria tobe used in addition to regular criteria for faculty and educatiion coordinators/administrators when being reviewed for reappointment, tenure and promotion
The following will be of assistance when evaluating Clinical Sciences faculty in the performance of their duties with regard to reappointment, tenure and promotion. These activities are supplementary to those lsited in this Faculty Handbook. (Since Clinical Sciences is a highly applied field requiring constant revision and updating of the curriculum and faculty expertise, these items are appropriatbe under thse headings and should be given greater weight then more traditional criteria.)
I. Evidence of Scholarship or Creative Activity
A. Effectively share with colleagues new developments in th4e field through consulting experiencesm attending meetings and workshops, and investigating approaches used by other institusions conducting similar programs.
B. Obtain training is such areas as, for example,Computer Technology, Administration, or Human Relations. Obtain attitudional knowledge and experience through additional coursework, advanced degrees, and specialized training and travel.
II. Evidence of Effective Functionins in the Institution
and in the Community
Participate in affiliate-sponsored activities that enhance the affiliation and/or contribute to program recognition, development, and growth.
Eligibility for RTP Committee Membership
(Reference: PM 79-16, 6/5/79, PM 82-04, 2/11/82)
Tenured full time faculty serve on RTP committees.
School and Equivalent Unit RTP Committees
(Revised by PM 82-06, 2/25/82)
Each of the schools shall have a Committee on Re appointment, Tenure, and Promotion. Only tenured members of the faculty are eligible to serve on RTP committees.
Each school committee shall be elected, ordinarily during the spring semester, by the eligible faculty of the school. All committees are subject to the provisions of the Policy on Access to Faculty Personnel Files. All faculty holding regular full-time appointments within the unit, including joint appointees, are eligible to vote for committee members. The committees will elect their own chairpersons.
There will be one committee on Re-appointment, Tenure, and Promotion for academic-related employees in Unit Four (Academic Support). Only tenured Student Services Professionals are eligible to serve on the committee. The committee shall be elected, ordinarily during the spring semester, by the academic employees of the unit. All Student Services Professionals holding regular full-time appointments are eligible to vote for committee members; the committee elects its own chairperson. Committee members shall normally serve for one year, except that the term of a member shall not expire until the evaluations he has begun have been completed.
Each committee will review the Personnel Action File of each faculty member within the unit who is being considered for re appointment, promotion, or tenure. The scope of the review shall include the following: the cumulative annual supplementary information forms filed by the faculty member, the cumulative annual evaluations provided by the department chairperson and the school dean, student evaluations, and other relevant materials. The committee will evaluate each faculty member in the light of the criteria set forth in this document and will prepare a written report of its evaluation and its recommendations which will be forwarded to the Faculty Personnel Office for the University Re-appointment, Tenure, and Promotion Committee.
Language for RTP Evaluation
(Reference: PM. 84-02, 2/24/84)
Based on a recommendation from the Academic Senate, the following "Language for RTP Evaluation" became effective as of Fall 1984.
All evaluators are encouraged to summarize their recommendations for promotion using the following terms: highly recommended, recommend, recommended with reservations, or do not recommend. Evaluators who choose to use different language than the key words that indicate the level of evaluation for: "I highly recommend, recommend, recommend with reservations, or do not recommend" must send the ranking of their substitute language to the faculty member involved, the other evaluators in the process, and the Office of Faculty Affairs.
Priority Order for Ranking for Promotion
(Reference: PM 82-18, 6/10/82)
Department and higher level peer review committee (s) may rank-order faculty unit employees recommended for promotion. The end result of a promotion ranking shall serve as a recommendation to the President.
Approval Process for RTP Guidelines Adopted by a School or Equivalent Unit
(Reference: PM 80-17, 7/7/80)
When a school or equivalent unit proposes special RTP guidelines, the school dean will request the Academic Senate to forward the guidelines to its Faculty Personnel Committee for review. A copy shall be sent simultaneously to Faculty Affairs. The Faculty Personnel Committee will review the document to ensure that it is consistent with University-wide policy as delineated in the Faculty Handbook, and return it to the Academic Senate for approval. The Academic Senate will forward the document to the President for approval. If approved, it will became official for the school or unit which generated it and will be included in the Faculty Handbook.
Composition and Charge of University RTP Committee
In order to assure equitable representation on the University Reappointment, Tenure, and Promotion (RTP) Committee, the membership shall consist of:
1. One member from the College of Arts and Sciences, elected by CAS faculty
2. One member from the School of Education, elected by SOE faculty
3. One member from the School of Health, elected by SOH faculty
4. One member from the School of Management, elected by SOM faculty
5. Three at-large members elected by the General Faculty.
There will be no more than three members from any school or college, including the hold-over member, where applicable.
The Role of the University RTP Committee (PM 92-04; 8/27/92)
The University RTP Committee review of faculty being considered for re appointment, tenure, and promotion shall be limited to one or more of the following cases:
1. In all instances when a faculty member is being reviewed for the award of tenure or promotion.
2. In instances when a faculty member receives a recommendation "with reservations" or is "not recommended".
3. In instances when a faculty member requests review by the University RTP Committee.
4. In instances when the President or the President's designee requests that the faculty member be reviewed by the University RTP Committee.
The following guidelines are to be used to implement the above:
1. The times at which faculty may request review by the University RTP Committee are:
A. On or before the deadline for the submission of files at the beginning of the RTP review.
B. within one of the seven-day rebuttal periods between the levels of review provided by the Unit Three Agreement (15.5). This pertains only to the rebuttal periods for the levels of review that take place prior to the Vice Presidential level. The University RTP Committee does not review recommendations made by the Vice President or decisions made by the President.
2. The Associate Vice President for Faculty Affairs is the President's Designee for requesting review by the University RTP Committee.
3. Review by the University RTP Committee will be automatic in the year of the decision on tenure or promotion. That is, all faculty up for review for tenure and promotion (including early tenure and promotion) will be reviewed by the University RTP Committee.
The URTP Committee, at its own initiative, may request a recommendation from the school and/or department level for any individuals for whom recommendations have not been forwarded. .
Since budgetary limitations may not permit the promotion of all those recommended in any specific year, the URTP Committee shall (l) notify the school committees of the maximum number of promotions which can be made in the University for the year, (2) request each school committee to rank its recommended persons in priority order, and (3) submit to the President the final list of recommendations, the number of which shall not exceed the total number of promotions which can be made.
One of the functions of the URTP Committee shall be the annual review of procedures used by all evaluation committees.
Annual Senate Meeting with Members of RTP Committees
The Constitution of the General Faculty provides that there will be one special Senate session every spring semester with members of the URTP Committee and members of school and other units' RTP Committees. The annual meeting is not to discuss or review individual personnel cases, but will have the main purpose of facilitating faculty input in assisting the URTP Committee to review its procedures and the procedures used by RTP Committees at lower levels with an eye toward recommending to the University President ways to improve the RTP procedures.
Notification to Faculty Being Evaluated
At the beginning of the RTP process, a notice shall be sent by the University RTP Committee or the Office of Faculty Affairs to all faculty to be evaluated stating the details of the review process.
For purposes of evaluation academic administrators, as members of management, are covered by the Management Personnel Plan. In some cases, administrators have academic appointments and may move to faculty status if they leave their administrative assignments. (See also the Unit Three Agreement)
Specialists in some designated fields who are not on regular full- or part-time appointments in the University provide Dominguez Hills students with instruction which is supportive of the objectives of the University. These field settings and services make certain experiences available to our students which they might otherwise not be able to obtain within campus resources. Service of a similar nature is rendered by master teachers in elementary and secondary school settings and by volunteers in the athletic programs of the University. However, the variety of roles, levels of personal preparation, and degree of intensity and length of participation will, by definition, exclude these two groups from the purpose and procedure described in this section.
Professionals from outside the immediate campus may be rewarded with the designation of adjunct faculty and by recognition in the University catalog. Unlike part-time instructors or full-time lecturers, adjunct faculty are not paid employees of the university. In order to qualify the nominee for adjunct status must:
1. Provide direct instruction to University programs through his/her employer on more than an incidental basis.
2. Be approved by the school dean on the recommendation of the appropriate program administrator.
3. Be a professional who is engaged in our instructional program on an ongoing basis and who receives no pay from University funds.
1. The administrator of a program utilizing adjunct faculty will prepare documentation of their background and service records, and complete the recommendation form for submission to the school or division dean or director.
2. The appropriate dean will prepare and issue a "Letter of Designation" which states the length and nature of the designation to all approved adjunct faculty. A copy of all letters to adjunct faculty and the original of the designation form will be kept in the office of the dean with a copy to Faculty Affairs .
3. The administrator of the program will compile annually for the university catalog a list of all adjunct faculty by program without academic rank, but including their highest academic degrees and/or most relevant certification for the back of the catalog.
As a result of action taken by the Board of Trustees, a class covering the position of Director of Athletics and four classes covering different levels of coaches was established. The selection, promotion, retention or separation of individuals to or from any of these classes is the responsibility of the University President. Appointments may be made to these classes on a year-to-year basis for an unlimited period of time without the individuals involved acquiring tenure.
Section 43572 of Article 13, Title 5, California Administrative Code reads:
Director of Athletics and Athletic Coach. (a) The provisions of this article relating to academic tenure shall not be applicable to periods of service in the classes of Director of Athletics or athletic coach. (b) Appointments to the classes of Director of Athletics or athletic coach shall be made by the President on either an academic year, ten-month or twelve-month basis, and may be renewed on a year-to-year basis, without acquisition of tenure. (c) Individuals who have served without a break in service in the classes of Director of Athletics or athletic coach, or both, and who are appointed to positions in which academic tenure may be gained, may be credited with not more than two years of service in such positions as service required for tenure; provided, that when such an individual is appointed to the position of Professor, he must serve at least one year in probationary status immediately prior to gaining tenure. (d) The provisions of this Section shall not be applicable to probationary academic employees appointed prior to September 1, 1971, provided that at the discretion of the President and at the request of the academic employee, an academic employee who has been serving as a coach or director of athletics, may be appointed under the provisions of Subdivision (b) of this Section.
Persons appointed to coaching assignments are in instructional faculty positions. Assignments of persons in the coaching track may include coaching, teaching or other related duties; persons in the tenure track may be given coaching assignments.
Candidates will be assigned to one of the following classifications, based on the size of the program, and whether the program is a major or minor sport. It has been determined by the President that at California State University, Dominguez Hills, the major sports are baseball, basketball (men's and women's) and volleyball (women's). The minor sports have been declared to be tennis (men's and women's), softball, badminton, golf, cross country, and soccer.
Director of Athletics. Under general direction, is responsible for planning, directing, and coordinating a comprehensive intercollegiate athletic program at a State University. In some instances, coaching duties and responsibilities also may be performed.
Head Coach. Under general direction, performs the full range of coaching functions related to a fully developed intercollegiate athletic activity at a State University. Typically, positions in this class involve supervisory responsibility over a number of subordinate personnel performing various coaching functions. A Head Coach's responsibilities include recruiting, fund raising, program development, and community relations.
Coach. Under general direction, performs a variety of coaching functions related to one of the sports in an intercollegiate athletic program at a State University. Positions in this class may involve responsibility for serving as a Head Coach in an intercollegiate athletic activity which is more limited than the activity typical of a Head Coach. Positions in this class also may involve responsibility for serving as a full assistant to a Head Coach.
Coaching Specialist. Under general direction, performs specialized coaching functions in support of a higher level person in a major program activity of an intercollegiate athletic program at a State University. In some instances, positions in this class also may involve the performance of functions of a Head Coach in an intercollegiate athletic activity which is more limited than the activity typical of a Head Coach or the position may involve the responsibility for serving as a full assistant to a Head Coach in such a program activity.
Coaching Assistant. Under direction, performs a variety of coaching functions related to one or more sports in the intercollegiate athletic program at a State University.
Criteria for Appointment
A university coaching member is both a teacher and a professional person who works within an institutional setting. Coaching track appointments differ from other instructional faculty appointments in some of the following ways:
a. Academic preparation required for a coaching track appointment may be less; for example, a bachelor's degree may be acceptable and a master's degree is generally sufficient, while an earned doctorate is normally expected for tenure-track appointments.
b. Scholarly accomplishment in the form of subject matter research results is normally not expected of coaching track persons (however, other evidences of scholarship may be equally appropriate).
In the initial appointment of new coaching track members each of the following criteria are relevant and should be considered:
1. Indications of excellence in achievement or promise as a coach/teacher.
1.1 The record of preparation and education in the candidate's area of specialization, including university degrees and other evidence.
1.2 The record of experience in coaching.
1.3 Application of knowledge and experience in all aspects of a particular sport.
1.4 Reputable evidence of coaching competence provided by the candidate in the form of letters, evaluation records, or other means.
1.5 The record of experience in teaching if this is applicable.
2. Indications of ability to work constructively in the professional environment. Although it is recognized that considerable latitude of judgment will be encountered, efforts should be made to obtain such information as the following:
2.1 Judgments by colleagues and administrators of effectiveness of the candidate's participation in the departmental, school, and University-wide affairs.
2.2 Evidence of involvement in sport clinics, recruiting of athletes, fund raising, public relations ability, and offices held.
3. Evidence of Scholarship.
3.1 Dossiers provided by college or university placement services.
3.2 Additional recommendations provided by colleagues, department chairpersons, or other individuals who are familiar with the candidate 's coaching abilities.
3.3 Publications (if any) such as articles, monographs, or books in the candidate's field of specialization or in related fields; significant presentations made to professional groups.
3.4 Grants, awards, fellowships, honors, or other recognition of scholarship.
In exceptional cases, the requirements listed above may be waived and special consideration may be given to other factors; such as, a national reputation as a coach in an intercollegiate sport or experience as a professional athlete in the sport the individual is to coach.
Criteria for Subsequent Appointment
Inasmuch as each appointment on the coaching track is for one academic year (or less), each appointment for a second or subsequent year is technically a new appointment; however, it is reasonable to use the term re-appointment in a pragmatic sense in referring to any successive appointment beyond the first. A change from one rank to another within the coaching track classification at the time of re-appointment is similar both to a promotion and to a reclassification.
Criteria for re appointment to each subsequent year will consist of establishing evidence that the coach has fulfilled the expectations which led to her/his original appointment. In successive years, there should be evidence of actual accomplishments as well as indications of continuing professional and program growth.
The submission of annual Supplementary Coaching/Faculty Information reports of accomplishments and "Perceived Coaching/Teaching Effectiveness" forms, together with evaluations supplied by the Athletic Director, the Department Chairperson if classroom teaching is involved, and the School Dean, are the basis upon which judgments are made about the quality of the coaching, teaching (if appropriate), scholarship, professional achievement, and constructive work within the professional environment. Any recommendation for advancement to a new class will be included in the Promotion/Reclassification" review.
In order for a person to be subsequently appointed to a higher coaching assignment, evidence must be presented that justifies such an upgrade. The evidence would relate to: the criteria required for an original appointment to our coaching staff, the classification standards of the rank considered, the size of the program and whether it is a major or minor sport as well as the overall performance of the individual involved.
Professional Performance Illustrations
The following is a list of particulars which is illustrative of professional coaching achievement. Other evidence may be added.
1. Evidence of Coaching Performance.
1.1 Student evaluations of the coach.
1.2 Summary of season record.
1.3 Percentage of workload assigned to coaching.
1.4 Samples of written material presented to athletes.
1.5 Methods of evaluating student athletes.
1.6 Ability to mold individual athletes into a team.
1.7 Records of independent work and activities of the coach or his/her students beyond the usual requirements.
2. Evidence of Teaching Performance, if applicable.
2.1 Student evaluations of teaching ability.5
2.2 Teaching materials such as sample course outlines, syllabi, or other materials the coach wishes to supply.
2.3 Methods of evaluating students including sample examinations.
2.4 Indications of the ability to fit course content and teaching strategies to the level and purpose of each course (e.g. general education, upper division, elective courses, sequential relation to the other courses.)
2.5 Records of independent work and activities of the coach or his/her students beyond the usual requirements.
3. Evidence of Scholarship
3.1 Publications in journals or periodicals in the area(s) of specialization.
3.2 An outstanding regional, state, or national reputation in the field of specialty in at least one of the following examples: speaking, consulting, coaching, or other related activities.
3.3 Active participation through papers, panels, symposia in meetings, clinics, and conferences of professional organizations.
3.4 Significant activity in the leadership of athletic and professional organizations such as holding office, committee membership, etc.
3.5 Receipt of significant awards, commissions, prizes, honors, or grants.
4. Evidence of Effective Functioning in the Institution/Community and Professional Involvement
4.1 Effective participation and contributions as a member of departmental, interdisciplinary, school, University-wide, and system-wide committees.
4.2 Effectiveness in student advisement.
4.3 Participation in student activities as sponsor or adviser.
4.4 Availability for consultation with students.
4.5 Representation of the University in community groups or agencies (other than those of a purely social nature) e.g., speeches, clinics, fund raising, public relations, recruiting of athletes.
In the application of the criteria above, care is to be exercised to assure that evaluations and recommendations are based only on professional competence and professional performance.
Evaluation of Temporary Full-Time Faculty
(Reference: PM 79-29, 10/26/79
The appointment and RTP processes at CSUDH seek to assure that Dominguez Hills has the best possible faculty for its students. The basic appointments to what can eventually be termed the "core faculty" are tenure track ones; however, non-tenure track (temporary) appointments are also made. Non-tenure track faculty appointments are not made with an expectation that they will lead to tenure-track appointments, although sometimes, for good educational reasons, this does occur. After serving as a temporary faculty member, a person may later be appointed to a tenure-track position, may be granted up to two years of credit toward tenure for earlier full-time temporary continuous service, and, if so appointed, will be credited with seniority points for that continuous service acquired prior to being appointed to a tenure-track position.
Non-tenure track faculty includes those appointed as part or full-time lecturers or on a visiting basis. (Procedures for part-time faculty are to be dealt with in a separate document.) Non-tenure track faculty who are appointed on a full-time lecturer or visiting basis for a full year are evaluated for performance for that year, and the results of the evaluation are made a part of the permanent RTP file for that individual. In order to aid in this evaluation, in each instance when a non-tenure track (temporary) faculty member is appointed, and the purpose of the appointment is different than typical faculty appointments in which the teaching and other duties are the customary ones, the appointing dean states in memorandum or letter the purpose of the appointment, and subsequent evaluations defined below are then carried out in these terms. The point of the evaluation of temporary appointees in these cases is an assessment of the individual meeting goals of a specific appointment. There are some temporary or non-tenure track appointments where it is clear that evaluation would not be appropriate (for example, a visiting or exchange professor from another country), and deans may waive an evaluation in such instances.
Non-tenure track faculty with one-year appointments are reviewed by RTP committees and administrative evaluators according to the procedures defined below:
1. Reviews are conducted by department chairs, department committees, school deans, and school RTP committees. Copies of the reviews are forwarded to the RTP files in the Faculty Personnel Office. These files are maintained for five years.
2. The faculty member submits an annual Supplementary Information Form each year and Perceived Teaching Effectiveness forms for at least one course each semester to the RTP file in Faculty Personnel. The Supplementary Information Forms are submitted to the RTP file by the beginning of the spring semester. The evaluation by the department and school must be completed prior to re appointment (or by April 7, whichever is earlier).
3. The review procedures, including criteria, are those used for tenure track faculty, except that evaluation shall determine only that the non-tenure track faculty member meets or does not meet the criteria for possible re- appointment.
4. If a non-tenure track faculty member is appointed to a tenure track probationary position, recommendations regarding credit for one or two years toward consideration for tenure are based on a review of the RTP file by the appropriate departmental committee, department chair, and dean.
5. Every effort shall be made by the department or school to give timely notice to non-tenure track faculty of re-appointment where this is appropriate.
Membership in General Faculty
Full-time lecturers are members of the General Faculty, as outlined in the section on the Constitution of the faculty. Full time lecturer means a faculty member who has a full time appointment for a full academic year not just for one semester.
Perceived Teaching Effectiveness
Full-time lecturers are expected to follow the Perceived Teaching Effectiveness procedures for regular full-time faculty.
See the Unit Three Contract.
Service in the Status of Lecturer which may Count Toward Tenure
See the Unit Three Contract.
Librarians are now subject to the same academic rank structure, salary schedule, and review process as members of the instructional faculty. The one exception is that the University RTP Committee does not review librarians' files unless there is a conflict in ranking between the University Library RTP Committee and the University Librarian.
The University Library RTP Document (PM 87-06, dated 4/8/87) follows:
This policy is intended to define the nature of the University Library Committee on Re appointment, Tenure, and Promotion and to be consistent with the personnel policies for teaching faculty as defined in the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for Unit 3 faculty and the Faculty Handbook. It contains only those provisions necessary to deal with the unique characteristics of the University Library faculty.
I. The University Library Committee on Re appointment, Tenure, and Promotion (hereinafter referred to as the Committee):
A. The Committee is equivalent to a school RTP committee, and there is no other level of peer review committee.
1. The Committee shall consist of three tenured full-time University Library faculty in Unit Three (excluding those whose responsibility in a given annual RTP cycle includes writing RTP recommendations to be considered by the Committee). No person shall serve on the Committee during the year in which she/he is to be reviewed by the Committee. In promotion considerations, committee members must have a higher rank than those being considered for promotion.
2. The Committee shall be elected by the University Library faculty (Unit Three) holding regular full-time appointments (including joint appointees) at the beginning of fall semester. In the event sufficient qualified
members of the University Library faculty are not available, all those eligible may serve, and if there are not enough eligible members to constitute a full committee, tenured full-time faculty from outside the University Library shall be elected to make a committee of sufficient size. The University Librarian shall consult with each eligible member of the University Library faculty to determine her/his willingness to serve. The election shall be conducted by secret ballot through the Office of the University Librarian.
3. A quorum shall consist of three members of the Committee. If any member is unable to participate because of illness or other serious reason, a replacement shall be chosen in accordance with item 2 above.
4. At its first meeting in the fall semester, the Committee shall elect its Chairperson and inform the University Librarian of its choice.
II. Procedures for Re-appointment, Tenure, and Promotion
A. A list of faculty members who are eligible for consideration for re appointment, tenure, or promotion will be provided by the Dean of Faculty Affairs to the University Librarian, who will notify eligible faculty, heads of appropriate units, and the Committee.
B. Each faculty member who has completed the period of pre-tenure service, who has reached the top salary step of her/his rank, and who possesses the terminal degree must be considered each year for promotion, except that a library faculty member may withdraw from consideration.
C. The University Librarian and the head of the faculty member's unit shall prepare written evaluations. In separate meetings with the University Librarian and the unit head, the faculty member shall be provided a copy of the evaluation, and the evaluation shall be discussed. The faculty member shall sign the original copy of the evaluation acknowledging that a Copy of the evaluation shall be placed in the faculty member's personnel file. In the event this procedure is logistically impractical, a note on the evaluation shall so indicate. If the faculty member refuses to sign the evaluation, the evaluator will certify that a Copy was given to the faculty member and discussed with him/her.
D. The Committee will review the official Personnel file of each faculty member being considered for re appointment, tenure, or promotion, including the cumulative annual Supplementary Information Forms filed by the faculty member and other relevant materials. The Committee will evaluate each faculty member in the light of the criteria set forth below and will prepare a written report of its evaluation and recommendations, which will be forwarded to the personnel file.
E. The Committee shall submit to the Dean of Faculty Affairs its recommendations for promotion in a listing by priority order.
F. In the event of disagreement between the Committee and the University Librarian, the Committee will request evaluation of the faculty member by the University RTP Committee with a Copy of the request to the concerned faculty member, who may choose to withdraw from the promotion process. Disagreement is defined as a difference in opinion about whether the faculty member should be retained, granted or not granted tenure, or promoted or not promoted.
I. Criteria for Evaluation
The criteria for evaluation are: successful performance of professional assignment; scholarship, creative activity, or professional growth; and effective functioning in the institution and in the community. The three criteria are interrelated, but individuals achieve distinction in various ways and degrees; therefore, circumstances may justify placing greater weight on a candidate's outstanding achievements in one or another area. However, since providing excellence in access and instruction is the primary function of the University Library, successful performance of professional assignment shall be the most important criterion for promotion.
II. Degree Requirements
A master's degree in Library Science is normally required of all library faculty at California State University, Dominguez Hills for re appointment, tenure, and promotion and is the terminal degree.
III. Professional Performance Illustrations
The following list of particulars is illustrative of professional achievement but is not exhaustive. Not every illustration must be used; illustrations may be adapted to fit the needs of individual departments or units within the University Library, and other evidence may be added. It is essential that the evidence be relevant to the University Library, the University, the CSU System, and/or the profession.
Although the criteria for evaluation of teaching faculty may be used for reference, the criteria for evaluating librarians must be especially tailored to meet the characteristics of the library profession; the requirements, organization and mission of the campus library; and the qualities and responsibilities appropriate for academic librarians. Both the professional environment and work of librarians are different from those of teaching faculty because of the special nature of a library, which is a cooperative and sequential enterprise involving interdependent departments and interrelated functions. In addition, the work of librarians requires the application and continued acquisition of knowledges [sic] and abilities unique to the profession of librarianship. The factors used in the assessment of librarians for professional competence and advancement must capture these unique professional/academic elements and responsibilities. (FSA 78-64, Personnel Plan for Librarians, p. 12).
A. Evidence of professional performance. Such evidence as the following will be considered:
Ability to work independently.
Application of special knowledge or current developments.
Recommendations of solutions to problems and ability to carry them out.
Planning or instituting improved procedures or services.
Development of innovative approaches.
Coordination of activities with other organizational units.
Ability to accomplish work with and through others.
Judgment and maturity in human relations.
Ability to communicate clearly, openly, and effectively.
Ability to assess and evaluate the literature of a particular discipline to develop successfully a collection geared to the needs of California State University, Dominguez Hills.
Development or improvement of tools for making the University Library facilities more accessible to students and faculty.
Ability to fulfill organizational goals.
Teaching performance as outlined in the Faculty Handbook (for faculty involved in teaching courses offered by the University Library).
Ability to supervise others.
Ability to develop and implement successfully training and career development plans for colleagues and staff.
Ability to resolve conflicts.
Ability to plan and organize work, meet deadlines, follow regulations, and suggest improvements.
Ability to make decisions, be objective, and acquire basic facts upon which to base and implement decisions effectively.
Participation in the development of building plans and specifications, and projection of program requirements for organization, staffing, budgeting, and reporting purposes.
B. Evidence of scholarship, creative activity, or professional growth.
Such evidence as the following will be considered:
Significant research and innovation resulting in publications and reports or, if unpublished, clearly resulting in benefit to the operations or stature of the University Library.
Publications which may not be research-related.
Active participation through papers, panels, symposia, etc., in meetings and conferences of professional organizations.
Significant activity in the leadership of professional organizations, such as holding office, committee membership, etc.
Major editorial responsibilities for publications which have local, state, or national distribution and which shall serve informational or bibliographical needs.
Effective sharing of research findings and innovations, consulting experience, and related activities with colleagues and students.
Receiving significant awards, commissions, prizes, honors, fellowships, or grants.
Preparing, writing, and submitting grant proposals.
Planning and giving workshops.
Effective sharing of knowledge acquired by attending professional meetings and workshops , investigating approaches used by other institutions, and conducting literature searches.
Training in such related areas as computer technology, administration, human relations, and foreign languages.
Attainment of additional knowledge and expertise through course work, degrees, specialized training, travel, or other means.
C. Evidence of effective functioning in the institution and in the community.
Such evidence as the following will be considered:
Effective participation and contribution as a member of departmental, interdisciplinary, school, University, and system wide committees.
Representation of the University in community groups or agencies (other than those of a purely social nature) through such activities as speeches, consultantships, and committee memberships.
Participation in student activities as sponsor or advisor.
Teaching of courses offered outside the University Library.
This portion of the Handbook is currently under review because of significant modification of the classification structure of the Student Affairs Area and the inclusion of Student Service Professional in the Unit 3 Contract.
Policy and Procedures
(Reference: PM 81-07, April 29, 1981)
The Academic Senate recommended a policy of evaluation of tenured faculty, which became effective on September 1, 1981.
The purpose of the evaluation is twofold: to improve instructional performance and to assist faculty in their teaching careers. The process, as herein delineated, shall not be used in a punitive way, nor shall it in any way jeopardize academic freedom or tenure.
The following procedures shall be used to evaluate the instructional performance of all tenured faculty at intervals not to exceed five years. Exempt are faculty members scheduled for promotion review during the current academic year who have not withdrawn themselves from consideration for promotion.
The initial and fundamental judgment on the quality of instructional performance shall be the responsibility of the department, to be discharged by a departmental evaluation committee. Each department shall develop written standards and criteria based on principles consistent with this policy. The standards applied shall be as specific to the discipline as possible.
1. The faculty member shall submit information relative to his/her instructional performance, the summary of the last evaluation of this type, if any, and shall ensure that the currently required PTE forms be made available to the departmental evaluation committee. The information submitted and the PTE forms shall cover the period since the last evaluation or promotion review.
2. The department shall elect a committee consisting of at least three members: the department chair, at least two tenured members of the department (who may include the department chair), and whomever else the department may elect to include. The committee shall review the evaluation material and produce a written evaluation of the faculty member, using department criteria and standards. Copies of the written evaluation shall be sent to the faculty member and the school dean. A brief summary of the evaluation, prepared by the committee chair, shall be placed in the faculty member's personnel file.
3. A meeting between the department chair and the faculty member shall be held to discuss the results of the evaluation. If areas for improvement
are identified, the faculty member shall be advised of avenues for assistance available within the department or campus. This conference will be informal and suggestions made are not mandatory.
The Nature of the Evaluation
The evaluation shall measure faculty members against high standards of instructional performance, providing a detailed account of how the faculty member satisfies the standards. The result should be sufficient to provide concrete suggestions for professional development.
The evaluation shall not rank nor be used to rank faculty members relative to each other or yield direct interpersonal comparisons. Neither shall it result in any direct interpersonal comparisons. Neither shall it result in any direct judgment that the faculty member's performance is satisfactory or unsatisfactory. The evaluation is not a personnel review and is not to be thought of as one.
The Content of the Evaluation
"Instructional performance" shall be taken to mean teaching performance primarily, but not exclusively. The University recognizes that the process of education involves faculty participation in activities intended to improve
teaching methods, course content and currency in the field, and in other activities which can be demonstrated to be directly supportive of instructional performance. In developing department standards and criteria, these principles will be taken into consideration.
Use of Evaluation
The faculty member may use or permit use of the evaluation document to support applications for grants, sabbatical leaves, professional development assistance, and academic honors.
The Role of School Deans in the Evaluation of Tenured Faculty
(Reference: PM 81-08, 9/10/81; See also article 15 of the Unit Three Contract, which expands the role of School Deans--beyond that noted below.)
In order to implement the above policy successfully, and in the spirit with which the policy was developed and approved, a spirit of support for the growth and development of people, it is appropriate to define the administrative responsibilities of those Deans who will be involved in the evaluation of tenured faculty--essentially the Deans of Schools and other comparable units.
The Deans are to be responsible for the following procedures:
1. Annually, in September, publish and inform those faculty who are eligible for review during the coming academic year. Establish and maintain a relatively even five-year cycle for the evaluation of tenured faculty.
2. Review annually or as appropriate and approve the statement of written standards and criteria developed by each department to be used in the evaluation process.6 Special attention should be given to the consistency of these standards and criteria with the University policy on evaluation of tenured faculty and other existing policies.
3. Establish a cycle for the election of the committees for review at the departmental level and maintain a list of committee members. If the committee is to review the RTP files, a memo listing the members is to be sent to Faculty Personnel.
4. Establish a process to be followed after the consultative meeting between the department chair and the faculty member being evaluated. This process will include the receipt of a report from the department chair of the results of that meeting. This may be followed by a meeting between the faculty member being evaluated, the School Dean, and the Department Chair, to address whatever practical plans might be appropriate to assist the faculty member when this assistance is wise or desired.
Goals of the PTE Process
The PTE process must serve both the purposes of helping faculty improve their teaching and the purpose of helping RTP evaluators assess teaching performance. Accordingly, the capacities of the PTE system should be exploited as fully as possible to best serve both purposes.
1. Policy for Use in RTP Evaluations
Full-time faculty members at all ranks are to submit student evaluations for one course per semester (two courses per year) in accordance with the following procedures which were developed by the Academic Senate and approved by the President on November 17, 1975. Compliance with this requirement is mandatory; the required student evaluations must be in the faculty professional personnel file for the individual to be considered for a subsequent appointment, re-appointment, tenure, or promotion.
Faculty committees engaged in future study and research concerning PTE may, upon petitioning the Academic Senate, have access to all PTE data EXCEPT instructor's name, course name, and course number. Information which identifies the instructor of the course will be released only with the written consent of the instructor.
The student PTE responses to a course are not to be reviewed by the Instructor until after the PTE packages are returned to the faculty from Faculty Affairs which will be after grades have been issued.
PTEs are intended to measure student perception of teaching effectiveness, but cannot fully evaluate either scholarly currency of course content or appropriateness of the level of course material. Moreover, faculty opinion is divided over how highly PTE scores are correlated to actual teaching effectiveness, and this division of opinion is reflected in many RTP committees at CSUDH. There is value in explicitly recognizing this division, but no single committee can definitively settle this question. Accordingly,
(a) PTE printouts are to be used with due attention to the limitations of this kind of statistical evidence:
Trends over time are more significant than single, exceptional performances, whether good or bad;
Small differences between scores for one faculty member, or between one faculty member and another, have little meaning;
The number of students sampled is related to the statistical significance of the results;
Since comparisons must be made between faculty members, evaluators at all levels need to generate for themselves from current files a rough idea of what high, average, and low scores are.
(b) Evidence in the RTP file of other aspects of teaching besides PTE forms is important in evaluating teaching effectiveness:
Instructional activities not measured by the PTE process, such as on-campus colloquia, curriculum development, retraining, preparing reusable course materials, participation in instructional innovation;
Supplementary Information Forms (SIFs): they provide a context in which to evaluate the quality of proposed teaching strategies, as well as evidence of the success of such strategies; and they also document attempts to respond to problems previously noted;
Scholarly and professional activities, such as research, publication, attendance at professional meetings, etc.
(c) PTE printouts and Narrative Student Evaluations are to be viewed in the context of the other types of evidence available in the RTP file.
Teaching effectiveness may vary in different situations, so attention must be paid to the types of classes taught (upper-or lower-division, elective or required, etc.), types of students (majors, minors), the need to experiment, the place of a particular class in teacher's total schedule;
Narrative evaluations can indicate the evidence on which students themselves feel that they based their ratings;
Course materials are to be evaluated at the departmental level, for evidence of appropriateness of level and coverage and/or scholarly currency;
The types of evidence listed in (b) above:
Instructional activities not measured by the PTE process; Supplementary Information Forms, especially the self-evaluation;
Scholarly and professional activities, peer evaluations, especially from the departmental level.
l. A. Full-time Faculty (also includes one year lecturers and academic-administrators with an assigned department)
Each full-time instructor must administer PTE forms to one class per academic semester for automatic inclusion in the RTP file. However, these forms will be administered to every additional class, though not included in the file unless submitted by the instructor.
It is assumed that the RTP Committees will prefer to see a sampling of course evaluations which represent the instructor's various teaching areas. Therefore, whenever possible, the faculty member should choose to evaluate a different course each semester of the academic year. If the full-time faculty member's teaching assignment permits, the two courses selected should differ from each-other in at least one of the following categories:
a. Course level (lower division, upper division, graduate)
b. Method of instruction (lecture, discussion, lab, seminar)
c. Course fulfilling a requirement for the majority of students in the class (general education, departmental, minor, elective)
d. Other categories established by the department and approved by the School RTP Committee.
e. Faculty members with multiple teaching assignments shall submit a balanced sample of PTE forms from all such assignments. (Added per PM 80-06, 3/3/80)
The full-time faculty are required to select their courses for automatic inclusion in their RTP files by the beginning of the third week of each semester. The school office is then responsible for submitting the forms to Faculty Affairs by the end of the fourth week. No changes will be made in PTE packages after the Computer Center has run the op scan sheets.
1.B .Part-time Faculty (includes those hired full-time for one semester)
Part-time instructors will submit the PTE forms for all of their classes. PTE forms for part-time faculty are automatically ordered by the school office.
2. Policy for Use in Improving Teaching
Each faculty member will administer PTE evaluations in every class taught. Though for full-time faculty only one class per semester is required for the RTP file, faculty members should get student feedback for every class.
The University RTP Committee each spring, in consultation with the Dean of Faculty Affairs, will distribute a "Guide for individual faculty members in evaluating their own PTE scores" giving a rough idea of what the previous year's PTE ranges were.
The Senate's volunteer RTP file counselors are encouraged to help faculty use the materials collected in their RTP files to improve their teaching.
New faculty should meet each year, before the RTP cycles begin, with the Chair of the University RTP Committee and the Dean of Faculty Affairs for an explanation of the RTP process, including PTE, and suggestions for using the PTE process in self-assessment.
Faculty are encouraged to use the optional questions on the PTE op scan questionnaires to get student responses to other aspects of courses than those required. A list of such optional questions recently used by faculty should be prepared annually by Faculty Affairs and distributed at PTE time to the whole faculty.
PTE forms will be distributed to faculty members, through the office of the School Deans, during the thirteenth week of each semester.
3. Each student, at the time PTE forms are filled out, is to be given his/her own copy of the instructions describing what the purpose and procedures are.
Individual faculty members are encouraged to discuss the nature of the PTE process, and what Re appointment, Promotion, and Tenure are, with their classes (at a time other than when the forms are actually being filled out).
Individual faculty members are encouraged to discuss with classes things they have learned from reading their own printouts and narrative evaluations.
4. In the PTE envelope are included: sufficient copies of instructions for students as indicated in #3 above; a pink sheet which the faculty member may use at his/her discretion, to describe unusual/extraordinary circumstances regarding the class ( i.e., textbook not available, room changes, etc.) and which will eventually be placed in the RTP file with the printout for each class that is to be automatically included; a sample op scan sheet; and an inner envelope which contains the blank PTE forms and which has been sealed by Faculty Affairs before the faculty member receives the package.
5. The proper pre-printed op scan sheets must be used or the data cannot be correctly identified. The sample op scan sheet should be checked before use; if not coded for the course being evaluated, the op scans should NOT be used by changing the course numbers on the formCthe computer does not read handwritten changes. Do not fold, staple, or mutilate op scan sheets. Only use number one or two pencils. No printouts will be run if the op scans are not right.
6. During a scheduled class hour or exam hour between (and including) the thirteenth week of class and the day of the final exam, somebody other than the faculty member (a student in the class, or a colleague or staff member, chosen by the faculty member) takes the envelope and breaks the seal, and distributes the forms. This person then collects the completed forms, seals the PTE envelope, and delivers the package to the library. To assure the students the confidentiality of their responses, it is mandatory that it be somebody other than the course instructor who breaks the seal, distributes, collects and delivers the forms. The envelope will then be sealed with the adhesive label that is enclosed, and:
a. The label is to be signed by the faculty member and the questionnaire administrator. If the questionnaire administrator is not a student, then a participating student should also sign the label. The signature indicates proper confidentiality has been maintained for the students' responses. Should the label be misplaced, seal the envelope and sign across the flap closure.
b. The forms are to be taken to the Circulation Desk in the Library immediately following class, and in no instance later than the last day of final exams. In an emergency, the package may be placed in the outside book slot on either side of the Library circulation lobby.
7. After final course grades have been issued and printouts are prepared, the resulting PTE material is handled as follows:
a. Full-time faculty:
1) For the course ordered for automatic inclusion in the RTP file, a printout and the op scan-narratives are kept in Faculty Personnel for filing. A copy of the printout goes to the School Dean to share with the Department Chair for their review (in accordance with a Trustee resolution that the department chairs review teaching performance of the faculty in their department). A copy of the printout is returned in the PTE package for the faculty member's personal file.
2) For courses not to be submitted to the RTP file, just two printouts are prepared and the faculty member will receive both copies plus the op scan-narratives. If desired, one copy may be returned to Faculty Personnel for placement in the RTP file; however, this printout will not substitute for the required automatically-included form.
b. Part-time faculty:
Part-time faculty receive a copy of the printout. Another copy of the printout and the op scan-narrative forms are sent to the School Dean to share with the Department Chair.
8. Reviewing the contents of a PTE package prior to submission to Faculty Affairs and/or tampering with PTE forms is grounds for disciplinary action.
1: This is intended to mean, but is not limited to, RTP committees, Leaves and Honors committees, and appointment committees.)
2: In rare instances a person may be appointed whose background is such that even the usual terminal degree is not required. These appointees must also meet the criteria outlined in this section.)
3: As this is particularly important in the assessment os scholarly, research, or creative activity. PM 87-05 (3/30/87)
4: Faculty members at all ranks are to submit student evaluations for one course per semester (two courses per year) in accordance with procedures developed by the Academic Senate and approved by the President (dated November 13, 1975). Compliance with this requirement is mandatory; the required student evaluations must be in the Faculty Professional Personnel File for thbe individual to be considered for re-appointment, tenure, or promotion (PM 77-30 dated 9/13/77). (See sections "Perceived Teaching Effectiveneess Procedures" and "Student's Rights and Responsibilities in Relation to PTE.")
5: Faculty members at all ranks are to submit student evaluations for one course per semester (two courses per year) in accordance with procedures developed by the Academic Senate and approved by the President (dated 11/17/79). Compliance with this requirement is mandatory; the required student evaluations must be in the Faculty Professional Personnel File for thbe individual to be considered for re-appointment, tenure, or promotion (PM 77-30 dated 9/13/77). (See sections "Perceived Teaching Effectiveneess Procedures" and "Student's Rights and Responsibilities in Relation to PTE.")
6: Departmental statement of written standards and criteria should be available in the offices of the School Dean, in each departmental office, and in Faculty Affairs.)
Go to next section