California State University, Long Beach
Policy Statement
96-12
July 12, 1996
Obsolete Policy
POLICY ON RETENTION, TENURE, AND PROMOTION
This policy was recommended by the Academic Senate on May 2, 1996
and approved by the President on June 14, 1996.
I. PREAMBLE
California State University, Long Beach is committed to providing
an instructional program of high quality for all of its students.
A strong faculty, dedicated to excellence, who continue to grow
professionally throughout their careers is necessary to fulfill
that commitment. The purpose of this document is to encourage the
faculty to develop a culture that values all aspects of faculty
involvement in the university and its mission. The University's
faculty personnel policies should facilitate the individual's continuing
professional development, as well as absolute levels of achievement.
The University Retention, Tenure, and Promotion (RTP) policy is
designed to articulate the main professional standards which all
faculty are expected to meet, as well as the manner by which their
work should be evaluated. Such a process depends very heavily upon
the evaluation work of professional peers. College and Department1
RTP Documents are to be used as guidelines, by faculty and their
mentors, in assessing progress through the stages of the RTP process.
They are also to be used by RTP committees in evaluating candidates.
Consequently these documents must clearly and completely define
the standards by which RTP candidates will be judged. The documents
shall specify the minimum level of performance which is expected
for a positive recommendation at each step of the RTP process. Colleagues
have the primary responsibility for evaluating the work of faculty
and for making the expected standards clear to those being evaluated
and consistent with the mission of the University.
The University seeks to promote continued professional growth. Therefore,
the process of evaluation at all levels of review should take into
consideration the pursuit of new interests and the acquisition of
new skills by the individual faculty member.
II. RESPONSIBILITIES
A. The Candidate has the primary responsibility for collecting and
presenting the evidence of her/his accomplishments to those charged
with the responsibility of reviewing and evaluating the faculty
member. However, candidates should make every effort to seek advice
and guidance on the RTP process so that they understand how criteria
and standards are applied. Regular discussions with department chairs
and experienced colleagues are necessary if candidates are to understand
the process and participate in it effectively.
B. The Department is responsible for defining in writing its mission
and goals as they relate to faculty contributions so that candidates
understand what is expected of them as members of that faculty.
Within the context of University and college policies, departments
must determine and articulate the criteria and standards which they
wish to have applied in the evaluation of candidates. They should
also be prepared to advise and support candidates in their efforts
to develop as teachers, scholars, artists, and members of the University
community. The Department is responsible for maintaining the open
file as specified in the Memorandum of Understanding, and for forwarding
its contents to the Department Committee, and a copy of its contents
to the candidate.
_________________
1 Throughout this document, the designation 'department' applies
also to 'program' or an equivalent unit in a noninstructional area
whose employees are considered to be faculty under the provisions
of the current Memorandum of Understanding. Thus, unit heads and
directors are the equivalent of department chairs and deans.
1. The Department RTP Documents. At a minimum, Department Documents
shall specify in writing the standards to be applied in evaluating
Scholarly and Creative Activities in the discipline, consistent
with University criteria as described in Section III.A below and
with the mission of the department. Department documents shall clearly
specify what activities are considered appropriate as "scholarly
and creative activities" for the discipline. In the other areas,
departments may rely on RTP documents at the University and college
levels. For each type of activity, the performance expected in order
to obtain a positive recommendation in this category at each step
of the RTP process should be specified. The Department RTP Documents
are subject to ratification by a majority of tenured and probationary
department faculty members voting and to approval by the College
Faculty Council and College Dean. Department RTP Documents shall
be subject to regular review by the department faculty in order
to keep them consistent with the department's mission and the current
state of the discipline.
2. The Department Chair has a number of responsibilities, particularly
with regard to probationary faculty, that require her/him to be
the primary source of information regarding department procedures
and deadlines. But the Chair must also provide guidance to candidates
over time as to whether their performance is consistent with department
expectations. The Chair must initiate collegial discussions with
candidates about their overall career development and provide professional
mentoring, as appropriate. Chairs have the responsibility for communicating
department, college, and university policies to candidates. Chairs
also have the option of writing an independent evaluation of RTP
candidates under the provisions of our current Memorandum of Understanding.
They should consult this document for the appropriate procedures
to be followed.
3. The Department RTP Committee
a. The Department RTP Committee has the primary responsibility for
evaluating the work of the candidates in all areas and makes the
initial recommendation to the University regarding tenure and promotion.
Committee members, therefore, have the very serious responsibility
of applying the criteria and standards of the department to the
performance of their colleagues in the RTP process. Department Committees
are also the primary means by which the professional standards and
practices of individual academic disciplines are communicated to
other levels of review outside of the department.
b. Because the evaluation of teaching effectiveness by professional
peers is so significant in this process, it is important that departments
develop and utilize systematic means for acquiring evidence of candidates'
teaching accomplishments. For example, if in-class visitations are
to support peer evaluation, such visitations should be done regularly
and consistently for all candidates in the department.
c. Although the candidate has the basic responsibility for providing
the evidence of her/his performance to be evaluated, the Department
Committee may request additional information from the candidate
to assist in its evaluation. Department Committees may also seek
the advice of colleagues at other universities if members do not
feel qualified to evaluate the professional work of candidates or
if candidates believe that such consultation would be desirable.
Such an action must be taken in consultation with the candidate,
consistent with the University Procedure for External Evaluators.
C. The College
1. College RTP Documents shall specify in writing the standards
to be applied in evaluating candidates in all areas, consistent
with University criteria as described in Section III.A. below and
with the mission of the college. College RTP Documents are subject
to ratification by a majority of tenured and probationary college
faculty members voting and to approval by the Dean and the Vice
President for Academic Affairs.
2. The College RTP Committee reviews the materials submitted by
the candidate and, considering the Department recommendations and
applying the standards of the College RTP Document to the candidate's
file, forwards its own independent recommendation via the College
Dean to the Vice President for Academic Affairs. It is the committee's
responsibility to apply the criteria and standards of the College
RTP Document to all department recommendations and to ensure consistency
of standards across the college as a whole. College Committees may
also seek the advice of external evaluators, as described in Section
II.B.3.b., above.
3. The Dean of the College performs an evaluative role parallel
to that of the College Committee and forwards an independent recommendation
to the Vice President for Academic Affairs. The Dean may also seek
the advice of external evaluators, as described in Section II.B.,3.b.,
above. The Dean has additional responsibilities associated with
her/his leadership of the College. The Dean shall provide general
oversight of the RTP process within the College, assisting and instructing
Department Chairs in their role, and encouraging departments to
develop and clarify their expectations for faculty performance.
The Dean should also discuss the process and its requirements with
candidates early in their careers and at regular intervals thereafter.
D. The Vice President for Academic Affairs receives and reviews
all materials submitted by prior levels of review and provides general
oversight of the RTP process within the University, establishing
the annual calendar of the RTP cycle and distributing the appropriate
information to prospective candidates as well as to members of college
and department committees.
E. The President has the authority to make final decisions for the
University with respect to retention, tenure, and promotion.
III. CRITERIA AND EVALUATION
A. Criteria The criteria for evaluation for each of the three areas
of professional review (Instruction and Instructionally Related
Activities, Scholarly and Creative Activities, and Professional
Service) are divided into two distinct categories: Essential Criteria
and Enhancing Criteria. Essential Criteria describe the nature and
level of performance required of all faculty in the University.
Enhancing Criteria establish standards by which faculty, following
diverse career paths, are evaluated beyond the Essential Criteria.
Colleagues in the department and on review committees play the central
role in evaluating the quality of performance in each of these areas.
1. Instruction and Instructionally Related Activities. Instruction
and Instructionally Related Activities include teaching in the classroom
setting, advising, supervision of student research and fieldwork,
the development of curriculum, and related activities involving
students.
a. Essential Criteria: Teaching will be evaluated in terms of four
dimensions: (1) Pedagogical Approach and Methods, (2) Student Response,
(3) Ongoing Professional Development as a Teacher, and (4) Ongoing
Professional Development in the Discipline.
(1) Pedagogical Approach and Method: Instructional methods should
be appropriate to courses taught, and materials should be up-to-date
and appropriate to the topic. Reason for choices of learning goals
and instructional methods should be presented. Grading practices,
standards, and criteria should be articulated clearly. Results of
grading practices should be reasonably consistent with university
norms. Course materials should clearly convey to students the learning
goals of the course and the relationship of the course to the major
and/or to general education. Course requirements, including the
semester schedule, assignments, and grading policies should be included.
Course materials should also identify the purposes for which a course
may be meaningful to students, such as preparation for further courses,
graduate school or employment or the intrinsic interest of the material,
development of civic responsibilities and/or individual personal
growth.
(2) Student Response to Instruction: Student ratings of instruction
should be favorable, compared to department, college and university
averages. These ratings should reflect a favorable student perception
of the instructor's conveyance of knowledge, effort, availability,
organization, and attention to individual needs.
(3) Ongoing Professional Development as a Teacher: Thoughtful, deliberate
effort to produce continuous improvement in teaching effectiveness
is expected of all candidates. This pattern of change should be
described in a narrative and supported by exemplary materials. This
record may include regular and ongoing interactions with colleagues
regarding pedagogy, such as discussions of pedagogical issues, classroom
visits and consultation on course development. The record may include
involvement in programs of the CSULB Center for Faculty Development;
participation in teaching development seminars or conferences sponsored
by the department, college, University or professional organizations;
giving or receiving of formal or informal pedagogical coaching and/or
other activities which contribute to professional development of
teaching effectiveness.
(4) Ongoing Professional Development in the Discipline. All candidates
are expected to keep abreast of discipline developments through
participation in discipline conferences, reading of discipline-appropriate
materials such as journals and books, interaction with practitioners
in the field, electronic communications with colleagues and/or other
activities.
b. Enhancing Criteria: There are many ways that faculty may go beyond
the essential criteria for teaching effectiveness to enhance their
achievement; the following are illustrative, not exhaustive, of
the possibilities. Faculty may develop innovative approaches to
teaching or exemplary ways of fostering student learning in the
classroom. Faculty may also be involved outside the classroom in
such areas as academic advising, field trips, student mentoring,
collaborative research projects with students, thesis supervision,
support of student organizations and/or recruitment and retention
activities. New curriculum, instructional programs or materials
may be developed, including electronic or multimedia software or
new advising materials or programs. Conducting assessment of one's
instructional effectiveness in order to improve instruction (e.g.,
varied classroom evaluation techniques) can be a particularly appropriate
method for continuous improvement of instructional effectiveness.
Offering teaching colloquia to department colleagues or pedagogical
workshops at discipline meetings may demonstrate department or discipline
leadership regarding instructional issues.
2. Scholarly and Creative Activities.
a. Essential Criteria: Faculty are expected to remain engaged in
an ongoing program of scholarship or creative activity that demonstrates
intellectual and professional growth in the discipline over time.
All faculty are expected to produce scholarly and/or creative achievements
which contribute to the advancement, application, or pedagogy of
the discipline (or interdisciplinary studies), which are disseminated
to appropriate audiences, receiving favorable review from professional
peers prior or subsequent to dissemination.
b. Enhancing Criteria: Faculty may enhance their scholarly and creative
achievement with substantial records of peer reviewed professional
activities and products. Such activities and products may include
books, articles in professional journals, scholarly presentations,
software and electronically published documents, and artistic exhibits
and performances, especially if these receive favorable notice or
reviews from professional peers. Faculty may also enhance their
scholarly and creative achievement with editorial assignments with
recognized professional publications, including journals, newsletters,
or electronic media. Other achievements of this nature are appointments
to selection panels for grants, fellowships, contracts, awards,
and conference presentations, as are other adjudication assignments
calling for professional expertise. Applied research or professional
activity may use theory and knowledge of one or more disciplines
to address practical problems of importance to the discipline and
to society; such applied professional activity may include research
on instructional processes and outcomes. Additional activities may
be judged to enhance faculty scholarly and creative achievement
so long as these are peer reviewed, are disseminated to appropriate
professional audiences, are appropriate to the mission of the department
and college, and make significant contributions to the discipline
or to interdisciplinary studies.
3. Professional Service. Professional Service may be contributed
to the University, the community, and the discipline, but it must
directly involve the academic expertise of the faculty member.
a. Essential Criteria. All faculty are expected to participate actively
in the collegial processes of faculty governance, as well as in
appropriate professional organizations and/or activities.
b. Enhancing Criteria. Faculty may enhance their service achievements
with active involvement on committees at all levels of the University
and the University system, with emphasis upon the departmental and
school levels for assistant and associate professors. Whatever the
level of service within the University, the quality of that service
is the primary consideration. Authorship of documents, reports and
other materials pertinent to the University, college, or department
missions or procedures may comprise a service contribution. Sponsoring
student groups and participating in educational equity programs
are also service contributions.
In addition to campus governance activities, faculty members may
participate in community service to professional organizations and
in professionally-related activities (e.g., local, state, national,
and/or international levels) through such discipline-oriented activities
as committees; workshops; speeches; media interviews, articles,
and/or editorials; performances; and/or displays. Service to the
community may also include consultantships to public schools, local
government, and community service organizations. Service contributions
based on consultancies, whether paid or unpaid, shall be evaluated
on the basis of their contributions to the mission of the University
and particularly to the candidate's department or program. Meaningful
service must be clearly related to the academic expertise of the
faculty member. The Department must make clear to the candidate
what types of service, whether paid or unpaid, are consistent with
the mission of the Department and its instructional program.
B. Evaluation
1. General Principles
a. The quality of faculty performance is the most important element
to consider in evaluating individual achievement. Both essential
and enhancing criteria are evaluated in the context of the mission
of the department and the college, and of the professional interests
of the individual faculty member.
b. In order to present their achievements in the most coherent intellectual
and professional context, candidates are urged to present a written
narrative describing their work in each of the categories to be
evaluated. The narrative is intended to serve as a guide to reviewers
in understanding the faculty member's professional goals and values
as they relate to the essential and enhancing criteria and the mission
of the department , college, and University. All supporting materials
should be referenced and clearly explained.
c. The University realizes that faculty develop skills and competencies
over their careers. In each of the three review areas, candidates
are urged to identify, within the materials submitted, examples
which they believe represent their best efforts and to explain why
these may be regarded as significant contributions. Reviewers shall
give particular consideration to the quality of these best examples.
d. In evaluating the performance of faculty, the University recognizes
that each faculty member has different strengths so that successful
candidates for retention, tenure, or promotion need not have achievements
which are necessarily alike. Candidates who fulfill the requirements
for advancement may enhance their achievements in very different
areas depending upon their professional interests. Reviewers should
be aware of these variations and understand how they benefit the
University as a whole.
e. Computers and network technology provide alternative modes of
professional activity and new media for dissemination. Such contributions
must be evaluated even though the methods for evaluation are still
evolving. The following guidelines are suggested: (1) appropriate
methods of evaluation must be identified on a case by case basis;
(2) external evaluators, used in compliance with university policy,
may prove to be particularly effective for these assessments; (3)
technology-related work may be considered to be either essential
or enhancing, depending on its relation to the criteria in Section
A.; (4) the training effort involved in technology-related professional
activity needs to be credited appropriately; and (5) categorization
of such work as research or instructionally related activities may
need to be done on an individualized basis.
The candidate bears the primary responsibility for explaining the
significance of activities that employ new technology. When possible
and appropriate, the candidate should identify potential methods
of evaluation. Faculty involved in technology-related work should
consult frequently with mentors and other colleagues concerning
the significance and direction of the work. Such discussions should
be specific, involving the issues of training time, media of dissemination,
potential methods of evaluation, and the boundaries between research
and instructionally related activities.
2. Instruction and Instructionally Related Activities
a. The focus in the evaluation of teaching should be upon the overall
teaching performance of the candidate over time rather than her/his
performance in a few classes or over a brief period.
b. Instructional activities that involve supervision of students,
such as thesis or field work, should be appropriately evaluated
as part of the teaching assignment.
c. If formal, scheduled student advising is part of the candidate's
assigned workload, such advising shall be considered as part of
teaching, and the file should include appropriate documentation,
including the extent, nature, and quality of such advising activity.
3. Scholarly and Creative Activities
a. In the evaluation of scholarly and creative activities, departments
and colleges should make clear to candidates, from the outset, what
constitutes appropriate accomplishment in this area. Definitions
of appropriate scholarly and creative activity may vary somewhat
among departments and colleges, but should reflect the mission of
this University.
b. Consistent with the emphasis on professional growth and development
that underlies the evaluation process, the candidate's documentation
of scholarly and creative activities and the evaluation review of
that documentation should focus on the concept of progressive professional
development. This consideration should be the central organizing
element of the candidate's narrative.
c. In addition to the candidate's narrative essay, the documentation
of scholarly and creative activities should include all works produced
during the period of evaluation.
d. In the evaluation of publications, manuscripts, and other creative
works, quality is the primary criterion.
e. Joint authorship or participation in scholarly and creative activities
is normally valuable and creditable, but is often difficult to evaluate.
Candidates shall identify the specific extent of their participation
in jointly authored activities.
f. Consistent with the objective of obtaining the best and most
thorough evaluation possible of the candidate's scholarly and creative
achievements, external evaluations of the candidate's contributions
to his or her academic field should certainly be considered.
(1) Unsolicited evaluations in the form of published reviews of
the candidate's work (or unpublished unsolicited evaluations if
they are included in the file) may be considered. It is also appropriate
to consider the quality of the journal or other context within which
the work is published or otherwise disseminated to the scholarly
and creative community, as well as citations to the candidate's
work in other publications.
(2) The solicitation of external evaluations of a candidate's contributions
is encouraged, particularly in circumstances such as small departments
and/or interdisciplinary programs where there may be few peers who
are well enough qualified to evaluate the candidate's scholarly
and creative achievements.
4. Professional Service
a. The emphases in the evaluation of professional service shall
be on: (1) the quality and significance of the activity, as measured
by the degree to which the activity contributes to the mission of
the University; and (2) the extent and level of the candidate's
involvement.
b. Assessment of the service to both the University and the community
shall be based on the information described in the narrative, as
well as on supporting evidence which may include, but shall not
be limited to, letters of invitation, memoranda acknowledging the
quality of the contribution, printed programs, and other appropriate
documentation.
IV. RETENTION, TENURE, AND LEVELS OF APPOINTMENT AND PROMOTION
A. Retention is awarded to probationary faculty upon the completion
of a performance review. The successful candidate will have performed
satisfactorily in each area to be evaluated, although consideration
will be given to the limited opportunities new appointees have for
professional service. Probationary faculty should show evidence
of a strong commitment to teaching and instructionally related activities
and to a program of scholarly and creative activity.
B. Tenure is awarded to probationary faculty who have met the essential
criteria in instruction and instructionally related activities,
scholarly and creative activities, and professional service. In
addition, they shall have demonstrated fulfillment of some of the
'enhancing criteria,' as described in Section III.A. Tenure represents
the University's long-term commitment to a faculty member and is
only granted when there is strong evidence that the individual has
the potential to continue to make increasingly distinguished contributions
to the University and its instructional program, as well as to the
academic community.
C. Early Tenure and/or Promotion are granted only in exceptional
circumstances and for compelling reasons.
1. Early Tenure. To receive a favorable recommendation for early
tenure, a candidate must achieve a record of accomplishment which
meets the essential criteria at a superior level in all three areas
of review at an early point in time. In addition, the candidate
must present a record of significant enhancing achievements. The
length of the candidate's record must be sufficient to provide confidence
that the pattern of achievement will continue.
2. Early Promotion. To receive a favorable recommendation for early
promotion, a candidate must achieve a record of accomplishment which
meets the essential criteria at a superior level in all three areas
of review at an early point in time. In addition, the candidate
must present a record of significant enhancing achievements. The
length of the candidate's record must be sufficient to provide confidence
that the pattern of achievement will continue.
D. Assistant Professor: The appointee ordinarily shall hold the
doctorate or recognized terminal degree in the field of specialization.
The appointee should also show potential for effective teaching,
scholarly and creative activities, and professional service, as
defined in Section IV. A. above and consistent with the mission
of the department, college, and University.
E. Associate Professor: In addition to having the qualifications
of an Assistant Professor, the candidate ordinarily shall have had
successful experience in teaching and scholarly/creative activities.
Meeting essential criteria is necessary, though not sufficient,
for promotion or appointment to the rank of Associate Professor.
In addition to meeting the essential criteria, there should be evidence
of progressive professional development in the areas of instruction
and instructionally related activities, scholarly and creative activities,
and professional service, and demonstrated fulfillment of some of
the "enhancing elements" in each of these areas, as defined in Section
III, A. above.
F. Professor: In addition to having the qualifications of an Associate
Professor, there shall be substantiation of continued effectiveness
and professional growth in instruction and instructionally related
activities and evidence of relevant and effective professional service.
The candidate ordinarily shall have established a record of sustained
scholarly or creative activity, reflecting intellectual and professional
growth and demonstrating fulfillment of several of the 'enhancing
elements', as described in Section III.A.
G. Joint Appointments: All information in this document applies
to faculty appointed jointly to two or more departments. However,
it is particularly important for the involved departments to maintain
a clear set of requirements for tenure and advancement as applied
to the joint appointee. These requirements must be worked out through
a process of consultation and collaboration with the departments
and the candidate, with the approval of the dean(s) of the affected
college(s).
V. AMENDMENTS
The faculty of CSULB, voting by secret mail ballot (with pro and
con arguments attached), may amend this document. Amendments may
be proposed either by:
A. direct faculty action via petition from ten percent (10%) of
the faculty to the Chair of the Academic Senate, or
B. by action of the Academic Senate.
Proposed amendments shall be submitted to discussion at a public
hearing for the faculty called within fifteen (15) instructional
days following their receipt and shall be distributed in writing
by the Chair of the Academic Senate to the faculty at least five
(5) instructional days before the public hearing. Amendments to
this document shall become effective when they have received a favorable
vote of a majority of the faculty voting in a secret mail ballot
conducted by the Academic Senate within twenty (20) instructional
days of the public hearing and they have the concurrence of the
University President.
EFFECTIVE: Fall 1997
|