August 1, 2012
This memorandum provides information on two forms of periodic evaluation for probationary faculty: The Mini review (for probationary faculty) and the Professional Development Plan (appropriate for some first-year probationary faculty).
Probationary faculty must be evaluated each year during the probationary period. Probationary faculty who are not being reviewed for reappointment, tenure, and/or promotion normally undergo a Mini review.
Some probationary faculty in their first year of appointment will prepare a Professional Development Plan (PDP) in lieu of the Mini review. That decision is made by the Department Chair and the Dean in consultation with the faculty member. Only new probationary faculty members with no (0) years of service credit are eligible for a Professional Development Plan.
The purpose of periodic evaluation is to provide assessment and feedback to probationary faculty members on their activities under the categories of instruction and instructionally-related activities; research, scholarly and creative activities; and service. Unlike the RTP review for reappointment, tenure, and promotion, the Mini review does not include a recommendation for any personnel action.
A list of candidates scheduled for Mini review is provided to each College Office. The College Office distributes copies to the Department Chairs, who are to provide copies to Department Peer Committees once they are elected.
Candidates undergoing Mini review or preparing a Professional Development Plan are encouraged to attend a Mini review/PDP workshop. Both workshops will cover the same content.
Mini reviews of probationary faculty are to be conducted by a Department Peer Review Committee and the College Dean. The Department Chair may also write a review if he/she does not participate as a member of the Peer Review Committee. The Department Peer Review Committee will use the standard Periodic Review Form which is available on the Faculty Affairs website.
The elected Department Peer Review Committee must consist of tenured faculty. A department may decide to designate its RTP Committee to be the Peer Review Committee for these Mini reviews or it may elect a separate committee. If the Department Chair serves on the Department Peer Committee, the Chair may not write a separate evaluation. There is no committee review at the College level.
The candidate's activities are to be evaluated under the categories of:
The candidate must submit materials covering the period since their most recent review. Fall 2012 new probationary faculty should submit materials from the date of appointment. If service credit was given at the time of appointment, candidates should also include materials for the credited years. The following materials must be submitted to the Department Peer Review Committee by February 7, 2013:
Section 15.2 of the Collective Bargaining Agreement allows persons other than the candidate to provide information concerning the candidate. To provide this opportunity to contribute information, an "open period" has been established from December 3, 2012 through February 7, 2013. Departments must post in the Department Office the list of the candidates who are eligible for consideration. Each posted list must contain the following statement:
Faculty, students, academic-administrators and the President may contribute information to the evaluation of a faculty unit employee. Information submitted by the faculty unit employee and academic administrators may include statements and opinions about qualifications and work of the candidate by other persons identified by name. Letters or memoranda which contain statements of opinion or allegations of fact by unnamed persons cannot be accepted. All information must be submitted in written form to the Peer Review Committee with a copy to the candidate, by February 7, 2013.
The candidate may respond to or rebut information provided during the open period. However, since the periodic review is a part of the Personnel Action File, requests for removal of information on the ground of inaccuracy – and only on that ground – may be made under the terms of Article 11.13 of the Collective Bargaining Agreement.
On the basis of information provided by the candidate and the material submitted during the open period, the Peer Review Committee evaluates the activities and achievements of the candidate since their most recent review or, for new faculty, since their appointment. While this may include service at another institution for which probationary credit was granted, particular attention should be paid to the candidate's record at CSULB.
Evaluators should use the information submitted by the candidates to provide feedback to the candidates concerning their strengths and weaknesses and the quality of their achievements so that the candidates will have on-going guidance in meeting the standards for tenure at the end of the probationary period. Review of instruction should include an analysis of student evaluation data; in addition, peer evaluation of teaching is encouraged.
Following each level of review (Department, Department Chair, and Dean), the candidate will be asked to read the evaluation at that level and to sign the evaluation form before it is forwarded to the next level. This signature acknowledges only that the evaluation has been read, not that the candidate agrees with it. The candidate may submit a written response/rebuttal to be forwarded with the review within ten (10) calendar days of the receipt of the review. Reviews should therefore be completed, if possible, at least ten days before they are due at the next level.
Special rules apply to the formation of RTP committees for faculty members on joint appointments. See “UNIVERSITY JOINT APPOINTMENTS FOR FACULTY PERSONNEL POLICY AND PROCEDURES” (PS 94-11) on the Academic Senate website.
Following completion of reviews by the Department, Department Chair (if provided), and the Dean, the College office forwards the following materials to the Office of Faculty Affairs:
These materials will be placed in the candidate's Personnel Action File in the Office of Academic Affairs. Supplemental materials submitted by the candidate, other than the items listed above, are to be returned to the candidate by the Chair of the Department Peer Review Committee and/or the Dean upon completion of the review.
The Professional Development Plan is an alternative that replaces the first-year Mini review for new probationary faculty with no (0) years of service credit. The Department Chair and the Dean, in consultation with the faculty member, determine whether to require the Mini review or the PDP.
The Professional Development Plan is an articulation of the new probationary faculty member’s professional goals, areas of interest, and accomplishments that he/she expects to achieve in each of the three areas of evaluation—instruction and instructionally-related activities; research, scholarly and creative activities; and service—in order to meet the university, college, and department expectations/requirements for Reappointment, Tenure, and Promotion. As such, the PDP is three short narratives (approximately 500 words per area), one for each area of evaluation.
In no way is the Professional Development Plan meant to serve as a contract. The achievement of all stated goals does not guarantee tenure; nor does the failure to achieve these goals mean that tenure will not be granted.
For additional information, see the Professional Development Plan FAQ available on the Faculty Affairs website.
The timeline for writing, consultation, revision, and forwarding of the signed PDP (including teaching evaluation summaries) to Faculty Affairs is outlined below. The same obligation to meet timelines applies to both the PDP and the Mini review, although the specific timelines and procedures differ. No open period is required for faculty members preparing a PDP.
|Candidate meets with the Department Chair to review the RTP process/policy, discuss expectations, and PDP requirements.|
|11/21/2012||Candidate submits draft of PDP to the Department Chair.|
|12/12/2012||Department Chair provides candidate with comments and/or recommendations for revisions..|
|2/13/2013||Candidate submits revised PDP (if necessary) to Department Chair for signature.|
|2/13-3/6/2013||Candidate meets with Department Chair to discuss the PDP and progress to date, including fall semester student evaluations of teaching.|
|3/6/2013||Department Chair forwards PDP to the Dean.|
|3/27/2013||Dean provides candidate with comments and/or recommendations for revisions.|
Faculty member submits revised PDP (if necessary) to the Dean for signature.
|5/15/2013||Dean forwards signed, final PDP to the candidate, Department Chair, Department Peer Committee members, and Faculty Affairs.|