Evaluation of Tenured Faculty
EVALUATION OF TENURED FACULTY
Academic Senate Policy #F84-122
At its meeting of September 18, 1984, the Academic Senate approved the following
policy on the evaluation of tenured faculty:
The Agreement between the Board of Trustees of the California State University
and the California Faculty Association: August 16, 1983 - June 30, 1986 (Article
15.1-15.20, 15.29-15.31) mandates the periodic performance evaluation of tenured
faculty unit employees.
Evaluation of ourselves as tenured faculty is consistent with the University's
mission of educational excellence. The primary purpose of the evaluation of
tenured faculty is to benefit the faculty member through peer review. The evaluation
is the department’s responsibility. The most positive effects of the evaluation
will be obtained at the department level and accrue to the individual. The evaluation
should encourage and recognize the accomplishments of tenured faculty, and make
recommendations for correcting any deficiencies. In addition, the purpose of
the evaluation of tenured faculty is to consider the relationship of the faculty
member to new and on-going programs of the department.
All tenured faculty unit employees, including faculty on the early retirement
program, are covered by the mandate except for those tenured faculty who are
undergoing or have undergone, in the preceding five year period, a performance
review for tenure or promotion.
Frequency of Evaluation
Tenured faculty members shall be evaluated according to these procedures at
least once every five years. Because tenured faculty on leave status are continuing
faculty, the period in which a tenured faculty member is on leave is included
as part of the five year interval.
At the beginning of each five-year cycle, departments shall establish a schedule
for the evaluations which ensures that all eligible tenured faculty are evaluated
once every five years. The names of faculty to be evaluated each year will be
sent to the Faculty Affairs Office each fall semester.
All tenured faculty must be evaluated by a Peer Review Committee and the dean/director
or designee for teaching effectiveness or for effectiveness in primary assignment.
Evaluation of teaching effectiveness must include written student evaluations
in a minimum of two classes annually during the five-year period of review.
Beyond the requirement of student evaluation of teaching performance, departments
may establish their own criteria for the evaluation of tenured faculty. Optional
criteria may include, but are not limited to: curriculum development or revision;
advising; contributions to the department, school, and/or university; currency
in the field; professional achievement and growth; community service; and participation
in professional associations. (See Evaluation of Tenured Faculty Cover Sheet)
Evaluation of tenured faculty shall be conducted by a properly constituted
Peer Review Committee of the department or equivalent unit. Departments shall
specify on the Evaluation of Tenured Faculty Cover Sheet whether an HRTP
Committee was used or whether a specially constituted committee was established
for this purpose.
At the beginning of each five-year evaluation cycle, it is the responsibility
of the Peer Review Committee to inform tenured faculty eligible for evaluation
about the procedures, the departmental criteria, and any supporting materials
they are to submit to the committee. Department Peer Review Committees shall
notify all tenured faculty to be reviewed about the time frames for the evaluation
and deadlines for submission of materials. Some departments may choose to evaluate
tenured faculty during the fall semester when the workload of an HRTP committee
is lighter. In any case, tenured faculty should be notified the preceding semester
of the pending evaluation.
At the conclusion of its deliberations, the Peer Review Committee shall prepare
a written Peer Review Committee report, herein after referred to as the summary
report. The Peer Review Committee summary report shall be forwarded to the dean/director
or designee and to the tenured faculty member. Indexed materials submitted by
the faculty member shall be returned to the faculty member. The Peer Review
Committee Chair and the dean/director or designee shall meet with the tenured
faculty member being evaluated to discuss his/her strengths and weaknesses along
with suggestions, if any, for improvement.
The Evaluation of Tenured Faculty Cover Sheet, the Peer Review Committee's
summary report, the results of student evaluations of teaching effectiveness
in two classes annually, and a written statement by the dean/director or designee
(if not part of the Cover Sheet) shall be placed in the official Personnel
Action File at the conclusion of the evaluation.
Any rebuttal or statement the tenured faculty member wishes to make at any
stage in the evaluation shall also be placed in the official Personnel Action
File at the conclusion of the evaluation.
EVALUATION OF TENURED FACULTY
Department: Date of Evaluation:
Date Tenure Awarded: _______
Faculty Member: Date of Last Promotion:
Rank: Date of Most Recent Evaluation:
SECTION I: (To be completed by the Chair of the Peer Review
A. Membership of Department Review Committee: Check
appropriate box (members of the Committee must be tenured, full-time faculty).
- HRT Committee
- Promotion Committee
- Specially Constituted Committee
B. Required Criteria used by Peer Review Committee: Check
- Written Student evaluations of teaching performance in a minimum of two
classes annually during the five-year review period.
- Effectiveness in primary assignment for librarians
Departments vary greatly in their criteria for performance. Any of the following
criteria may be selected by the department and included in the evaluation: peer
review of teaching effectiveness; curriculum development or revision; advising;
contributions to the department, school, and/or university; currency in the
field; professional achievement and growth; community service; participation
in professional associations; or other selected criteria.
C. Procedures Followed:
- The faculty member chose to submit an updated vita or self-assessment as
part of the evaluation.
- The peer Review Committee examined materials supplied by the faculty member
and materials gathered y the committee, and prepared its written report.
- An index of materials submitted by the faculty member is attached. (The
actual manuscripts, creative works an other materials provided by the faculty
member have been returned to her/him.)
- The Chair of the Peer Review Committee has discussed the results of the
evaluation with the faculty member.
- The Peer Review Committee summary report has been given to the dean/director
or designee. A copy has been given to the faculty member.
Signature of Committee Chair:
Signatures of Committee Members:
SECTION II: To be completed by Dean/Director or Designee.
- I have discussed the results of the evaluation with the faculty members.
- Commendations for strengths and suggestions for improvement, if any, have
been made; and avenues of assistance have been identified.
- The procedures followed have been in conformity with San Francisco State
University’s Policy for the Evaluation of Tenured Faculty.
- The summary report has been sent to the official Personnel Action File along
with evaluations of teaching effectiveness.
- I concur with the summary report of the Peer Review Committee and have no
- I do not concur with the summary report of the Peer Review Committee and/or
wish to comment further. My separate statement is attachment.
Signature of Dean/Director or Designee Date
Signature of Faculty Member Reviewed* Date
*This signature indicates receipt of a copy only; it
does not indicate agreement or disagreement with the evaluation.
Summary Report and Student Teaching Evaluations have been filed
in the faculty member’s Personnel Action File.
Signature of Dean of Faculty Affairs Date
*** APPROVED BY PRESIDENT WOO ON OCTOBER 23, 1984 ***