Retention, Tenure, and Promotion Policy, #F11-241
Academic Senate Policy
RETENTION, TENURE, AND PROMOTION POLICY
(formerly policy #S09-241)
(n.b.: This policy incorporates revisions to sections 1.1, approved by the Academic Senate on 02Dec2008 and 03Mar2009; 1.2, approved 04Nov2009; 1.5, approved 03Feb2009; and 1.8, approved 03Feb2009; and a revision to section 1.4 to comply with the May 15, 2007 Collective Bargaining Agreement)
1.0 RETENTION, TENURE, AND PROMOTION POLICY
This Retention, Tenure and Promotion Policy is a revision of the Retention and Tenure Policy approved by the Academic Senate on May 17, 1988, and approved by the President on August 12, 1988 (S88-120); the Retention and Tenure Policy approved by the Academic Senate on March 22, 1994, and by the President on August 1, 1994 (S94-120); and the Promotions Policy approved by the Academic Senate on November 4, 2004, by the President on April 11, 2005 (F04-028), the revised policy (F06-241) approved by the Academic Senate on November 28, 2006 and by the President on February 21, 2007, and the revised policy (S09-241), approved by the Academic Senate on March 3, 2009 and by the President on June 25, 2009.
This policy complies with the following articles from the Agreement Between the Board of Trustees of the California State University and the California Faculty Association, effective beginning May 15, 2007, Articles 11, 13, 14, 15, 22.8, and 22.25. The revised policy (S09-241) was approved by the Academic Senate on March 3, 2009), and by the President on June 25, 2009.
“Tenure” means the right of a faculty member to continue at San Francisco State University subject to the conditions in the Collective Bargaining Agreement.
Advancement in rank is based on merit as demonstrated by teaching effectiveness, professional achievement and growth, and contributions to the campus and community.
1.1 COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP.
Department peer review Committee Structure
Department peer review committees shall be elected by secret ballot by probationary and tenured faculty in the department from among the tenured full-time faculty. Faculty being considered for promotion and/or tenure are ineligible to serve on department peer review committees. Faculty on leave are eligible to serve only if they are willing to serve throughout an academic year. At the request of the department, the President may agree that faculty participating in the Faculty Early Retirement Program may be eligible to serve on a department peer review committee. Department peer review committee members must have a higher rank than those faculty being considered for promotion.
Departments shall have committees that consist of at least three members. Department peer review committee members shall serve a three-year term of office and may be elected for subsequent terms. Provision shall be made to ensure continuity of membership so that in any year there will be carryover of at least one person on a three-member committee and at least two persons on a five-or-more-member committee. In the event a committee member cannot fulfill the term of office, a substitute shall be selected through the standard election procedures to fill out the remainder of the unfulfilled term.
Departments may elect one department peer review committee for retention, tenure, and promotion decisions or elect separate department peer review committees (e.g., one retention and tenure committee and one promotion committee).
When there are too few eligible faculty to serve on the department peer review committee within the department, the department shall elect members from among the tenured full time faculty in related academic disciplines.
Faculty holding joint appointments shall be reviewed by tenured faculty from each department in which the individual holds an appointment. The review may be conducted by each department separately or by one committee with representation from each department.
The department chair is ineligible to serve as a member of the committee, or to participate in department peer review committee deliberations. S/he shall make a separate and independent recommendation on each retention or tenure case under consideration.
The University Tenure and Promotions Committee
The University Tenure and Promotions Committee shall consist of five members, elected according to the following procedures. University Tenure and Promotions Committee members must be tenured Professors. The chair shall receive one course release for two semesters, and the remaining members shall receive one course release for one semester. During the spring semester, one tenured Professor from each unit (College or Library) that does not have a member continuing on the University Tenure and Promotions Committee shall be nominated according to the procedures for electing College representatives to the Academic Senate. An all-university election shall be held by the end of April to elect the members of the University Tenure and Promotions Committee from the pool of nominees. Each faculty person may vote for as many persons as there are vacant seats in this election. Those receiving the highest vote tally shall be elected to the committee. In case of a tie vote for the last seat, a run-off election between the tied candidates shall be conducted.
College deans, University and College administrators, department chairs, program directors who have responsibility for RTP review, and members of department peer review committees, members of the Academic Senate and Academic Freedom Committee are not eligible to serve.
In the event a College or the Library does not have at least two eligible tenured Professors or Librarians, the unit shall have the option of recommending its nominee to the University election from the pool of eligible tenured Professors University-wide. The College or Library shall decide upon its nominee through a unit election process.
If a vacancy occurs on the University Tenure and Promotions Committee after the University election, the person with the next highest number of votes in the University election shall be appointed.
Each member of the University Tenure and Promotions Committee serves a term of two years. Members may succeed themselves in office, with the exception that no one may serve for more than four consecutive years.
The members of the University Tenure and Promotions Committee shall elect one of their members to serve as chair. The chair's term is one year.
The University Tenure and Promotions Committee may participate in meetings having to do with general promotions policies and processes where such meetings or communication sessions do not involve discussion of individual cases.
University Tenure and Promotion Committee (UTPC) Charge
The UTPC has the following responsibilities:
- The UTPC will consider recommendations from the departmental RTP committee, from the department Chair, and from the Dean concurrent with the Provost’s review of those recommendations.
- The Committee will pay special attention to cases where there is disagreement between the Dean, the Chair and/or the departmental committee. Such cases will be carefully and completely reviewed.
- The recommendations from prior levels will be examined to be certain that procedures and criteria have been correctly followed.
- The Committee will have the authority to consider all material in the WPAF and compare it with departmental criteria.
- The Committee will be aware that departmental criteria for tenure and for promotion may differ and will pay attention to both.
- All UTPC considerations must correspond with Department criteria.
- The UTPC and the Provost will confer before making their recommendations to the President.
1.2 GENERAL PRINCIPLES FOR RETENTION, TENURE, AND PROMOTION PROCEDURES
These principles and procedures apply to all eligible faculty unit employees, who are referred to as “faculty members” in this document. In this document, the term "dean" includes the eight College deans and the University Librarian.
All eligible faculty shall be evaluated according to the criteria and procedures contained in this University policy and the Agreement. Each year, prior to commencement of the annual evaluation, eligible faculty shall be informed in writing of any special procedures developed by department peer review committees for use in retention, tenure, and/or promotion consideration. Special procedures, if any, developed by departments shall also be reviewed annually by each College dean and the Dean of Faculty Affairs and Professional Development to ensure that they are consistent with University policy and the Agreement. Departmental policies and the membership of the current year's retention, tenure, and promotions committees shall be forwarded to the Academic Senate, the University Tenure and Promotions Committee, the Dean of Faculty Affairs and Professional Development and the College dean according to the deadline on the Executive Calendar.
All committee deliberations are confidential.
Recommendations regarding retention, tenure, and promotion are confidential except that the affected faculty member, department peer review committee, department chair, dean/university librarian, and the University Tenure and Promotions Committee shall have access to the written reviews and recommendations for all levels of review.
The faculty member being reviewed is responsible for the preparation and submission of an up-to-date curriculum vitae and all materials he/she wishes to have considered prior to the date the file is closed. An index of all materials submitted shall be prepared by the faculty member and submitted with the materials. Materials for evaluation submitted by the faculty member are returned to the faculty member after the promotion decision has been made by the President and are deemed incorporated into the Personnel Action File (PAF) by reference in the index.
It is the obligation of every person involved in the evaluation process to make a diligent effort to obtain factual evidence, to verify the accuracy of data offered, and to evaluate the performance of the faculty member under consideration. Department peer review committees, department chairs, and administrators are responsible for identifying materials related to the evaluation not provided by the faculty member and for placing these materials in the Working Personnel Action File (WPAF) prior to the date the file is closed. Reviews and recommendations for the purpose of decisions relating to retention, tenure, and promotion shall be based solely on material contained in the WPAF and PAF. Faculty members shall have access to all materials to be placed in the WPAF at least five days prior to such placement.
The WPAF shall be defined as that portion of the PAF specifically generated for use in an evaluation cycle. It contains the faculty member's materials and index, student evaluations of teaching effectiveness, and all other information provided by faculty, students, academic administrators, and others who must be identified by name. When sent to the University Tenure and Promotions Committee and the Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs, it contains the following:
- RTP cover sheet
- Candidate rebuttal to dean's recommendation (if any)
- Dean's recommendation
- Candidate rebuttal to chair's recommendation (if any)
- Department chair's recommendation
- Candidate rebuttal to department peer review committee recommendation (if any)
- Department peer review committee recommendation and report
- Reports and rebuttals, if any, from all prior substantive reviews at San Francisco State of candidates applying for tenure and promotion (for promotion, only reports and rebuttals from previous promotion reviews)
- Curriculum vitae (candidates are encouraged to use the curriculum vitae format located on the Faculty Affairs and Professional Development website)
- Department/Program RTP criteria
- Candidates are encouraged to provide a self-statement of teaching effectiveness, professional achievement and growth, contributions to campus and community that provides an introduction to the candidate’s accomplishments. The goal of the self-statement is to provide an introduction of the candidate’s materials within each area for subsequent levels of review. It should provide a context for understanding the candidate’s accomplishments within each area. It is recommended that the statement for each area (effectiveness in teaching or area of primary assignment, professional achievement and growth, and contributions to campus and community) not exceed 750 words.
- An index to the supplementary materials organized according to RTP criteria
A set of supplementary materials representing the candidate’s accomplishments in teaching effectiveness or area of primary assignment, professional achievement and growth, and contributions to campus and community arranged as follows:
- evidence pertaining to educational background (if necessary)
- evidence pertaining to teaching effectiveness
- evidence pertaining to professional achievement and growth
- evidence pertaining to contributions to campus and community
It is recommended that the supplementary materials consist of no more than three 3-inch binders.
All information provided by faculty, students, academic administrators and others must be identified by the name of the source. Routine student evaluations, however, remain anonymous and are identified only by their course, section, and semester. Any student communications other than these routine evaluations must be identified by name.
The chair of the department peer review committee is responsible for the generation and maintenance of the WPAF until the file is forwarded to the department chair. The chair of the department peer review committee shall complete the appropriate sections of the RTP Cover Sheet and attach it to the WPAF prior to forwarding the file to the next level of review. Thereafter, responsibility for the WPAF resides with the department chair, the dean and the designated custodian at the University level, respectively. At each level of review, the RTP Cover Sheet shall be completed for that level of review.
The WPAF shall be considered complete with respect to documentation of performance for the current cycle of review on the date published in the Executive Calendar. After this date, the insertion of new material into the WPAF shall be limited to those items that became accessible only after this deadline and have been approved for inclusion by College Leave with Pay Committee. Any material inserted after the deadline shall be returned to all earlier levels of review for evaluation and comment beginning with the department peer review committee.
The candidate is responsible for the identification of materials he/she wishes to be considered and for the submission of such materials as may be accessible to him/her. Department peer review committees and administrators are responsible for identifying and providing materials relating to evaluation that are not provided by the candidate. When an absence of required evaluation documents is discovered by the department chair, the dean, Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs or University Tenure and Promotions Committee, the Working Personnel Action File must be returned to the level at which the requisite documentation should have been provided. Such material shall be provided in a timely manner.
If, during the time when WPAFs are being reviewed by the University Tenure and Promotions Committee and the Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs, questions arise as to whether both parties have identical WPAFs, the extra copy kept on file with the designated custodian at the University level shall be used to reconcile the WPAF of the Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs with those of the University Tenure and Promotions Committee members.
A request for an external review of materials submitted by a faculty member may be initiated at any level of review by any party to the review. External review is defined as off-campus impartial evaluation of materials in the WPAF. Such a request shall document the special circumstances that necessitate an outside reviewer and the nature of the materials needing the evaluation of an external reviewer. The request must be approved by the President or designee with the concurrence of the candidate.
In the event the President makes a decision regarding retention, tenure, or promotion for reasons other than the professional qualifications, work performance, or personal attributes of the faculty member as documented in the WPAF, then these written reasons must be given to the faculty member immediately and placed in the PAF.
1.3 OPERATIONAL CALENDAR FOR RETENTION, TENURE, AND PROMOTION RECOMMENDATIONS
Dates for the closing of the WPAF and the submission of reviews and recommendations to the next level of review shall be determined annually and published in the Executive Calendar. There shall be a minimum of two weeks for review at successive levels. All cases involving tenure and promotion must allow a minimum of one month total for consideration by both the Provost and the President. All evaluations shall be conducted and completed within the period of time specified by the Executive Calendar. The WPAF shall be forwarded in a timely manner to the next level of review. If any level of a retention, tenure, or promotion review has not been completed within the specified period of time the review shall be automatically transferred to the next level of review or appropriate administrator and the faculty member shall be so notified.
Notification of Retention, Tenure, and Promotion Decisions:
Faculty in their first and second year of probation shall be notified of the final decision on retention by February 15. The decision shall be for retention or termination.
Faculty in their third, fourth, fifth, and sixth years of probation shall be notified of retention, appointment with tenure, or terminal year appointment by June 1. If tenure is awarded, the letter shall indicate the effective date, which is the beginning of the academic year following the year in which tenure is awarded.
Terminal year appointments are limited to probationary faculty who have served a minimum of three (3) years of probation.
Faculty being considered for promotion shall be notified no later than June 15. If promotion is awarded, the letter shall indicate the effective date, which is the beginning of the academic year following the year in which promotion is granted.
1.4 DEPARTMENT AND COLLEGE LEVEL REVIEW PROCEDURES
The main responsibility for evaluating and interpreting the significance of a candidate's endeavors and performance must reside with the department peer review committee, department chair, and College dean. These three parties to the retention, tenure, and promotions processes must meet this responsibility in order for the processes to function at an acceptable professional level.
At the beginning of the fall semester, the college office shall access the online report for faculty eligible for retention, tenure and promotion. For promotion decisions, the College deans shall notify in writing eligible faculty, department peer review committees, and department chairs. Faculty members who are eligible for review for promotion but decline to be considered must notify the department chair, department peer review committee, College dean, University Tenure and Promotions Committee and Dean of Faculty Affairs and Professional Development in writing that they do not wish to be considered. Candidates for promotion may withdraw without prejudice from consideration at any level of review.
The department peer review committee shall notify all eligible faculty of the evaluation criteria and procedures (including due dates) prior to the beginning of each annual evaluation process. These criteria and procedures must be adhered to throughout the process.
The department peer review committee shall assemble all information relevant to the evaluation by the closing date published in the Executive Calendar, as described in Section 1.2, General Principles for Retention, Tenure, and Promotion Procedures. All information considered by the department peer review committee, except routine student evaluations, must be identified by the name of the source.
Written student questionnaire evaluations shall be required for all faculty members who teach. A minimum of two classes annually for each faculty member shall have such written student evaluations. Student evaluations shall be conducted in classes representative of the faculty member's teaching assignment. The results of these evaluations shall be placed in the faculty member's WPAF. Unless consultation with an academic unit has resulted in an agreement by the administration and faculty to evaluate all classes, the classes to be evaluated shall be jointly determined in consultation between the faculty member being evaluated and his/her department chair. In the event of disagreement, each party shall select 50% of the total courses to be evaluated.
Evaluation reports and recommendations shall be approved by a simple majority of the membership of the department peer review committee. Abstentions shall be counted as a no vote.
Upon completion of its deliberations, the department peer review committee shall prepare a written report summarizing the data sources used, the nature of its evidence, its evaluation of the evidence, and its concluding recommendations. The department peer review committee shall sign and give its report and recommendations to the faculty member prior to forwarding it to the next level of review. Whenever a candidate is not recommended for retention, tenure, or promotion by the department peer review committee, the committee must provide the candidate, in writing, with its reasons for recommending against retention, tenure or promotion. If the decision is against promotion, then the committee must specify ways in which the candidate must improve in order to merit promotion. The faculty member shall sign and date receipt of his/her copy.
The department chair shall prepare a separate recommendation. It shall be his/her duty to give a copy of this recommendation to the faculty member before forwarding it and the WPAF to the dean.
Differences of opinion and problems of communication should be resolved to the extent possible at the level of origin before being forwarded to the next level of review. In the event of disagreement between the department peer review committee and the department chair’s recommendation or between the dean and the department peer review committee or the chair, the dean shall attempt to secure resolution through consultation with department peer review committee and the department chair.
The dean shall prepare a separate recommendation, and shall give a copy of the recommendation to the faculty member prior to forwarding the WPAF and recommendation to the Provost and Vice President and University Tenure and Promotions Committee.
At each level of review, the faculty member shall be given a copy of the recommendation prior to forwarding to the next level of review. At all levels of review, the faculty member shall have the right to respond or submit a rebuttal statement in writing no later than ten (10) calendar days following receipt of the recommendation. A copy of the response or rebuttal statement shall become part of the Working Personnel Action File prior to being forwarded to the next level, and shall be sent to any previous levels of review. Upon request, the faculty member may be provided an opportunity to discuss the recommendation with the recommending party. The right to rebut or to request a meeting shall not require alteration of the timelines.
1.5 THE UNIVERSITY LEVEL REVIEW PROCEDURES:
FOR RETENTION DECISIONS:
The decision for retention of candidates rests with the President, or designee. As the President's designee, the Provost may authorize reappointments in consultation with the college dean and others as required in each instance.
FOR TENURE AND PROMOTION DECISIONS:
Upon completion of the dean's review, the WPAF shall be forwarded as follows:
The supplemental materials and five (5) copies of all other portions of the WPAF shall be forwarded to the University Tenure and Promotions Committee via the Academic Senate Office.
The original and two (2) copies of all portions of the WPAF (except the supplemental materials) shall be forwarded to the Provost and Vice President of Academic Affairs via the Office of Faculty Affairs and Professional Development, according to the deadlines in the Executive Calendar. One set of indexed supplemental materials shall accompany the five copies of the WPAF sent to the University Tenure and Promotions Committee.
Tenure and promotion decisions are made by the University President. At the University level, the WPAF is reviewed by the University Tenure and Promotions Committee and by the Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs. The University Tenure and Promotions Committee and the Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs shall each review the recommendations from previous levels and the WPAF and prepare the recommendations for the President. Copies of their separate recommendations and reasons therefore shall be sent to the candidate ten days prior to forwarding the WPAF to the President, according to deadlines published in the Executive Calendar. Recommendations shall be made as early in the year as possible and shall be forwarded to the President no later than May 15.
The University Tenure and Promotions Committee and the Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs shall meet to discuss their recommendations prior to forwarding their final recommendations to the candidate and the President. The President shall meet together with the University Tenure and Promotions Committee and the Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs to discuss their recommendations prior to making his/her final decision.
All proceedings of the University Tenure and Promotions Committee are conducted in strict confidence. No member of the Committee is authorized to divulge any information with regard to Committee deliberations or meetings with the Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs or the President to any person outside the Committee. Although abstentions are not votes, and they have no effect on the determination of a majority of the votes cast, promotion evaluation reports and recommendations shall be approved by a simple majority (3 out of 5) of the committee membership.
The President shall state his/her reasons for approval or denial in his/her letter of decision.
At the end of the tenure and promotions process, after tenure and promotions decisions have been announced, the complete WPAF and copies of the President's letter informing faculty of his/her decision shall be sent to the official Personnel Action File in the Faculty Records Office. Indexed supplemental materials shall be returned to the faculty member by the designated custodian at the University level.
Following the final promotions announcement by the President, the University Tenure and Promotions Committee shall report to the Senate the number of its positive and negative recommendations. This report may also call attention to ways in which the promotions operations may be improved. The report must be signed by all Committee members.
1.6 RETENTION AND TENURE RECOMMENDATIONS
There will be an annual review of each probationary faculty member by the department peer review committee, the department chair, and the dean for the purpose of recommending retention, termination, terminal year appointment, or tenure to the Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs.
The purpose of retention and tenure review is to assess the probationer's performance against department and University criteria in order to make personnel recommendations and to provide helpful information to the candidate about performance expectations. The quality of the review is dependent upon the department peer review committee and chair taking full responsibility for conducting the review at the departmental level and upon the candidate's understanding that he or she is an integral part of the evaluation process and must provide requested information on time and in the format specified.
a) The first year review will, of necessity, occur during the first semester of probation. This review shall be limited to a recommendation for retention or termination. The purpose of this review is to discuss with the faculty member the department’s criteria for retention, tenure, and promotion, the content and organization of the WPAF, and the university policy for retention, tenure, and promotion.
b) The second year review will be based upon performance during the first year of probation. It shall contain an evaluation of teaching effectiveness and any other descriptive material or commentary relevant to the other retention criteria. The recommendation shall be for retention or termination.
c) The third year review shall be an update of the second year review. The recommendation shall be for retention or reappointment for a terminal year.
d) The fourth year review shall be a comprehensive evaluation of the first three years of probation addressing all criteria for retention. The recommendation shall be for retention or reappointment for a terminal year.
e) The fifth year review shall be an update of the fourth year review. This review will identify any recurring problems that must be resolved prior to a tenure decision. The recommendation shall be for retention or a terminal year appointment.
f) The sixth year review shall be a comprehensive summative evaluation of the preceding five years of probation according to all criteria for tenure. The recommendation shall be for tenure or a terminal year appointment.
g) The department reserves the right to perform a comprehensive evaluation in years when a comprehensive review is not required by this policy. The probationary faculty member may request a comprehensive evaluation in any year.
The President in special circumstances may award tenure earlier than the normal six-year probationary period. A recommendation for the award of early tenure shall be accompanied by a comprehensive evaluation of the entire probationary period according to all the criteria for tenure.
A probationary faculty member may request review for tenure in any probationary year.
A faculty member on a professional leave with pay shall, when otherwise eligible, accrue a maximum of one (1) year service credit as part of the probationary period. The granting of full or partial leaves without pay to probationary faculty is at the discretion of the department and dean.
If the maximum allowable time credited towards the probationary period has not been reached, probationary faculty on partial professional leave without pay shall be evaluated for retention and tenure according to the same procedures, criteria and time frames in effect for all probationary faculty. The time spent on a professional leave of absence without pay counts as part of the probationary period.
Tenure at Time of Appointment
The President in special circumstances may award tenure at the time of appointment. Appointments with tenure shall be made only after an evaluation and recommendation by the appropriate department and shall be based upon an assessment of performance prior to the time of appointment. The criteria to be used are the same as those for regular tenure and promotion are described below.
1.7 PROMOTION RECOMMENDATIONS
All faculty must have achieved the appropriate level of academic training for promotion.
A faculty member shall not normally be promoted during probation. A probationary faculty member shall normally be considered for promotion at the same time he/she is considered for tenure.
Promotion of a tenured faculty member shall normally be effective at the beginning of the sixth (6th) year after appointment to his/her current academic rank/classification. The performance review for promotion shall take place during the year preceding the effective date of promotion. This provision shall not apply if the faculty member has requested in writing that he/she not be considered for promotion.
In some circumstances, a faculty member may, upon application and with a positive recommendation from his/her department or equivalent unit, be considered for promotion to Professor or Librarian equivalent prior to having satisfied the service requirements as described above.
Promotions may be granted to faculty who have been engaged in administrative activities outside the department. Such promotions must be made according to the procedures in this policy.
Activities while in current rank are of primary relevance to promotion considerations. Verifiable accomplishments while in the same rank at other institutions or equivalent accomplishments in a non-academic setting may be included in the WPAF. When former lecturers have performed academic work comparable to that of faculty at the rank to which they have been appointed, that work may be used toward promotion. Activities engaged in while in his/her former rank are relevant when they form part of a process that occurs, in part, while the candidate is in current rank.
1.8 RETENTION, TENURE, AND PROMOTION CRITERIA
The following criteria are to be employed at all levels of decision-making in respect to retention, tenure, and promotion.
The criteria for retention, tenure, and promotion are divided into three areas (a) teaching effectiveness, (b) professional achievement and growth, and (c) contributions to campus and community. Candidates for retention, tenure, and promotion shall be evaluated on all criteria. For teaching faculty, excellence in teaching is required. For faculty whose primary assignment is other than teaching, excellence in the primary assignment is required. To merit tenure and/or promotion all candidates must meet the standard of excellence normally expected of faculty and required by the University
Effective teaching is exhibited in the classroom, research laboratory, or in the community. It is demonstrated when faculty join with students to develop knowledge and skills through classroom experiences, scholarly research, creative activities, and community service. Departments should decide the priority of non-teaching criteria.
Achievements in current rank should demonstrate promise of meritorious activities comparable to the achievements and services expected of faculty who serve at the rank to which the individual is to be promoted. The intensity of the evaluation process will vary in accordance with the academic position of the faculty member; thus, promotion to Professor requires more rigorous standards than promotion to Associate Professor, as determined by department criteria.
It is the responsibility of the department to establish clearly the department's expectations for retention, tenure, and promotion consistent with the University criteria (samples of department criteria can be found on the Faculty Affairs and Professional Development website). These criteria will be approved by the tenured and probationary faculty in the department. Department criteria will be developed in consultation with the Dean of the college and the Dean of Faculty Affairs and Professional Development, and must be approved by the Dean of their college and the Provost, via the Dean of Faculty Affairs and Professional Development. Departments may develop criteria for a candidate’s collegial relationships as a member of the faculty (i.e., demonstrating professional ethics and principles, and accepting responsibility for working effectively with colleagues to achieve department, college and university goals) and fit of the candidate within the future plans and needs of the department; however these criteria must be specified within one of the three criteria and must be included in the department’s criteria for retention, tenure and/or promotion, thus having gone through the approval process listed above.
The department is also responsible for making clear its requirements for documenting the quality and relevance of the work accomplished. This shall be done in consultation with the candidate at the time of hire and on an ongoing basis thereafter.
An assessment of teaching effectiveness is required for every year of probation. A faculty member should maintain a scholarly level of instruction, show commitment to high academic and pedagogic standards, be effective in instructing and advising students, guide and motivate students, and apply evaluative standards fairly and appropriately with respect to all students.
Assessment of teaching effectiveness must be based on evidence obtained systematically from students and colleagues as well as from the candidate. This evidence may be provided in a variety of ways:
- A scholarly level of instruction may be demonstrated by evidence such as continuing study, attendance at professional conferences and workshops, currency of course materials, and course and curriculum development, whether disciplinary or interdisciplinary.
- Commitment to high academic standards may be demonstrated by evidence such as written course requirements, evaluation procedures, and student performance.
- Commitment to high pedagogic standards may be demonstrated by evidence such as continued critical examination of one's teaching behavior, participation in instructional development seminars and workshops, innovations in teaching techniques, and currency in instructional theory and research.
- Effectiveness in instructing students may be demonstrated by evidence such as student ratings, comments, and letters; and colleague observations.
- Effectiveness in advising may be demonstrated by evidence such as descriptions of the nature and extent of advising activities, student letters and interviews, and descriptions of thesis and special project advising.
- Effectiveness in guiding and motivating students may be demonstrated by evidence such as student ratings, comments, and letters; examples of feedback given to students; and examples of willingness to confer with students.
- Fair and appropriate application of evaluative standards may be demonstrated by evidence such as student ratings, comments, and letters.
The department, in making its evaluation of teaching effectiveness, must indicate the qualitative bases on which that judgment was made. A list of all courses taught, and those courses evaluated, should be included. If the data used to evaluate teaching effectiveness include student comments, a representative sample of this material shall be included. Data that have been summarized statistically (e.g., overall mean ratings) should be accompanied by the more detailed data (e.g., time means, course means, etc.) on which they were based. Comparative data may also be used, but should indicate the basis for comparison (e.g., department as a whole, faculty at the same rank, faculty teaching same or similar courses, candidate's ratings over time, etc.) This evaluation should also reflect the department's need for instruction at different levels, individualized and specialized instruction, and student advising.
For faculty whose primary assignment is other than teaching (e.g., audio-visual, department chairs, Library) and who do not have a separate retention, tenure, and promotion policy approved by the Academic Senate, primary emphasis shall be on effectiveness in assignment. Evidence of effectiveness in assignment must be based on systematically gathered data. The candidate's assignment must be clearly explained and documentation provided on the quality of performance. In addition, teaching effectiveness shall be evaluated in courses taught by the candidate.
Professional Achievement and Growth
Professional achievement and growth, disciplinary or interdisciplinary, may be exhibited in a variety of ways, including research, publications, clinics, and workshops, being the editor of a refereed professional journal, presentations to professional societies, development of new areas of expertise, attainment of new professional licenses or certification, creative work, curricular and/or programmatic innovation, unpublished manuscripts, or similar work in progress. Although in general, no single category of professional achievement and growth is viewed as more important than others, individual departments may emphasize one category as more important than another within the framework of the department's needs and service to the students, and this emphasis shall be considered in the evaluations.
Research and Publication
Descriptions of publications, presentations to professional societies, research projects or unpublished manuscripts, or copies of said works, shall be included in the WPAF. Scholarly evaluations of such works may also be included. If such evaluations are not available, and if the department peer review committee determines that such evaluations are desirable, it may obtain such evaluations after reaching agreement with the candidate about the appropriateness of the referees. (Also see Section 1.2 regarding external review of materials in the WPAF.) The department peer review committee should include in its report assessment of the quality of the candidate's work.
Creative works, such as musical compositions, choreography, art works, films, electronic media productions, literary or dramatic works, designs or inventions, exhibitions or performances shall be submitted to the department peer review committee in whatever form or forms typically are employed for evaluation in the relevant field. Such forms may include presenting the creative work itself, a reproduction or replica of the work, or a description of the work, together with whatever critical reviews may be available. The department peer review committee should include in its report assessment of the quality of the candidate's work. Procedures for securing referees and evaluations are those specified under Research and Publication.
Curricular and/or programmatic innovations in the discipline, across disciplines, or for the benefit of General Education may qualify as professional achievement and growth. Such activities may include the development of original academic programs, new courses or course content, disciplinary and/or pedagogical approaches, applications of technology, etc. Development of new areas of instructional expertise may also be considered in this category. Procedures for securing referees and evaluations are those specified under Research and Publication.
Research in the discipline, across disciplines, or for the benefit of general education may result in significant curricular developments. Such results should become part of the evidence supporting a candidate's retention, tenure, and promotion.
Contributions to Campus and Community
Contributions to Campus
These may include, but are not limited to, the following: administrative assignments (other than primary assignment), faculty governance, committee work, special advising assignments (e.g., General Education advising, Liberal Studies advising, Special Major advising, etc.), program development, sponsorship of student organizations, and direction of non-instructional activities and projects. Evidence supporting contributions to campus may include descriptions of the nature and extent of work accomplished, committee documents, letters from students and/or colleagues, project reports, etc. The department peer review committee should include in its report assessment of the nature and quality of the candidate's work in these activities.
Contributions to Community
Individuals may serve the University using their professional expertise to provide service at the community or city, state, or national levels. Such service must involve participation at a level that makes a contribution to community activities or projects, and that enhances relations between the University and the community. Emphasis should be placed on those community activities in which the academic expertise of the faculty member is directly applied. Descriptions of community service shall be submitted to the department peer review committee.
Participation in professional societies or other professional activities may include offices held in professional societies, committee activities, participation on editorial boards or in refereeing, and services provided as a consultant. Emphasis should be placed on those community activities in which the academic expertise of the faculty member is directly applied.
Descriptions of contributions to community shall be submitted to the department peer review committee. If the department peer review committee determines that evaluation of these activities by outside experts is desirable, procedures for securing referees and evaluations are those specified under Research and Publication.
1.9 APPEAL OF DECISIONS
A faculty member who has not been retained, tenured, or promoted may request reconsideration of his/her case. The faculty member requests reconsideration by filing a notice of dispute according to the provisions of Article 10 of the Agreement. The faculty member or his/her representative must file the notice of dispute within 21 days of receiving the Provost and Vice President’s decision not to retain or the President's decision not to tenure or promote.
2.0 INTERIM PROVISIONS FOR RETENTION, TENURE, AND PROMOTION POLICY
The revised Retention, Tenure and Promotion Policy adopted by the SF State Academic Senate on November 28, 2006 represents significant changes in the criteria for retention, tenure and promotion. Faculty members who are currently working toward retention, tenure and promotion based on the criteria delineated in the former policies (S88-120/S94-120 for retention and tenure decisions and F04-28 for promotions decisions) may be disadvantaged by the changes in criteria. Therefore, faculty members with an academic appointment that began prior to Fall 2007 may make a one time, non-reversible choice to be evaluated according to the criteria as delineated in either the former policies (S88-120/S94-120 for retention and tenure decisions or F04-28 for promotions decisions) or this policy. Faculty whose appointment begins Fall 2007 shall be evaluated according to this policy (S07-241 – Retention, Tenure, and Promotion).
The Office of Faculty Affairs and Professional Development shall provide this information to all such faculty members.
***Approved by the Academic Senate at its meeting on November 1, 2011***
***Endorsed by President Corrigan on November 7, 2011***