Small Seal

Reappointment, Tenure, and Promotion Procedures, Criteria, and Standards for Tenured and Probationary Faculty

Recommended By: Academic Senate
Approved: Ruben Armiñana, President
Date of Original issue: September 1, 1971
Date of Issue: March 11, 2011
Effective Date: August 22, 2011
Contact Office: Academic Affairs

Policy #2009-3

Preamble: This policy is intended to protect both the right of the University to exercise judgment in the granting of reappointment, tenure, and promotion and the rights of the faculty to a complete and impartial evaluation, to confer at any level of review, and to have access to the criteria and information used as a basis for the decisions made by the University for regular tenure track faculty.  Furthermore, this policy is intended to support candidates in their careers at Sonoma State University.


Authority for the Reappointment, Tenure, and Promotion (RTP) Procedures and Criteria: These procedures and criteria are based on and derived from several documents. Procedures are set forth in the Collective Bargaining Agreement, hereafter known as the CBA; and Title 5, California Code of Regulations. Criteria are set forth in Title 5 and policy statements of the Board of Trustees. Although these procedures and criteria are intended to stand alone, candidates and RTP Committees may wish to consult all of these documents, which are available in the Office of Faculty Affairs, for a full understanding of the procedures and criteria for reappointment, tenure, and promotion.

Definitions:
Definitions are based on the Collective Bargaining Agreement and SSU policy.

  1. Reappointment, Tenure, and Promotion (RTP) Procedures
    1. Preparation of Campus Guidelines
      1. Before initiating the review process, all academic Departments and the Library shall provide the University RTP Subcommittee (URTP) with documents which describe in detail their evaluation criteria (consistent with II.A.I & 2); the methods developed for use in collecting data for the consideration of reappointment, tenure, and promotion; and weighted values, if used, for the various criteria.
      2. Student Services Professionals, academic related, are to develop reappointment, tenure, and promotion policies in accordance with the provisions of the CBA for their appropriate unit.
    2. Dissemination of the Evaluation Criteria
      1. It is the obligation of the Chair of the Department to provide the faculty member, upon appointment, with copies of the Departmental criteria, procedures, and standards at all levels of review.  Policy-making bodies shall provide all faculty with revisions of the policy or criteria as they occur.  Once the annual RTP process has begun, there shall be no changes in the criteria and/or procedures used to evaluate a faculty member.
      2. At each level of review, a faculty member being considered for reappointment, tenure, or promotion shall be evaluated according to criteria (see Part II of this policy) in each of the following categories in priority order, with primary emphasis placed on teaching effectiveness (or equivalent for Librarians, Counselors and SSP-ARs):
        1. Teaching effectiveness (or equivalent).
        2. Scholarship, research, creative achievement, and professional development.
        3. Service to the University.
        4. Public service and service to the community.
      3. This policy goes into effect in the review cycle following its adoption and applies to all reappointment, tenure and promotion candidates, except as specified elsewhere in the document.
    3. RTP Working Personnel Action File (WPAF)
      1. Personnel recommendations or decisions relating to reappointment, tenure, promotion, non-reappointment, or any other personnel action shall be based solely on material contained in the Personnel Action File (PAF), which includes the WPAF by reference.
      2. The University RTP Subcommittee shall provide to candidates, departments and schools a format to be used for submission of recommendations and supporting materials.  
      3. Contents of the Working Personnel Action File (WPAF)
        1. The Candidate shall provide up-to-date documentation for the WPAF showing evidence of his or her achievements and professional development. Department criteria may provide specific formats to candidates for preparing the following documentation.
          1. current curriculum vitae.
          2. self-assessment of teaching and professional activity (typically no more than 5 pages or 2500 words)
          3. two peer observations of teaching annually since the last review cycle.
          4. at least two student evaluations of teaching effectiveness annually, from two courses, since the last review cycle.
          5. appropriate evidence to support a record of growth and contribution in the area of scholarship (including research, creative achievement, and professional development).
          6. evidence to support quality of service to the University and to the community.
        2. The Department RTP Committee creates the Working Personnel Action File (WPAF), which consists of:
          1. materials prepared by the candidate to be used in evaluation for reappointment, tenure and promotion, including materials referenced by index in the appendix and on file in the department office.
          2. the evaluation document prepared by the Department RTP committee.
          3. any reappointment, tenure and promotion recommendation added at any level of review, including candidate responses, if any.
          4. the original letter of appointment , any prior evaluation documents, and letter(s) of reappointment.
          5. the department criteria.
          6. This forms the working document that is forwarded to higher levels of review.

      4. Evidence from unidentified sources shall be excluded from the WPAF except that student evaluations may be anonymous.
      5. A candidate shall have access to his or her WPAF at any time, but may not remove material therefrom.
      6. The WPAF shall be declared complete with respect to documentation of performance for the purpose of evaluation five working days before the date by which the Department RTP Committee must notify the candidate of the Committee recommendation. Insertion of material after this date must have the approval of the University's Document Review Committee, and shall be limited to items that become accessible after the WPAF is declared complete. Material inserted in this fashion shall be returned to the Department RTP Committee, with a copy to the candidate, for review, evaluation, and comment before consideration at subsequent levels of review.
      7. In the spring semester of each year the Executive Committee of the Academic Senate shall appoint three former members of the University RTP Subcommittee to serve as the University's Document Review Committee.
    4. RTP Evaluation Document
      1. The Department evaluation document, not including attachments, shall not exceed ten pages.  Bulky materials and raw data, such as student evaluations, publications, and conference programs, shall be summarized or presented in list form and their location noted for examination by the RTP Committees. The source and content of any evidence or testimony, which is to be considered or given weight in the evaluation, must be identified, verified and summarized in the WPAF.
      2. It is the Department RTP Committee’s responsibility to write a document supported by factual statements (documented or referenced as appropriate), which evaluates the candidate’s performance under each of the criteria as described in Section II.
        The departmental evaluation document shall include:
        1. an overview or introduction.
        2. an evaluation of the candidate's teaching effectiveness (or equivalent for librarians, counselors and SSP-ARs).
        3. an evaluation of the candidate's scholarship, research and creative achievements.
        4. an evaluation of the candidate's service to the University.
        5. an evaluation of the candidate's public service and service to the community.
        6. a concluding summary of the candidate's overall performance and explicit recommendation.
      3. A “brief” evaluation is used for candidates in their first and second probationary years and in their first year of an SSU tenure track appointment.  This "brief" evaluation shall include:
        1. a current curriculum vita.
        2. a one-page self-assessment of teaching effectiveness (or equivalent).
        3. two peer observations of classroom performance.
        4. a departmental RTP evaluation not to exceed two pages in length.
    5. Evaluation Procedures: Reappointment or Tenure
      1. Evaluation for reappointment or tenure
        1. Evaluation for reappointment or tenure must be undertaken annually for each probationary faculty member except as outlined in I.E.1.b below. Subsequent evaluation shall reflect teaching performance and professional growth and development since the most recent evaluation. Copies of previous evaluations shall be transmitted along with the current evaluation so that a coherent professional history and measure of growth can be ascertained. Evaluation for tenure shall be a comprehensive assessment of the candidate's professional growth and development during his or her probationary years.  Each evaluation document shall explicitly identify areas that need improvement (if any), or any other specific conditions or factors, which may affect future consideration for reappointment, tenure and promotion.
        2. If the Department RTP committee finds that a candidate has made more than satisfactory progress toward tenure, it may recommend that the candidate be given a two-year reappointment. This one-time, two-year reappointment may be granted in the second, third, or fourth probationary years.  All candidates for two-year reappointment must have completed at least one academic year at Sonoma State University.  The Department RTP committee must be explicit that it is recommending a two-year reappointment and must submit clear and convincing evidence to support this recommendation, based on their criteria.  Candidates granted a two-year reappointment are not eligible to apply for early tenure or promotion during that two-year reappointment.
        3. The President may award tenure to any individual, including one whose appointment and assignment is in an administrative position, at the time of appointment.  Appointments with tenure shall be made only after an evaluation and positive recommendation by the appropriate Department and the University Reappointment, Tenure, and Promotion Subcommittee or its designee. Individuals appointed with tenure must have previously earned tenure by serving a probationary period at a post-secondary educational institution.
      2. The normal period of probation shall be a total of six years of full-time probationary service and credited service, if any. In the case of an outstanding candidate, a deviation from the normal six-year probationary period shall be the decision of the President following his or her consideration of a positive recommendation from the Department or equivalent unit and reviewed at the School and University levels.
      3. Document Submission Timelines
        1. Candidates in their first year in a tenure track appointment at Sonoma State, and in their first or second probationary year, will receive a brief evaluation as specified in section I.D.3. by the second Monday in November.  These candidates shall receive a letter of reappointment or non-reappointment from the President by the following February 15.
        2. Candidates in their second probationary year, and the second year of a tenure track appointment and first or second probationary year at Sonoma State, will receive full evaluations as per section I.D.2; their documents shall be due the first week of October.  These candidates shall receive a letter of reappointment or non-reappointment from the President by the following February 15.
        3. Candidates in their third probationary year and in their first year of a Sonoma State tenure track appointment will receive full reviews as per section I.D.2 according to the schedule established by Faculty Affairs.
        4. All other evaluations will follow the annual Sonoma State University RTP schedule as established by Faculty Affairs.
      4. Candidates in their first year of a tenure track appointment and first or second probationary year shall consult with their departments in order to receive feedback, guidance, and assurance on the path to tenure and promotion.  All such candidates will meet with their respective Department RTP committees, or their representatives, in the Spring semester no later than May 1st to discuss the candidate’s progress.  In this meeting, candidates and representatives will discuss the Department’s criteria, SETEs and peer observations (or equivalent for librarians, counselors and SSP-ARs), scholarship, research and creative assignments, and service.  A one-page summary of this meeting, prepared collaboratively by the candidate and department representatives, shall be included in the candidate’s subsequent WPAF.
      5. The following table summarizes the documents and timelines of the review process.


      6. Probationary
        Year

        Years at Sonoma State in a Tenure Track Position

        Document to Be Submitted

        Highest Level of Review

         

        Date of Presidential Notification

        1st

        1st

        Brief Evaluation Document

        Dean

        Feb 15

        2nd

        1st

        Brief Evaluation Document

        Dean

        Feb 15

        2nd

        2nd

        Full Evaluation Document

        URTP

        Feb 15

        3rd –6th

        Any

        Full Evaluation Document

        URTP

        June 1


    6. Evaluation Procedures: Promotion
      1. Advancement in rank shall be based upon documentation of professional achievement and growth measured in accordance with criteria and standards for reappointment, tenure, and promotion documents as outlined in Part II of this policy.
      2. Faculty in the rank of instructor or library equivalent may be considered for promotion after one year in rank. A probationary faculty member normally shall be considered for promotion at the same time he or she is considered for tenure; however, probationary faculty shall not be promoted beyond the rank of Associate Professor.  Promotion of a tenured faculty member normally shall be considered after he or she has been five years in his or her current rank or has reached the maximum salary for the rank, unless the faculty member requests in writing that he or she not be considered. A faculty member with an exceptional record may, upon written application and a positive recommendation from the Department RTP Committee, be considered for promotion earlier than normal. Candidates granted a two-year reappointment are not eligible to apply for early tenure or promotion during that two-year appointment.
      3. The evaluation for the first promotion shall provide a thorough assessment of the candidate's performance from the time of his or her appointment. Evaluations for subsequent recommendations for promotions shall reflect professional growth and development since the most recent promotion. Copies of evaluations from previous promotion recommendations shall be transmitted along with the current evaluation, but reviewers shall not be bound by previous recommendations. Each evaluation document shall explicitly identify areas that need improvement, or any other specific conditions, or factors that may affect future consideration for promotions.
      4. The President, after reviewing and considering the evaluations and recommendations, shall make a final decision on promotion and shall notify the faculty member in writing of the final decision as per section I.J.8.
    7. Levels and Sequence of RTP Review
      1. Levels
        There are three levels of peer review: the Department RTP Committee; the School Reappointment, Tenure, and Promotion (RTP), Committee; and the University Reappointment, Tenure, and Promotion Subcommittee of the Faculty Standards and Affairs Committee (URTP). A faculty member shall not serve on more than one level of review in the same review cycle. Review by the School Dean constitutes a fourth level of review. Department Chairs may make separate recommendations, which are forwarded on to subsequent levels of review. If the department chair makes a separate recommendation, s/he shall not also serve on the other RTP committees for that candidate.
      2. Department RTP Committee
        1. Recommendations for reappointment, tenure, and promotion shall originate in the Department. Such recommendations shall be made by Department RTP Committees composed of three or more eligible faculty members elected by the Department. Any information or recommendation from a Department Chair regarding a candidate shall be directed to the Department RTP Committee before the WPAF is closed to further documentation (see I.C.6.above) The Committee shall complete its work (as described in I.G.2.c. below) and forward the WPAF to the School RTP Committee according to the schedule established by Faculty Affairs.  Whenever more than one candidate is recommended for promotion, the Department RTP Committee shall forward a ranked list of these candidates.
        2. Committee Membership and Eligibility. To be eligible, a faculty member must be full-time and tenured, and must hold a rank equal to or above the rank to which advancement of the candidate is being considered. If a Department has fewer than three eligible faculty members, the Committee shall be composed of eligible faculty members within the Department, augmented by tenured faculty members of appropriate rank from related disciplines. Committee members from outside the Department shall be chosen by Department election. The Department Chair, if tenured, may, at the discretion of the Department, be a member of the Department RTP Committee.  Committee membership shall be for at least one year.
        3. Committee Responsibilities. The Department RTP Committee shall review and evaluate the materials submitted by the candidate, write an evaluation document, make its recommendation, and prepare a Working Personnel Action File according to section I.C.2. and 3. above in accordance with the format guidelines established by the University RTP Committee and the approved annual schedule.  Reappointment expectations shall be explicit and clear.  The completed WPAF, including any minority reports, and any separate report from a Department Chair, shall be forwarded to the School RTP Committee in a timely manner according to the schedule established by Faculty Affairs.  Late documents shall be forwarded to the next level of review without recommendation.
        4. The candidate shall be provided a copy of the WPAF by the Department RTP Committee, according to the schedule established by Faculty Affairs.
      3. School RTP Committee
        1. Committee Membership and Eligibility. Members of the School RTP Committee shall be full-time and tenured, and shall hold a rank equal to or above the rank to which advancement of the candidate is being considered. Members of the School Committee shall be elected by tenured and probationary faculty from their School according to each School's election procedures, with a minimum of three members serving staggered two-year terms.
        2. Committee Responsibilities.  The School RTP Committee shall review the WPAF and prepare a written recommendation, which shall be incorporated into the WPAF.  Reappointment expectations shall be explicit and clear.  The School RTP Committee shall forward to the School Dean the WPAF and its recommendation on all candidates for reappointment, tenure, and promotion, in accordance with the format guidelines established by the University RTP Committee and the approved annual schedule.  Late documents shall be forwarded to the next level of review without recommendation.  The candidate shall be provided a copy of the School recommendation according to the schedule established by Faculty Affairs. Whenever more than one candidate is being recommended for promotion, the School RTP Committee shall forward to the University RTP committee a separate ranked list of these candidates.
      4. School Dean
        1. Following receipt of the WPAF the School Dean will review all materials and then write a separate, independent evaluation of each candidate based on the departmental criteria.
        2. The School Dean shall forward the evaluation and recommendation for each candidate to the University RTP Subcommittee. Reappointment expectations shall be explicit and clear.  The candidate shall be provided a copy of the Dean’s recommendation according to the schedule established by Faculty Affairs.  Whenever more than one candidate is being recommended for promotion, the School Dean shall forward a separate ranked list of these candidates.
      5. University RTP Subcommittee
        1. Committee Membership and Eligibility. The University RTP Subcommittee shall be elected at large from among the eligible tenured full professors or equivalent of the instructional faculty and librarians.  Members may not hold an administrative appointment except as Department Chair.  Committee members will serve in staggered three-year terms.
        2. Committee Responsibilities. The University RTP Subcommittee, in addition to its other responsibilities, shall make written recommendations to the President concerning reappointment, tenure, and promotion.  The candidate shall be provided a copy of the URTP recommendation  according to the schedule established by Faculty Affairs. Reappointment expectations shall be explicit and clear. The University RTP Subcommittee shall forward a separate ranked list of candidates recommended for promotion to the President. 
    8. Communication of Action Taken
      1. Recommendations at each level of review are recorded on the Record of Action Taken form provided by Faculty Affairs.
      2. At each level of review, the candidate shall receive a copy of the Record of Action Taken form; in addition, the candidate shall receive a copy of the Committees' and Dean's recommendations.
      3. Recommendations at each level of review shall be signed by the candidate and, at the Committee levels, by all members of the Committee; and the recommendation shall then be forwarded, with all pertinent materials, by the Committee Chair or School Dean to the next higher level. The candidate's signature acknowledges receipt of the document, not necessarily agreement with the content of the document.
      4. The candidate may request his or her ranking for promotion from the Committee Chair at any level or from the School Dean.
    9.  Candidate's Right to Respond and Opportunity to Confer
      1. At any level of review, within ten days of receipt of the recommendation and reappointment expectations, including the written reasons, a candidate may submit a response in writing and/or request that a meeting be held to discuss the recommendation and the reappointment expectations.
      2. Upon such request, the candidate shall be provided an opportunity to confer with the Committee at each level of review and the School Dean.
      3. This provision shall not change the evaluation timelines.
      4. The Committee or School Dean shall summarize the conference in writing, and include in its recommendation, matters discussed at the conference which affect the recommendation.
    10. Reports and Recommendations
      1. Positive Recommendation. At each level of review a report shall be written in sufficient detail to impart a reasonable understanding of the grounds for the positive recommendation to members of the academic community.
      2. Negative Recommendation
        1. If, at any level of review, the candidate receives a negative recommendation, this recommendation shall be detailed in writing to a degree sufficient to communicate a reasonable understanding of the grounds for the negative recommendation to members of the academic community.
        2. If, at any level of review beyond the Department level, the candidate receives a negative recommendation, the written notification to the candidate shall specify any grounds upon which the negative recommendation is based that differ from those used by the prior Committee.
        3. No Committee, upon receipt of a negative recommendation from a prior level of review, shall forward its own recommendation to the next level of review until a period of ten calendar days, has elapsed after notification of the candidate.
      3. No Recommendation.  Incomplete documents that cannot be completed in a timely manner will be forwarded to the next level of review without recommendation.
      4. Contrary Recommendation between Levels of Review
        1. Each RTP Committee and School Dean shall receive written notification from subsequent levels of review regarding the action taken on its recommendations.
        2. If, at any level of review, a Committee or School Dean makes a recommendation or ranking substantively different from that of a prior RTP Committee or School Dean, all prior reviewing levels shall be promptly notified and may request a joint meeting for the purpose of discussing differences in judgment.
        3. If such a meeting is requested, the candidate must be invited and it must take place not more than ten working days after the request is made and before the subsequent decision is submitted to the next level of review, provided that this does not require that the timelines be extended.
        4. Regardless of the outcome of the conference, the candidate and the prior reviewing levels shall receive a copy of the resulting recommendation and of the Record of Action Taken form.
      5. Minority Reports. A Committee member at any level of review may submit a recommendation which differs from that of the majority. This document shall be forwarded along with all other documents to subsequent levels of review.
      6. The President, in consultation with the URTP Subcommittee, may grant a conditional one-year reappointment to a candidate who displays remediable deficiencies in the areas of scholarship or service.  Explicit expectations for such remediation will be outlined in the reappointment letter. Conditional one-year reappointment is not available to candidates applying for tenure. Only the President can grant additional time to the tenure clock, and only under circumstances explicitly stated in the CBA (13.8).
      7. The President should concur with faculty recommendations about reappointment, tenure, and promotion except in rare instances and for compelling reasons, which should be stated in detail and included in the WPAF (see J.8.b. below).
      8. The President's Letter
        1. It is the responsibility of the President to provide written notification to each individual who is granted reappointment, tenure, or promotion.
        2. If an individual is not granted reappointment, tenure, or promotion, the President's letter to the individual shall state the reasons for that action.
        3. If recommendations forwarded to the President note any areas for improvement, or any other conditions or factors, which may affect future consideration for reappointment, tenure, or promotion, the President's letter of formal notification shall bring these to the attention of the faculty member.
    11. Appeals and Grievances
      1. The candidate whose reappointment, tenure, or promotion has been denied shall have the right to appeal to the President for a reconsideration of the decision.
      2. The request for a reconsideration shall be in writing, shall specify grounds for the reconsideration and be received within ten days of the date of notification.
      3. If the appeal is denied, the candidate may seek remedy as provided for by the CBA.
  2. Evaluation Criteria for Tenured and Probationary Faculty
    Preamble:  Candidates shall possess the appropriate terminal degree as noted in their appointment letter to be eligible for tenure and promotion. As indicated in Part I.F. above, advancement shall be based upon documentation of professional achievement and growth since appointment or the most recent evaluation, in accordance with the appropriate departmental criteria and standards.
    1. Departmental Criteria
      1. Each department shall develop criteria that will describe what is expected of candidates in all evaluation areas.
      2. The departmental criteria will be reviewed by FSAC to ensure that they are consistent with this policy and the University mission. Department criteria will be accepted unless they are found to be inconsistent with this policy and/or the University Mission. If they are found to be inconsistent, FSAC will consult with the department to resolve the issue. Departments should regularly review their criteria to ensure their currency; any changes must be reviewed by FSAC in time for the next review cycle.
    2. Criteria and Methods for Evaluation of Teaching Effectiveness (or Equivalent for Librarians, Counselors and SSP-ARs)
      1. Criteria. The Department RTP Committee is responsible for reviewing and evaluating all pertinent evidence to show that the candidate:
        1. Displays enthusiasm for teaching his/her subject
        2. Presents material with clarity. Uses teaching strategies appropriate to the students and course content.
        3. Clearly specifies course goals, and employs course materials to achieve course goals.
        4. Enables students to participate actively in their own education.
        5. Fosters appreciation for different points of view.
        6. Demonstrates competence and currency in course material.
        7. Consults and advises effectively outside of class.
        8. Engages in professional development to enhance his/her teaching effectiveness.
      2. Assessment of Teaching Effectiveness (or equivalent for Librarians,  Counselors and SSP-ARs).
        Evaluation is likely to be most reliable when it is based on multiple sources of evidence, or methods of collecting information, on teaching effectiveness. The Department shall assess the candidate's teaching effectiveness in terms of the criteria listed in II.A.1. and II.B.1 above.  The three required methods are Peer Observations of Teaching (section 2a. below), Student Evaluation of Teaching (section 2b. below) and Self-Assessment of Teaching and Professional Activity (Section c. below).  In evaluating the evidence gathered by these different methods, the evidence is to be considered as a whole in addressing teaching effectiveness.  If a Department deems it necessary to use additional methods of measurement it shall specify the method in writing in the department criteria, give a copy to each member of the Department in advance of a review cycle, and include the statement in the Personnel Action File (PAF) of all candidates.  The candidate has the right to add comments to any document or data submitted into the Working Personnel Action File (WPAF) as a measure of teaching effectiveness.
        1. Peer Observations of Teaching
          1. Each Department is required to conduct peer observations of the teaching activity of each candidate and shall develop written procedures for such observations. The observer shall be mutually acceptable to the Department RTP Committee and the candidate. If mutual agreement cannot be reached on an observer from within the Department, then a mutually acceptable observer from outside the Department may be used.
          2. At least one observation from each of at least two observers is required per review cycle. At least one observer shall be tenured. Each observation shall be carried out at a time that is mutually agreeable to the candidate and the observer. For candidates for reappointment and tenure, the observations shall occur annually. For candidates for promotion, the observations shall occur during the fall Semester in which the promotion review commences, or during the prior academic year. The evaluation shall address the criteria in II.A.1. and II.B.1 above, and include recommendations as appropriate. The candidate may discuss the evaluation with the observer and may submit a written response to the evaluation. The candidate may also request subsequent observations by the same or another observer during any given semester. Within ten days of the observation the evaluation shall be signed by the observer and delivered to the candidate. The candidate then has 10 days to sign the document, acknowledging receipt, but not necessarily agreement with the content of the document. These peer observations are to be included in the candidate’s WPAF before the established deadline. At the end of the review cycle these documents become part of the PAF.
        2. Student Evaluation of Teaching.
          1. Each Department shall utilize evaluation methods appropriate to the modes of instruction within the Department to assess student evaluation of instruction. The format of student evaluations shall be quantitative or a combination of quantitative and qualitative. The evaluation shall address the criteria listed in Section II.A 1 and II.B.1. It is the responsibility of the Department RTP Committee, not the candidate, to use available qualitative and quantitative components as evidence in their evaluation document. The evaluation of the Department RTP committee includes an analysis and interpretation of the data that explain the data within the context of the teaching experience of the Department. For tenure documents the RTP Committee should include a summary table and analysis of data over the whole probationary period; for promotion, the summary table and analysis should include data since the candidate’s initial date of employment at SSU or the candidate’s last promotion, not just the previous year. A discussion of this data analysis includes implications of the data for the instructor, the student, and the Department curriculum.
          2. Written student evaluations are required for all faculty who teach a minimum of two (2) classes annually. Student evaluations shall be conducted in classes representative of the candidate’s teaching assignment. The results of these evaluations shall be placed in the candidate’s Personnel Action File. Unless a department decides to evaluate all classes, the classes to be evaluated shall be jointly determined in consultation between the candidate being evaluated and his/her department chair. In the event of disagreement, each party shall select 50% of the total courses to be evaluated (cf. CBA 15.15). For reappointment, tenure and promotion purposes, (including from Associate to Full) SETEs from a minimum of two classes (cf. CBA 15.15) each year shall be included in a candidate's WPAF. If the department reviews all classes, those evaluations are available for review in the candidate’s PAF.
          3. Each Department shall provide for full student participation in the evaluation process and preserve the anonymity of student participants. Administration of student evaluations of instruction shall take place for all faculty within the last three weeks of instruction. The Department Chair is responsible for ensuring that students, while completing the evaluations, are free from influence by the instructor and each other. The Department Chair shall ensure the integrity and security of the data. The instructor shall not have access to or any knowledge of the contents of these evaluations until grades have been submitted to the Admissions and Records Office.
        3. Self-Assessment of Teaching (or Equivalent) and Professional Activities: A self-assessment is a reflective statement written entirely by the candidate and unmodified by the Departmental RTP Committee.  The Self-Assessment (typically no more than 5 pages or 2500 words) shall include:
          1. an outline or description of courses taught by the candidate summarizing course materials, goals, and methods.
          2. a statement of the candidate's goals for teaching
          3. a discussion of new course development
          4. an explanation of how the candidate’s scholarly activities contribute to the classroom experience. an indication of methods by which the diverse learning styles of students are addressed.
          5. an indication of methods by which the diverse learning styles of students are addressed.
          6. a discussion of the candidate’s teaching strengths and weaknesses and the ways in which he or she is attempting to improve their teaching.
          7. an assessment of the candidate’s scholarship, service and professional activities.
    3. Criteria for Evaluating Scholarship, Research, and Creative Achievements
      1. The Department RTP Committee is responsible for substantiating by appropriate evidence that the candidate demonstrates scholarship, research or creative achievements, and professional development.
      2. Departments are responsible for developing and explaining to candidates a statement of professional standards and expectations in their discipline. It is to be expected that the balance among scholarship, research or creative achievement, and professional development will vary among the disciplines.
      3. The candidate has the primary responsibility for providing appropriate evidence of a record of significant growth and contribution in the area of scholarship, research or creative achievement, and professional development.
      4. Publication of scholarly books and/or publications in a professional journal in an appropriate field, especially if refereed, are traditionally considered unquestionable accomplishments, but other publications, which are generally considered credible within the intellectual community, are acceptable.
      5. Scholarship that does not result in publication must be in a form that can be shared with peers (beyond what is shared in the classroom) and must be capable of being evaluated. Candidates must demonstrate that they have made a substantive contribution to their discipline(s).
      6. Examples of scholarship, research or creative achievement, and professional development include but are not limited to:
        1. Published professional or scholarly books and articles (complete citation required).
        2. Published textbooks and other instructional materials (complete citation required).
        3. Reports or other products that result from consultancies, software development and electronic media products, designs, or inventions.
        4. Creative activities in the arts.
        5. Funded grants.
        6. Submitted proposals.
        7. Research reports or scholarly papers presented at conferences, colloquia, and other appropriate gatherings.
        8. Participation in professional meetings as discussant, committee member, or organizer of colloquia/seminars. Service as critic, reviewer, editor, or consultant.
        9. Awards, honors, exhibitions, shows, performances, or speaking engagements.
        10. Contributions to discipline outside his/her primary area of specialization.
        11. Post-doctoral studies or continuing education.
    4. Criteria for Evaluating Service to the University
      1. The candidate has the primary responsibility for providing all appropriate evidence to the Department RTP Committee, which is responsible for substantiating and evaluating service to the University. The Department RTP Committee shall: (1) evaluate the quality of service, and (2) specify whether the candidate is supported by released time for any given assignment. Examples of service to the University include but are not limited to:
        1. Contributions to the organizational, academic, intellectual, and social life of the University, including participation on committees and with student organizations.
        2. Activities that enhance the University's ability to serve the needs of a diverse student body, especially multi-ethnic, non-traditional, and prospective students.
        3. Activities that enhance the University's ability to retain and graduate students, including mentorship and advising.
        4. Representation of the University in an official capacity to the CSU and other institutions.
        5. Leadership in professional organizations at local, state, and national levels.
    5. Criteria for Evaluating Public Service and Service to the Community
      1. The candidate has the primary responsibility for providing all appropriate evidence to the Department RTP Committee, which is responsible for substantiating and evaluating public service. The Department RTP Committee shall (1) evaluate the quality of that service, and (2) specify whether the candidate is financially rewarded for any particular activity. Examples of public service and service to the community include, but are not limited to, membership or participation on:
        1. Local, State, and Federal boards, commissions, and committees.
        2. Civic organizations.
        3. Community service organizations.
        4. Schools.
        5. Charitable organizations.
        6. Social agencies.
        7. Political groups/organizations.
        8. Recreational agencies and groups.
        9. Cultural organizations.

Updated July 5, 2011 by SSU.policies@sonoma.edu