Proposed

Comments

S98-8

APPOINTMENT, RETENTION, TENURE AND PROMOTION CRITERIA, STANDARDS AND PROCEDURES FOR PROBATIONARY AND TENURED FACULTY EMPLOYEES

Clarification of  terms used in this policy:

1.      Preamble

1.1.   Overview

1.2.   Goals and the Two Basic Criteria

1.3.   Application of the Two Basic Criteria

2.      Criteria 

2.1.1.      Effectiveness in Academic Assignment or Professional Assignment

2.1.2.      Service to Students and to the University

2.1.3.      Contents of Dossier in Relation to the Academic Assignment

2.2.   Scholarly or Artistic or Professional Achievement

2.2.1.      Types of Achievements

2.2.2.      Guidelines for Scholarly, Artistic or Professional Achievement

2.2.3.      Evaluation of Achievements

2.2.4.      Contents of Dossier in Relation to Achievements

3.      Initial Appointment

3.1.   Standards for Initial Appointment

3.2.   Procedures for Initial Appointment

 

 

 

 

4.      Types of Reviews: General Description

4.1.   Performance Review

4.2.   Review of a Faculty Member’s Professional Development Plan

4.3.   Review of the Annual Summary of Achievements

5.      Annual Summary of Achievements and Professional Development Plan

5.1.   Persons required to submit an Annual Summary of Achievements and a Professional Development Plan

5.2.   When the Annual Summary of Achievements and Professional Development Plans are to be submitted.

5.3.   Annual Summary of Achievements

5.4.   Professional Development Plan (PDP)

5.5.   Request for a Performance Review

6.      Retention Performance Review

6.1.   Persons To Be Reviewed for Retention

6.2.   Period of Review

6.3.   Standards for Retention Decisions

6.4.   Procedures for Retention Decisions

7.      Tenure Performance Review

7.1.   Persons To Be Reviewed for Tenure

7.2.   Period of Review

7.3.   Standards for Tenure Decisions

7.4.   Procedures for Tenure Decisions

8.      Promotion Performance Review

8.1.   Persons To Be Reviewed for Promotion

8.2.   Period of Review

8.3.   Standards for Promotion Decisions

8.3.1.      Promotion to Associate Professor

8.3.2.      Promotion to Professor

8.4.   Procedures for Promotion Decisions

9.      Details of Procedures for Performance Evaluations

9.1.   Deadlines

9.2.   Policies Governing All Personnel Committees and Reviewing Bodies

9.3.   Departmental/School/Division Procedures

9.4.   College/General Unit Procedures

9.5.   University Committee Procedures

9.6.   Recommendations from the Associate Vice President for Faculty Affairs

9.7.   President’s Decision

9.8.   Denial of Promotion

9.9.   Responses or Rebuttals

The document was reorganized to make things easier to find.  The bulk of S9808 is intact in the new version but in different places

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Professional Development Plan is new

Changed to reduce cost

 

 

 

This section was added to clarify the relationship between the reviews in the RTP process

 

We split Retention from Tenure to make it easier to read and find things but most of the language is the same.

APPOINTMENT, RETENTION, TENURE AND PROMOTION CRITERIA, STANDARDS AND PROCEDURES FOR REGULAR PROBATIONARY AND TENURED FACULTY EMPLOYEES

 

Clarification of terms used in this policy:

 

I1. Preamble  (Page1)

A. 1.1 Overview
B. 1.2 Goals and the Two Basic Criteria
C. 1.3 Application of the Two Basic Criteria

II. 2. Criteria  (Page 2)

A. 2.1 Effectiveness in Academic Assignment

2.1.1 Effectiveness in Teaching or Professional Assignment

2.1.2 Service to Students and to the University

2.1.3 Contents of Dossier in Relation to the Academic Assignment

B. 2.2 Scholarly or Artistic or Professional Achievement

2.2.1 Types of Achievements

2.2.2 Guidelines for Scholarly, Artistic or Professional Achievement

2.2.3 Evaluation of Achievements

2.2.4 Contents of Dossier in Relation to Achievements

III. General Procedures  (Page 4)

A. Policies Governing All Personnel Committees
B. Period of Review and Contents of Dossier

IV.3. Initial Appointment   (Page 6)

A. 3.1 Procedures for Initial Appointment Standards for Initial Appointment

B. 3.2 Standards for Initial Appointment Procedures for Initial Appointment

4. Types of Reviews: General Description

4.1 Performance Review

4.2  Review of a Faculty Member’s Professional Development Plan

4.3  Review of the Annual Summary of Achievements

 

 

5. Annual Summary of Achievements and Professional Development Plan

5.1 Persons required to submit an Annual Summary of Achievements and a Professional Development Plan

5.2   When the Annual Summary of Achievements and Professional Development Plans are to be submitted

5.3  Annual Summary of Achievements

5.4  Professional Development Plan (PDP)

5.5  Request for a Performance Review

6. Retention Performance Review

6.1 Persons to Be Reviewed for Retention

6.2 Period of Review

6.3 Standards for Retention Decisions

6.4 Procedures for Retention Decisions

7. Tenure Performance Review

7.1 Persons to Be Reviewed for Tenure

7.2 Period of Review

7.3 Standards for Tenure Decisions

7.4 Procedures for Tenure Decisions

V. Retention and Tenure (Page 7)

A. Procedures for Retention/Tenure Decisions
B. Standards for Retention/Tenure Decisions

VI.8.  Promotion (Page 11) Performance Review

8.1 Persons to be Reviewed for Promotion

8.2 Period of Review

A. Procedures for Promotion Decisions 

B. 8.3 Standards for Promotion Decisions

8.3.1 Promotion to Associate Professor

8.3.2 Promotion to Professor

 

8.4 Procedures for Promotion Decisions

9. Details of Procedures for Performance Evaluations

9.1Deadlines

9.2  Policies Governing All Personnel Committees and Reviewing Bodies

9.3  Departmental School/Division Procedures

9.4  College/General Unit Procedures

9.5  University Committee Procedures

9.6  Recommendations from the Associate Vice President for Faculty Affairs

9.7  President’s Decision

9.8  Denial of Promotion

9.9  Responses or Rebuttals

 

APPOINTMENT, RETENTION, TENURE AND PROMOTION CRITERIA, STANDARDS AND PROCEDURES FOR PROBATIONARY AND TENURED FACULTY EMPLOYEES

Clarification of terms used in this policy

  1. In this document, the “dossier” is the document referred to in the Agreement as the Working Personnel Action File.

       ii.            All references to colleges also apply to the General Unit.

      iii.            All references to departments also apply to similar units: e.g. schools, divisions.

  1. In this document, the term “Department Chair” also includes School Directors and individuals who hold a similar position in units equivalent to a department.
  2. In this document, the term “College Dean” also includes individuals who hold a similar position.in units equivalent to a college

 

1.      Preamble

1.1     Overview
     The present document is the policy of San Jose State University concerning the appointment, retention, tenure, and promotion for all probationary and tenured Unit 3 faculty in the university. The policy is organized by setting forth the goals of the policy, how the criteria are to be applied in all personnel decisions, and certain general procedures which apply to all decisions. Procedures and standards to be employed for the different personnel actions are subsequently specified. This policy is meant to provide for flexibility in the university's approach to achieving the stated goals of the policy. It is important to note that all faculty -- even all faculty in the same department -- need not conform to the same model.  San Jose State University seeks diversity within its faculty and in the ways individual faculty members seek to be effective in furthering the educational mission of the university. When making recommendations on faculty personnel matters, committees and administrators should use common sense and flexibility in applying standards and criteria, keeping this policy's goals firmly in mind. Individual departments, colleges and non-teaching units are required to generate and issue guidelines that relate to aspects of this university-wide policy (see Section 2.2.2). 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The language from S98-8 regarding guidelines has been expanded upon and moved to section 2.2.2

 

 

 

APPOINTMENT, RETENTION, TENURE AND PROMOTION CRITERIA, STANDARDS AND PROCEDURES FOR REGULAR  PROBATIONARY AND TENURED FACULTY EMPLOYEES

 

Clarifification of terms used in this policy

  1. In this document, the “dossier” is the document referred to in the Agreement as the Working Personnel Action File.

      ii.            All references to colleges also apply to the General Unit.

    iii.            All references to departments also apply to similar units: e.g. schools, divisions.

  1. In this document, the term “Department Chair” also includes School Directors and individuals who hold a similar position in units equivalent to a department.

       v.            In this document, the term “College Dean” also includes individuals who hold a similar position.in units equivalent to a college

I. Preamble

A. Overview:
     The present document is the policy of San Jose State University concerning the appointment, retention, tenure, and promotion for all regular or probationary and tenured-track Unit 3 faculty in the university. The policy is organized by setting forth the goals of the policy, how the criteria are to be applied in all personnel decisions, and certain general procedures which apply to all decisions. Procedures and standards to be employed for the different personnel actions are subsequently specified. This policy is meant to provide for flexibility in the university's approach to achieving the stated goals of the policy. It is important to note that all faculty -- even all faculty in the same department -- need not conform to the same model.  San Jose State University seeks diversity within its faculty and in the ways individual faculty members seek to be effective in furthering the educational mission of the university. When making recommendations on faculty personnel matters, committees and administrators should use common sense and flexibility in applying standards and criteria, keeping this policy's goals firmly in mind. Individual departments, and colleges, and non-teaching (units) are encouraged required to generate and issue advisory guidelines or supplemental statements that relate to aspects of this university-wide policy (see Section 2.2.2).  to the professional standards and breadth of activities of particular disciplines. Non-teaching units are required to develop such guidelines. Such guidelines or statements should assist committees and administrators outside the department or college in understanding the standards appropriate to the applicant's profession and to ensure fair and equitable application of these standards to the broader procedures, standards, and criteria of the university policy. Such statements or guidelines may specify the sorts of documentation that are normally expected to be especially relevant to the evaluation of professional effectiveness of faculty in the particular academic area. Such statements or guidelines should be included in the dossier, after having been approved by the Associate Vice President for Faculty Affairs in consultation with the Professional Standards Committee of the San Jose State University Academic Senate. Advisory guidelines and supplemental statements that are adopted should be reviewed, updated, and, if modified, resubmitted for approval every three years.

 

 

1.2     Goals and the Two Basic Criteria
Excellence in education is dependent above all upon the quality of the faculty. The purpose of these procedures for recruitment, retention, tenure and promotion is to provide just recognition and encouragement of genuine achievement. The basic evaluation of faculty members' potential, performance and achievement should be made by their peers both within their departments and their disciplines at large. But evaluations alone, no matter how just and weighty the procedures, cannot ensure excellence in education. The aim of the evaluation process should be to inform faculty members of the appropriate criteria, standards and expectations, to apprise them of their strengths and weaknesses, and to recognize those who have earned tenure or promotion by their achievements. To this end, college deans and department chairpersons should meet regularly with individual faculty members -- especially with probationary faculty -- to discuss their review and, if necessary, to suggest possible means of improvement.  San Jose State University seeks faculty who have achieved distinction in teaching and in their disciplines or professional communities. To achieve this goal we must evaluate each other with certain standards of achievement in mind. There are two basic criteria for evaluation: effectiveness in academic assignment and scholarly or artistic or professional achievement.  "Service" to students and the university is generally subsumed under the first criterion, while "service" to the larger community and/or to a discipline or professional community is generally subsumed under the second criterion.

 

B. 1.2 Goals and the Two Basic Criteria Excellence in education is dependent above all upon the quality of the faculty. The purpose of these procedures for recruitment, retention, tenure and promotion is to provide just recognition and encouragement of genuine achievement. The basic evaluation of faculty members' potential, performance and achievement should be made by their peers both within their departments and their disciplines at large. But evaluations alone, no matter how just and weighty the procedures, cannot ensure excellence in education. The aim of the evaluation process should be to inform faculty members of the appropriate criteria, standards and expectations, to apprise them of their strengths and weaknesses, and to recognize those who have earned tenure or promotion by their achievements. To this end, college deans and department chairpersons should meet regularly with individual faculty members -- especially with probationary faculty -- to discuss their review and, if necessary, to suggest possible means of improvement.  San Jose State University seeks faculty who have achieved distinction in teaching and in their disciplines or professional communities. To achieve this goal we must evaluate each other with certain standards of achievement in mind. There are two basic criteria for evaluation: effectiveness in academic assignment and scholarly or artistic or professional achievement.  "Service" to students and the university is generally subsumed under the first criterion, while "service" to the larger community and/or to a discipline or professional community is generally subsumed under the second criterion.

 

1.3     Application of the Two Basic Criteria
     Effectiveness in academic assignment is the primary, but not the only, consideration in evaluating a faculty member's performance. For most faculty, academic assignment consists primarily, but not exclusively, of teaching. Thus, contribution to the teaching mission of the university is the essential condition for continuation and advancement within the university.

 

C.1.3 Application of the Two Basic Criteria
     Effectiveness in academic assignment is the primary, but not the only, consideration in evaluating a faculty member's performance. For most faculty, academic assignment consists primarily, but not exclusively, of teaching. Thus, contribution to the teaching mission of the university is the essential condition for continuation and advancement within the university.

 

1.3.1.      However, teaching effectiveness is normally not sufficient without appropriate scholarly or artistic or professional achievement.  Although service to the university is ordinarily evaluated as part of a faculty member's academic assignment, truly outstanding service to the university which is characteristically informed by genuine scholarship -- such as distinguished teaching, curricular development, or advising of student scholarly or creative activity -- shall be counted in the category of scholarly or artistic or professional achievement. The dossier should clearly document the activity and support its consideration within this criterion. In any case, significant service to students and university -- or to one's profession or discipline, to public education, or to the community at large -- must be recognized under one basic criterion or the other.

 

 

    1.3.1  However, teaching effectiveness is normally not sufficient without appropriate scholarly or artistic or professional achievement.  Although service to the university is ordinarily evaluated as part of a faculty member's academic assignment, truly outstanding service to the university which is characteristically informed by genuine scholarship -- such as distinguished teaching, curricular development, or advising of student scholarly or creative activity -- shall be counted in the category of scholarly or artistic or professional achievement. The dossier should clearly document the activity and support its consideration within this criterion. In any case, significant service to students and university -- or to one's profession or discipline, to public education, or to the community at large -- must be recognized under one basic criterion or the other.

 

1.3.2.      In applying common sense and flexibility to the criteria, it should be recognized that faculty who are outstanding in one area but less active or successful in other areas may well be contributing more to the university than someone who is adequate in all areas but outstanding in none. While competent teaching of assigned classes or competent performance in academic assignment, modest scholarly or other professional activity in an academic discipline, and a normal amount of committee work may represent "threshold" levels of accomplishment in these areas, something more in at least one area will be expected for tenure and promotion; individual faculty can and will differ in how they balance these roles or dimensions of their professional careers and relate them to the criteria outlined in the present policy. The guiding principle should be thorough and candid evaluation for the sake of encouraging and recognizing achievement.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The part that was deleted was unclear and that issue was examined in detail later in the document.

 

     1.3.2 In applying common sense and flexibility to the criteria, it should be recognized that faculty who are outstanding in one area but less active or successful in other areas may well be contributing more to the university than someone who is adequate in all areas but outstanding in none. While competent teaching of assigned classes or competent performance in academic assignment, modest scholarly or other professional activity in an academic discipline, and a normal amount of committee work may represent "threshold" levels of accomplishment in these areas, something more in at least one area will be expected for tenure and promotion; individual faculty can and will differ in how they balance these roles or dimensions of their professional careers and relate them to the criteria outlined in the present policy. The guiding principle should be a thorough and candid evaluation for the sake of encouraging and recognizing achievement. Outstanding accomplishment is sufficient reason for an exception to the normal expectations for appointment, retention, tenure, or promotion.