Introduction to the RTP Process for New Faculty

Introduction to the RTP Process for New Faculty Fall, 2020 Nancy L. Mc. Queen, Ph. D. , Associate Vice President – Faculty Affairs Office of Faculty Affairs – ADM 707 http: //www. calstatela. edu/academicpersonnel

Policies Governing Evaluation of Faculty • The Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) between the CSU and the CFA. • University policy in the Faculty Handbook, which must conform to the CBA • Department and College ARTP documents, which must conform to University policy • See: http: //www. calstatela. edu/Faculty. Affairs/notificationpolicies-and-procedures-evaluation-faculty

The Nature of Reviews for Retention, Tenure and Promotion • Cumulative in the sense that the progress or growth of the faculty member since joining the faculty is a factor in evaluation. • For retention - will take into account all and only the activities and achievements since the last performance review • For promotion will take into account all activities since the initial probationary appointment or promotion to associate professor. • Comparative in the sense that the faculty member is evaluated against the quality and effectiveness of performance of colleagues, taking into account the broad range of activities in which different members of the faculty engage.

Types of Evaluations • Performance Reviews: • What is it? A review that serves the dual purposes of (1) providing constructive feedback and (2) determining whether or not a faculty member's performance warrants retention, tenure, or promotion • Who does the performance review? Review by all levels: department committee/chair, college committee, Dean, and Provost • When is a performance review done? For retention, tenure, promotion to either rank. • File closure dates are in early Fall semester.

Types of Evaluations • Periodic evaluation: • What is it? A formative evaluation which provides feedback on performance and which can be referenced in future reviews. • Who gets evaluated? Probationary faculty and post-tenure reviews (other than promotion reviews) • Who does the evaluation? Only department (committee/chair) and Dean review • When is a periodic evaluation done? Any year an evaluation is required, but a performance review is not required. • File closure dates are in Spring semester.

Categories of Performance Permanent faculty members are evaluated on the basis of their performance in three categories: A. Educational Performance B. Professional Achievement C. Contributions to the University.

The RTP Process - Levels of Expectation: Performance review for Retention • Performance Review for Retention • At the time of the performance review of the faculty member for retention during the probationary period, judgment is based on demonstrated growth, performance and promise in categories A, B, and C. • Performance Review for tenure and/or Promotion • At the time of candidacy for tenure and/or promotion, a faculty member is expected to have demonstrated substantive achievements in categories A, B, and C. • Promise of future growth will not be sufficient to warrant a positive recommendation for tenure or promotion.

Official Evaluative Terms • Outstanding - truly exceptional performance. • Commendable - performance that is better than satisfactory and that exceed expectations. • Satisfactory - performance that meets expectations. • Needs Improvement - performance that does not meet expectations, in one or more specified areas of concern. • Unsatisfactory - performance that is seriously deficient.

Implications of Evaluative Terms • A review that finds a faculty member's performance to be satisfactory or better in all three categories shall be accompanied by a favorable recommendation for retention, tenure, or promotion, when eligible and not applying early. • An evaluation of "needs improvement" does not preclude a reviewer/review committee from recommending retention - Recommendation for non-retention - Recommendation for a one-year appointment - Recommendation for a two-year appointment • A judgment of unsatisfactory in any one area shall entail a negative recommendation for retention, tenure, or promotion.

Typical Evaluation Timelines - Probationary Faculty • First year: Periodic evaluation in Spring semester. • Second year: Performance review in Fall of second year. If found to be Satisfactory or better, a two-year appointment is given. • Remaining years: Performance review in Fall of fourth and sixth years; periodic evaluation in Spring of third and fifth years. • A probationary faculty member may request a performance review in a year in which they are scheduled to receive a periodic evaluation. • Consideration for tenure and promotion to associate professor normally occurs in the sixth probationary year (file closure date in early Fall semester of your sixth year). • Consideration for promotion to professor normally occurs when a faculty member has received tenure and is in the fifth year in rank as an associate professor (file closure date in early Fall semester).

Early tenure/promotion • A probationary faculty member applying for early tenure or early promotion shall demonstrate that they have, in a shorter period of time, (a) achieved the level of development in all areas of review that is expected of candidates for tenure; and (b) established a record of accomplishments that exceeds the standards and level of performance expected during the probationary period. • Tenured associate professors applying for early promotion shall demonstrate that they have achieved, in a shorter period of time, a record of accomplishments that exceeds the standards and level of performance that would be expected during the normal five-year period of time in rank as an associate professor. • A faculty member cannot apply for early tenure and/or promotion if they have applied for and been denied early tenure and/or promotion while in the same rank.

Personnel Action Files-“Personnel recommendations or decisions relating to retention, tenure, promotion, termination based upon work performance, or any other personnel action, shall be based on the Personnel Action File” CBA 11. 9 • There are two types of Personnel Action Files • Type 1 -Permanent Personnel Action File (PPAF) • • • Maintained and kept in the Dean’s Office. PPAF is cumulative with previous evaluations kept chronologically No anonymous information can be placed in the file. Dean places material in the PPAF Nothing can go in without your prior knowledge Faculty may request that a particular item be removed (except RTP reports) and may rebut material entered into the file.

Personnel Action Files • Type 2 -Working Personnel Action File (WPAF) – aka the supplementary file – information you provide • For a performance evaluation, the candidate is responsible for uploading the following materials to his or her working personnel action file (WPAF) before the published date of the file closure: • a current curriculum vitae (CV) • a personnel accomplishment report (“PAR”) that summarizes and describes the candidate's activities and accomplishments during the period under review = your narrative. • evidence of these activities and accomplishments - evidence is not required for a periodic review • Recommendation – start a file in which you place all your evidence of activities and accomplishments. • This would be the Dossier in Interfolio where all of your electronic documents can be stored

The Personnel Accomplishment Report • Construct your narrative. • Describe your activities and accomplishments during the period of review (only). • In Interfolio, this is split into the 3 different sections (A, B, and C) • Convey, contextualize, calibrate…this is your opportunity to describe your performance from the perspective of your academic discipline. • Not just a list of bullets: explain the significance and impact of accomplishments. • Make this easy to read for your reviewers, too…consider doublespacing, single-sided.

Working Personnel Action File (WPAF) • File closure dates are firm (RTP Calendar)- can be found on the Faculty Affairs website • Expectations for what should be included as evidence may differ across departments and colleges – discuss with colleagues and the Dean’s office to understand your college norms. • You may not include any work products you may have participated in if those work products were confidential. Example #1: you may not include a peer of observation of a faculty member YOU observed. Example #2: you may not include any RTP reports of other faculty whom you evaluated.

Working Personnel Action File (WPAF) • Adding materials after the WPAF file closure: • It must be new material, not available at file closure • It must be relevant • Any addition to the file must be approved by the appropriate college committee.

Working Personnel Action File (WPAF) for Performance Reviews and Promotions • Preparation of WPAF is the candidate’s responsibility. • Make sure it is well organized: • with an “index” (required) = TABLE of CONTENTS – this is required in Interfolio • organize material in the file (by class; year; whatever is appropriate) • Include evidence of achievements in each area (without being excessive – this sometimes frustrates and annoys reviewers). • Simply listing an activity in the CV does not constitute evidence.

Period of Review: What Material to Include • Periodic evaluation: Include material since last file closure. • Performance review: Include material since last file closure for performance review. • Tenure/promotion: Cumulative review, covering all years in current rank.

Evaluating your files • In evaluating your contributions in the three areas of review as to their relative merits, the quality and effectiveness, and not only the quantity of the contributions in each category shall be the primary consideration. • You, as the candidate, should make it easy for the reviewers to assess the quality and effectiveness of your activities (by explaining this in your narrative and providing the documented evidence of this).

Category A. Educational Performance

A. 1. Activities that contribute to student learning • Activities by the faculty member that directly contribute to student learning, principally, classroom instruction, but anything touching on student learning. Evaluation must be based on: • Report on Peer Observation of Instruction • Student opinion surveys • At least one other source of information (the supplemental file)

Your Chair’s Responsibilities to you include: • Ensuring that peer observations of teaching performance are performed, with appropriate notification. • Students also have the right to submit signed statements.

Peer Observation of Instruction • Faculty must be notified five days ahead by the department as to the date and evaluator. • Observation is performed by a member of the department/division/school personnel committee, or by the department/division chair or school director or his or her designee. • Reports are included in the faculty member's permanent personnel action file. • Faculty may request a change to the time and place. • Faculty may recommend peer evaluator, but selection is prerogative of the department, • Observer must consult before or after observation with faculty.

Student Opinion Surveys on Instruction • Summary results of 11 quantitative questions will be placed in PAF along with class GPA. • See the 11 questions at: http: //www. calstatela. edu/academicsenate/handbook/appm • For periodic reviews, performance reviews, and promotion - your Dean’s office will upload the summary sheet into Interfolio • You may upload any written comments that students submitted into your supplemental file (organized by class/date). These comments are only provided to you (ie, the Dean’s office does not get them), so placement of any individual student responses is your option.

Student Opinion Surveys on Instruction Questions on the interpretation of the SOS include: -Are the responses representative? -How will the reviewers interpret the data? -Comparison of responses in your course to the department means Comparison of the GPA in the course relative to the department mean SO • Look carefully at number of responses per class. • Look carefully at distribution of responses in the class. • Consider the type of course – GE, lower division core, upper division major Consider carefully how much weight you think reviewers should give to the student surveys in evaluating your teaching performance, compared to other evidence available to them. Express this in your PAR narrative.

Other Sources of Information May include examples of: • Course syllabi. • Instructional materials (handouts, rubrics, etc. ) • Assessment methods. • Assignments (including field assignments). • Evidence of student work and accomplishments. • Signed letters from students (but NOT solicited by you!)

A 2. Related Educational Activities Related educational activities include, but are not limited to: • academic advisement • curriculum/program development • programmatic assessment of learning outcomes • membership on thesis committees • development and evaluation of comprehensive exams • other academic support activities that enhance student retention and student achievement

Quality and Effectiveness • In evaluating these contributions in category A as to their relative merits, the quality and effectiveness, and not only the quantity of the contributions shall be the primary consideration.

Category B. Professional Achievement

Examples of Areas of Professional Achievement • Academic and scholarly contributions to the faculty member's profession and field. • Innovative use of technology, textbooks, and original teaching or testing materials. • Inventions, designs and innovations. • Creation, exhibition, performance or publication in the arts or literature. • Presentations at scholarly and professional meetings • Community-based participatory research, community service, and community-based activities that involve the academic expertise of the faculty member.

Examples of Areas of Professional Achievement • Participation in activities of scholarly or professional societies beyond membership. • Receipt of fellowships, grants, contracts or other subsidies for the pursuit of research or study in the faculty member's field. • Service to one's profession, in such cases where the activity is based on one's disciplinary expertise (for example, appointment to a granting agency's review board or service on a professional board). • Holding significant special appointments. • Professional practice that utilizes the faculty member's academic expertise in a manner that results in an advancement of the field.

Quality and Effectiveness • In evaluating these contributions in category B as to their relative merits, the quality and effectiveness, and not only the quantity of the contributions shall be the primary consideration. • Make sure you indicate the importance of your accomplishments in your discipline (It may not be obvious to your reviewer!)

Category C. Contributions to the University

Contributions to the University • Contributions to the University, is defined as all other service to the University, profession, or community that contributes to the mission and governance of the University

Examples of Contributions to the University • Contributing to academic governance such as membership and participation in the activities of department/division/school, college, university, and system committees, and service in administrative capacities. • Participating in any student organization or engaging in any service to colleges and/or the community or engaging in other activities which bring positive recognition to the faculty member and to the University. • Delivering speeches, conducting colloquia, or otherwise conveying information about the faculty member's scholarship, profession, field and university to community groups. • Organizing and engaging in significant university, college and department/division/school activities which improve the educational environment and/or student or faculty life, such as organizing retreats, conferences, or orientations.

Quality and Effectiveness • In evaluating these contributions in category C as to their relative merits, the quality and effectiveness, and not only the quantity of the contributions shall be the primary consideration.

What about complex, multi-faceted activities? It is possible that a complex, multi-faceted activity/experience could count in more than one category. If so, you need to be explicit and defend your rationale for hitting multiple categories. For example: community-based research involving participation of students.

Final Points, Not Otherwise Categorized

Individualized Professional Plans • Faculty have the discretion to develop, in collaboration with Chair and the appropriate department/division/school personnel committee, an individualized professional plan (IPP). • With an IPP, you can specify goals and objectives and may alter the balance or focus of performance among categories A, B, and C for a specified period of time.

Review Policies and Procedures For…. • Faculty with Interdisciplinary Appointments • Faculty with Joint Appointments If you are a candidate in either of these categories, review these sections of the Faculty Handbook!

Evaluation Reports/Responses • For each type of evaluation, each level of review will give you an evaluation report, which you should: • Review, • Sign, • and return to that level • You have the right to request a meeting to discuss the recommendation with the committee/reviewer

Evaluation Reports/Responses You also have the right to submit a rebuttal statement or a response in writing (within 10 days) • You should do so if report is factually inaccurate, or misleading (given record in file). • You may wish to do so if you take issue with evaluation on non-factual findings (such as the significance of an accomplishment). • No attachments to rebuttal – incorporate information into the body of the rebuttal. • Use to clarify, explain, put report in context. • Don’t argue – convince. • Note: a response to your rebuttal is not required by the review committee or individual reviewer

Last bits of advice… • Spend time putting together a clear, concise, well-organized supplemental file. • Ask colleagues (especially those just ahead of you in the process) if you can look through their materials • Read the relevant policy and procedure documents. • Respond to recommendations from previous years’ reviews, and use the reviews as a professional development tool. • Seek advice/direction from your colleagues and your Department Chair. • Ask for advice/guidance from others as well – university and liaison colleagues, Office of Faculty Affairs, CFA.

Questions?