FACULTY HANDBOOK

Evaluation of Instructional Faculty

The procedures for instructional faculty evaluation are detailed in section 4.11, 4.12 and 4.13 of the CSU-AAUP/CSU-BOT contract (1993-96). In addition, there is the following from the Faculty Senate:

CRITERION, CATEGORIES, GUIDELINES AND PROCEDURES FOR
DEPARTMENTAL EVALUATION COMMITTEES
CONCERNING EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATION FOR
RENEWAL, TENURE, PROMOTION OR PROFESSIONAL ASSESSMENT
(FS-77-08-B REVISED BY FS-82-07-B FS-89-11-B, FS-89-16-B)
(FS-84-02-B, FS-84-12-B) (FS-92-10-B)

PREAMBLE:

A Departmental Evaluation Committee (DEC) shall exist within the Committee structure of each department. The function of the DEC shall be to conduct all personnel evaluation on behalf of the department in accord with the BOT/AAUP contract Articles 4.11, 4.12, 5.3 (as it applies to promotion) and 5.4.

I. Evaluation/Assessment and recommendation for renewal, tenure and/o promotion are a single process involving a single individual. There shall be one form for evaluation/assessment and recommendations. All evaluations/assessments and recommendations shall be completed on the form entitled "Evaluation and Recommendation for Renewal, Tenure, Promotion or Professional Assessment." This form is to be completed in triplicate.

II. Criterion and Categories for Professional Assessment

The criterion for evaluating shall be the quality of activity, including keeping current in oneís field, within each of the following categories:

A. Teaching and/or other primary professional function for which the individual receives load credit

1. Teaching: The criteria for determining quality of teaching shall include evidences from the following: effectiveness of teaching within and outside the classroom in accomplishing the objectives of his/her courses; knowledge of his/her field, such as the ability to teach courses in the department, develop effective new courses and programs, or improve existing courses and programs; ability to establish rapport with students by advising students effectively regarding creative productions, independent study, research, courses content and other academic concerns and problems of students.

2. Other Primary Professional Function: The criteria for determining competencies of faculty who receive load credit for other professional functions shall include evidences from the following: effectiveness of professional competency in specialized area of assigned responsibilities and in awareness of his/her field; knowledge of interrelationships of the area to university programs; and ability to establish professional rapport with students and faculty.

B. Creative activity

The criteria for determining creative activity appropriate to oneís field shall include evidences from the following: presenting papers at professional conferences, production/performance of artistic works, research, study and publications.

C. Productive service to the department and university

The criteria for determining service to a department and the university shall include evidences form the following: participation in department or school activities; service on university committees; and participation in professionally related community programs.

D. Professional activity

The criteria for determining participation in professional activity shall include evidences from the following: offers his/her academic expertise and professional experience to the university, the profession or the community through such activities as lectures, readings, workshops, concerts, consulting services, and creative endeavors; and affiliates or participates in professional groups and associations.

These categories must be weighed in the above order.

III. Criteria and Categories for Recommendations for Renewal and Tenure

The criterion for evaluating and making renewal and tenure recommendations shall be the quality of activity, including keeping current in oneís field, within each of the following categories.

A. Teaching and/or other primary professional function for which the individual receives load credit.

B. Creative Activity

C. Service to the department and the university

D. Professional activity

These categories (as defined in II) must be weighed in this order. Furthermore, the DEC in making tenure recommendations must consider any special written conditions imposed at the time of initial appointment or any other conditions which were agreed to later in writing.

IV. Criterion and Categories for Recommendations for Promotion

Eligibility--A faculty member must meet minimum eligibility requirements associated with the respective ranks as specified in AAUP/BOT Contract articles 5.3.1 - ranks as specified in AAUP/BOT Contract articles 5.3.1 - 5.3.4 or have credentials and/or experience substantially comparable to the listed standards. A recommendation for such promotion may be initiated by the individual or the DEC, but shall not be considered further in the absence of a positive recommendation from the DEC (article 5.3.5).

The criterion for evaluating and making promotion recommendations shall be the quality of activity, including keeping current in oneís field, within each of the following categories:

A. Teaching and/or other primary professional function for which the individual receives load credit.

B. Creative activity

C. Service to the department and the university

D. Professional activity

E. Years in rank

All other qualifications being equal, seniority in terms of length of service and experience in rank shall be the determining factor between the two candidates. These criteria must be weighed in this order. A supporting narrative justification for the recommendation shall also be based on these categories.

V. Evaluation of Tenured Faculty

Each tenured teaching member shall receive a professional assessment evaluation every six years.

VI. Evaluation of Non-Tenured Faculty

The DEC shall evaluate all non-tenured department members who are in the first year of appointment after completion of a full semester of service. Subsequently, all non-tenured members shall be evaluated once a year.

VII. Deadlines

The DEC shall observe the contractual deadlines for evaluation and recommendations for purposes of renewal, tenure and/or promotion.

VIII. Miscellany

A. Each faculty member shall see and sign his/her own Professional Assessment form and/or form for Renewal, Tenure, and/or Promotion before it (they is (are) transmitted to the appropriate Dean. The faculty membersí signature does not indicate either approval or disapproval. If the faculty member disagrees with the evaluation/assessment/ recommendation, he/she may append a reply to the evaluation/assessment/ recommendation within five working days.

B. For full-time members who are engaged in classroom teaching, the DEC shall obtain and use data from a written student survey instrument. Each department by majority vote of its full-time members may devise its own procedures for peer and student evaluations in accord with BOT/AAUP Contract Articles 4.11.7, 4.11.8.

C. The Department Chair may convene the first meeting of the DEC and may serve as an ex officio member of this committee.

D. Only tenured faculty members shall serve on DECs. A member of the DEC shall absent himself/herself from deliberations of the committee when his/her own case is being considered for professional assessment. In no case shall persons under consideration for promotion serve on the DEC during any deliberations on promotion.

E. Department experiencing hardships because a DEC cannot be formed due to the lack of tenured faculty shall submit for committee membership the names of tenured candidates from allied departments to the University President for his approval.

F. No document shall be placed in an evaluation or assessment file without the knowledge of the faculty member being reviewed.

IX. Ranking of Faculty

No document containing more than one faculty memberís name shall be initiated by a committee or individual in the evaluation process. Any ranking of faculty by a committee or individual in the process of recommending for either promotion or tenure must be recorded on the evaluation form as part of the recommendation.

Nothing in these "Procedures" shall be interpreted in such a way as to be in conflict with the AAUP/BOT contract; and that to the extent that they may be in conflict with the current contract, or any future amendments of such contract, they are accordingly revised.

Recommendations for DEC in Implementing Requirements

A. Professional Assessment

1. In Section I (DATA) complete faculty memberís name, date, department, years of service at CCSU (including current year), present rank, years in present rank (including current year), and for type of evaluation, check Professional Assessment.

2. Complete Section III (EVALUATION NARRATIVE), addressing each of the categories evaluated. Attach a page if space is insufficient for the narrative.

3. Committee members sign and date the form.

B. Renewal

1. In Section I (DATA) complete faculty memberís name, date, department, years of service at CCSU (including current year), present rank, years in present rank (including current year), and for type of evaluation, check Renewal.

2. Complete Section III (EVALUATION NARRATIVE), addressing each of the categories evaluated. Attach a page if space is insufficient for the narrative.

3. Complete Section IV (RECOMMENDATION), giving the DECís recommendation for or against renewal.

4. Committee members sign and date the form.

C. Tenure

1. In Section I (DATA) complete faculty memberís name, date, department, years of service at CCSU (including current year), present rank, years in present rank (including current year), and for type of evaluation, check Tenure.

2. Complete Section III (EVALUATION NARRATIVE), addressing each of the categories evaluated. Attach a page if space is insufficient for the narrative.

3. Complete Section IV (RECOMMENDATION), giving the DECís recommendation for or against granting of tenure.

4. Committee members sign and date the form.

D. Promotion

1. In Section I (DATA) complete faculty memberís name, date, department, years of service at CCSU (including current year), present rank, years in present rank (including current year), and for type of evaluation, check Promotion. Check basis for Eligibility for Promotion or check if initiated by department pursuant to Article 5.3.5.

2. Complete Section III (EVALUATION NARRATIVE), addressing each of the categories evaluated. Attach a page if space is insufficient for the narrative.

3. Complete Section IV (RECOMMENDATION), giving the DECís recommendation for or against promotion.

4. Committee members sign and date the form.