Policies For Promotion, Tenure, And Evaluation
The following recommendations apply to the evaluations of all WCSU AAUP members. In the case of librarians, counselors, athletic coaches, and athletic trainers, the word "director" shall be substituted for "dean" wherever appropriate.
- Department Evaluation Committees should be elected by the departments, except in "hardship" cases. (Note: "hardship" is defined in the CSU-AAUP Collective Bargaining Agreement)
- A department may allow its DEC the use of an outside peer evaluator. Such peer evaluator should have demonstrated expertise in the area of the candidate's responsibilities. If an outside peer evaluator is used, his/her evaluation should be available to the DEC, the Dean, and the Promotion and Tenure Committee. A candidate may introduce evaluation from an outside peer evaluator for the consideration of the DEC, the Dean, the Promotion and Tenure Committee, and the President.
- All persons in a department who are eligible to serve on its DEC have the responsibility to serve.
- It is the responsibility of the chairperson of the department to see to it that the DECs are constituted appropriately and in a timely manner. If a member of a department believes that the composition of the DEC is inappropriate or not timely, appeal may be made to the Vice President for Human Resources. DEC members, peer evaluators, department chairs, and all others who write evaluations or recommendations should be clearly identified in the evaluations/ recommendations.
- It is recommended that a faculty member be notified at least one (1) year in advance by the department chairperson of his/her evaluation and its requirements. However, this does not change the contractual requirements as enumerated in 4.11.3 of the Collective Bargaining Agreement.
- The DEC report should contain the material on which the DEC's evaluation was based (except the material that already exists in the personnel file). Summaries of student evaluations may be placed in the personnel file instead of the student evaluations. However, if student comments are included in the DEC report, then all the raw student evaluations should be placed in a supplemental file. Such a supplemental file should remain in the Human Resources Office until the conclusion of the current evaluation process (President's action).
- The CSU-AAUP Collective Bargaining Agreement establishes five categories for evaluating faculty members. The Collective Bargaining Agreement also allows special conditions under article 4.7 in letters of appointment. Quality is the criterion in each category or condition. Departments, through their bylaws, shall articulate the expectations by which quality of performance in each of the five categories (except #5, rank) is to be judged. This information should be made available to the Dean, the Promotion and Tenure Committee, and the President.
- A department chairperson's evaluation of a candidate should be submitted to the DEC for its deliberations prior to the writing of the DEC report (unless the chairperson is a DEC member). The candidate shall be provided a copy of the chairperson's evaluation at the same time as it is given to the DEC.
- It is the responsibility of the candidate to provide evidence for claims of accomplishments. In the absence of such evidence the claims should be ignored. Candidates should remove duplicate material from their personnel files with the consent of the Human Resources Office or put such material in a sub file clearly marked "duplicates."
- DECs and Deans should cite appropriate documentation in the candidate's personnel file to support their evaluations where such documentation exists. This does not preclude the use of other evaluative material or assessments and records of disciplinary action which may be used by the DEC or the Dean (refer to 4.14.1 of the Collective Bargaining Agreement).
- A Dean should meet with a candidate if the candidate so requests at the time of the evaluation. Similarly, a candidate should meet with the Dean if the Dean so requests. Either the Dean or the candidate (or both) has the right to have a representative present.
- Student evaluations should be done for most of the courses taught by the faculty member for at least one year prior to his/her evaluation. However, all the courses taught by the faculty member during the year should be listed in the DEC report. A department may, through its bylaws, require student evaluations for a longer period than one year. All student evaluations should be conducted with department-approved instruments. The course number and the total number of students enrolled in the course at the time the evaluation is conducted should be identified. All required student evaluations, as well as those submitted by the candidate, should be considered by the DEC, the Dean, and the P & T Committee.
- Since the Deans and the P & T Committee are to take the student evaluations into account when faculty members are evaluated, some commonality in the student evaluation instruments is necessary. In addition, the P & T Committee should not have to judge the comparative merits of the instruments. In order for the student evaluations to be useful to the P & T Committee, they should, at a minimum, contain information on the following:
a. Quality of teaching
b. Course content
c. Clear criteria for grading
e. Grading fairness
f. Accessibility of the instructor outside the classroom
g. Clarity in the presentation of the subject matter
h. Frequency of class cancellations
- When the annual list of eligible candidates is sent to department chairpersons and Deans (usually done by the Provost/Vice President for Academic Affairs) a copy of the above recommendations, as accepted by the Senate and approved by the President, shall also be sent with the list.
Form: Suggested DEC Chairperson’s Memorandum
Form: DEC Written Evaluation and Recommendation Report for Teaching Faculty
Form: DEC Written Evaluation and Recommendation Report for Athletic Coaches
Form: DEC Written Evaluation and Recommendation Report for Athletic Trainers
Form: DEC Written Evaluation and Recommendation Report for Librarians
Approved Senate: 12/18/91
Administrative Approval: 12/19/91
Administrative Approval: 5/4/00