CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, LONG BEACH

REAPPOINTMENT, TENURE, AND PROMOTION (RTP)

POLICY AND PROCEDURES FOR TENURED AND TENURE-TRACK FACULTY

PS 96-12

May 1, 2008– Edits

The Reappointment, Tenure, and Promotion (RTP) policy for California State University, Long Beach establishes the mission, vision, and guiding principles for the evaluation of tenured and tenure-track faculty members (including coaches, librarians, and Counseling and Psychological Services personnel) eligible for reappointment, tenure, and promotion.[1] The University RTP policy also specifies the process by which faculty work shall be evaluated.

1.0 GUIDING PRINCIPLES

1.1 University Mission and Vision

California State University, Long Beach is a diverse, student-centered, globally-engaged public university committed to providing highly-valued undergraduate and graduate educational opportunities through superior teaching, research, creative activity, and service for the people of California and the world. CSULB envisions changing lives by expanding educational opportunities, championing creativity, and preparing leaders for a changing world.

1.2 Guiding Principles of Reappointment, Tenure, and Promotion (RTP)

1.2.1 A faculty dedicated to excellence in teaching, scholarship, creativity and service is essential to accomplishing the University’s articulated mission and vision. CSULB faculty members integrate the results of their research and creative activities into their teaching, invigorating and enhancing student learning. Faculty members are expected to make significant and ongoing contributions to their department, college, university, community, and the profession.

1.2.2 Decisions regarding Reappointment, Tenure, and Promotion (RTP) are among the most important made by our university community. RTP decisions must be clear, fair, and unbiased at all levels of review. Faculty achievements may vary from those of colleagues yet still meet the standards for reappointment, tenure, or promotion. The RTP process must ensure that excellence will be rewarded and that faculty members who meet department, college, and university standards and expectations will have a reasonable opportunity for advancement.

1.2.3 Tenured and tenure-track faculty members shall be evaluated on the quality of their achievements and the impact of their contributions over the period of review in: a) instruction and instructionally-related activities, b)research, scholarship, and/or creative activities, and c) service and engagement at the university, in the community, and in the profession. All faculty members will be evaluated on the basis of all three areas.

2.0 RTP AREAS OF EVALUATION

Colleges, departments, and other academic units are responsible for defining the standards of excellence and accompanying criteria for reappointment, tenure, and promotion in their various disciplines, taking into account the mission and needs of the University. RTP standards and criteria shall articulate expectations for faculty accomplishments in all three areas of evaluation: instruction and instructionally-related activities; research, scholarship, and/or creative activities; and service and engagement at the university, in the community, and in the profession.

2.1 Instruction and Instructionally-Related Activities

Faculty members are expected to demonstrate that they are effective teachers. Instruction and instructionally-related activities include teaching and fostering learning inside and outside the traditional classroom. Instructionally-related activities include, but are not limited to, curriculum development, academic and departmental advising, supervision of student research and fieldwork, direction of student performances and exhibitions, quasi administrative positions eg. Program coordinating and related activities involving student learning and student engagement. Additional instructional activities may include, but are not limited to, student mentoring, study abroad, and thesis and project supervision.

2.1.1 Instructional Philosophy and Practice

Effective teaching requires that faculty members reflect on their teaching practices and assess their impact on student learning. Thoughtful, deliberate efforts to improve one’s instructional effectiveness are expected of all faculty members. Effective teaching also requires that faculty members engage in professional development activities associated with classroom and non-classroom assignments. Teaching methods should be consistent with course/curriculum goals and accommodate student differences.

2.1.2 Student Learning Outcomes

Effective teaching requires that faculty members provide evidence of student learning. Instructional practices and course materials should clearly convey to students the learning goals, and expected student outcomes. Assessment methods should align with instructional practices.No candidate may be rated as excellent by any peer review committee for any level of review after the 2008-09 academic year in the absence of data documenting the extent of student achievement of the appropriate outcomes.[MW1]

2.1.3 Student Response to Instruction

Student course evaluations shall be used, along with additional evidence of teaching effectiveness as defined by department and college RTP policy documents. Student course evaluations alone do not provide sufficient evidence of teaching effectiveness. Utilization of the university standard evaluation form is only one method of presenting student response to learning. Importantly, any single item on this form—or the entire form, by itself and in isolation from other information—does not provide sufficient evidence of teaching effectiveness.

2.2 Research, Scholarship, and Creative Activities

Departments and colleges shall develop their own definitions, standards, and criteria for the evaluation of research, scholarship, and creative activities. The University RTP policy provides a guiding framework for this charge.

Faculty members are expected to make significant and ongoing contributions of substance in research, scholarship, and/or creative activity throughout their career. All faculty members are expected to produce quality research, scholarship, and/or creative achievements that contribute to the advancement, application, or pedagogy of the discipline or interdisciplinary studies.

Academic disciplines vary in the meaning, scope, and practice of research, scholarship, and creative activity. Evidence of these activities and accomplishments include, but are not limited to, publications of merit reviewed by professional peers, scholarly presentations, fellowships, grants, contracts, and artistic exhibits and performances. These achievements must be reviewed by professional peers and disseminated to appropriate audiences.

2.3 Service

Quality service contributions and activities are necessary to ensure the quality of programs and activities at the university, in the community, and in the profession. All faculty members are expected to participate in the collegial processes of faculty governance and to maintain active engagement within the university, community, and profession through quality service contributions and activities throughout their career. Meaningful service should be related to the academic expertise and rank of the faculty member.

Departments and colleges shall develop their own standards and criteria for the evaluation of quality service. The Department shall make clear to the candidate what types of service are appropriate to department, college, and university missions and goals. Examples of service contributions may include, but are not limited to, leadership roles in faculty governance activities and committees; authorship of reports and other materials pertinent to university, college, or department policies and procedures; ongoing advising of student groups; service or leadership activities for professional organizations or boards; conducting external evaluations; consulting in public schools, local government, and community organizations.

3.0 RESPONSIBILITIES IN THE RTP PROCESS

Participants in the RTP process include the candidate, the Department,[2] RTP committee, the department chair, the college RTP committee, the dean, the Provost, and the President.

The Collective Bargaining Agreement allows faculty, students, academic administrators, and the President to provide information concerning the candidate during the open period. The assessment by external evaluators may also be included at any stage of the evaluation process in accordance with Academic Senate Policy 86-07.

Deliberations on reappointment, tenure, and promotion shall be confidential. Access to materials and recommendations pertaining to the candidate shall be limited to the RTP candidate, the department RTP committee, the department chair, the college RTP Committee, the dean, the Provost, Associate Vice President for Academic Personnel (as an appropriate administrator), and the President (see CBA).

3.1 Candidate

A candidate for RTP should make every effort to seek advice and guidance from the department chair, particularly regarding the RTP process and procedures and how criteria and standards are applied. The candidate has the primary responsibility for collecting and presenting the evidence of her/his accomplishments. The candidate’s documentation must include all required information and supporting materials. All supporting materials should be referenced and clearly explained.

The candidate shall submit a narrative that describes his/her goals and accomplishments during the period of review, including a clear description of the quality and significance of contributions to the three areas of review: a) instruction and instructionally-related activities; b) research, scholarship, and creative activity; and c) service to the university, community, and/or profession. The candidate shall provide all required supplemental documentation, including summary sheets from student evaluations and an index of all supplementary materials. The candidate shall provide all prior RTP reviews and periodic evaluations over the full review period.

3.2 Department RTP Policy

The department shall develop and articulate specific standards and criteria to be applied in the evaluation of candidates in all three areas of evaluation. Department standards shall not be lower than college-level standards.

The department RTP policy is subject to ratification by a majority of tenured and tenure- track department faculty members and to approval by the college faculty council, the dean, and the Provost. Department RTP policies shall be subject to regular review by the department faculty.

3.3 Department RTP Committee

The department RTP committee has the primary responsibility for evaluating the candidate’s work and makes the initial recommendation to the college RTP committee regarding reappointment, tenure, and promotion. Department RTP committee members are responsible for analyzing critically the candidate’s performance by applying the criteria of the department.

The tenured and tenure-track faculty of a department elect representatives to the department’s RTP committee. The Collective Bargaining Agreement restricts membership on RTP committees to tenured, full-time faculty members. The CBA also states that faculty participating in the Faculty Early Retirement Program (FERP) may serve on RTP committees if requested by the majority vote of tenured and tenure-track faculty members of the department and approved by the President. However, RTP committees may not be made up solely of faculty participating in the FERP.

No one individual may participate in the evaluation of any single candidate in more than one level of review.

3.4 Department Chair

The department chair is responsible for communicating the department, college, and university policies to candidates. The chair also provides guidance to candidates over time as to whether their performance is consistent with department expectations. The chair, in collaboration with college or department mentors, is responsible for talking with candidates about their overall career development and providing professional mentoring.

The chair shall meet with the department RTP committee prior to the beginning of the department evaluation process to review the department, college, and university processes and procedures.

Department chairs shall write independent evaluations of all RTP candidates unless the department chair is elected to the department RTP committee. In no case, however, may a department chair participate in the evaluation of any single candidate in more than one.

3.5 College RTP Policy

The college RTP policy shall specify in writing the standards to be applied in evaluating candidates in all three areas of evaluation, consistent with university standards and with the mission of the college. The college RTP policy shall ensure consistency of standards across the college. Colleges have the responsibility for setting forth the standards appropriate to the breadth of disciplines in the college.

College RTP policy is subject to ratification by a majority of voting tenured and tenure-track college faculty members and to the approval by the dean and the Provost. College RTP policy shall be subject to regular review by the college faculty.

(proposed amendment by Senator Jaffe) Assessment of Research, scholarship and creative accomplishment for both tenure and promotion will be evaluated relative to the resources that have been made available to faculty during the evaluation period to conduct research and creative activities (that is, resources that do not compensate faculty for significant administrative or other duties). Faculty who have enjoyed access to greater resources for research will be held to a higher standard of research and creative output; faculty who have had lesser access will not be held to the same standard. Colleges and departments will establish explicit guidelines for what constitutes a minimum acceptable level of research and scholarly output for faculty who receive little to no research-oriented assigned time. Colleges and departments will also establish clear performance expectations that are calibrated to the resources that they can provide to their faculty members.

This policy should not be construed to prevent innovation or adjustment in workload with respect to teaching, research (SCA) or service based upon faculty expertise and accomplishment, department and college needs, and university mission.

3.6 College RTP Committee

The college RTP committee reviews the materials submitted by the candidate as well as the department and department chair recommendations. The committee evaluates the candidate’s file in accordance with standards established in the department, college, and university RTP policies. The college committee shall ensure that fair and consistent evaluation occurs at the department and college levels according to the standards set by the department and college RTP documents. The college RTP committee shall take into serious account the department’s specific standards for evaluating the candidate.

The college committee prepares and forwards its own independent recommendation to the college dean.

3.7 Dean of the College

The dean has a unique role to play in providing oversight and guidance in the RTP process within the college. The dean mentors department chairs regarding their role in the RTP process, encourages departments to develop and clarify their expectations for faculty performance, provides clear guidance to the college RTP committee, and ensures that all evaluations are carried out in accordance with department, college, and university policies. The dean ensures that standards across the college are maintained.

The dean of the college shall provide an independent recommendation to the Provost.

3.8 Provost and Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs

The Provost provides oversight for the university’s RTP process, establishes the annual calendar of the RTP cycle, provides training for committees, chairs, and deans, and distributes relevant information to prospective candidates, chairs, deans, and members of college and department RTP committees.

The Provost shall review the candidate’s file, including all prior evaluations, and make a final recommendation.

3.9 President

The President has the authority to make final decisions for the University with respect to reappointment, tenure, and promotion. This authority may be delegated to the Provost.

4. 0 TIMELINES FOR THE RTP PROCESS

All tenured and tenure track faculty undergo performance review and evaluation.[3] Tenure-track faculty members are evaluated each year. During years when the candidate is not being reviewed for reappointment, tenure, and/or promotion, the candidate will undergo periodic review. Tenured faculty members are evaluated every five (5) years.

The following timelines apply to candidates who are appointed at the rank of assistant professor with no service credit; actual timelines may vary according to level of appointment and service credit.

4.1 Evaluation of Tenure-Track Faculty for Reappointment

In the first year and second years of service, the annual evaluation takes the form of a periodic review. The periodic review provides the candidate with feedback on progress toward tenure. The periodic review is conducted by the department RTP committee, the department chair, and the college dean.

In the third year of service, the annual evaluation takes the form of a reappointment review. Successful candidates are reappointed for either one or two years.

4.2 Evaluation of Tenure-Track Faculty for Tenure and Promotion

In the first and second years of reappointment (or fourth and fifth years of continuous service), the annual evaluation takes the form of a periodic review. In the third year of reappointment (or the sixth year of continuous service) the annual evaluation takes the form of a tenure review, which may also be a review for promotion.

A tenure-track faculty member may request consideration for early tenure and promotion prior to the scheduled sixth year review. This process is discussed under evaluation of faculty work below.

4.3 Evaluation of Tenured Faculty for Promotion

An associate professor becomes eligible for promotion review to full professor in the fifth year at the associate rank. A tenured associate professor may seek early promotion to full professor prior to the fifth year in rank. This process is discussed further under evaluation of faculty work below.

A tenured faculty member may choose not to be evaluated for promotion in a given year; however, the faculty member will still be required to undergo the five-year periodic evaluation of tenured faculty as outlined in a separate Academic Senate policy document.

5.0 APPOINTMENT AND PROMOTIONAL LEVEL CRITERIA

Candidates for reappointment, tenure, and promotion will be evaluated in all three areas: instruction and instructionally-related activities; research, scholarship, and/or creative activity; and service.

5.1 Reappointment Consideration for Probationary Faculty

The candidate must have completed at least one performance review (periodic evaluation) and must demonstrate that he/she is making significant progress towards tenure. Based upon criteria established by the department and the college, a candidate for reappointment must show evidence of quality in all three areas of evaluation.

The candidate for reappointment is expected to demonstrate effective teaching responsive to the learning needs of CSULB’s diverse students and to the University’s educational mission. The candidate is expected to show progress in his/her program of ongoing research, scholarship, and/or creative activity and to have produced initial scholarly and creative achievements. The candidate is expected to have made service contributions primarily at the departmental or program level and consistent with departmental and college service expectations.

5.2 Consideration for Tenure

The awarding of tenure represents the University’s long-term commitment to a faculty member and is granted when the candidate has demonstrated the ability to make ongoing and increasingly distinguished professional contributions to the University and to the profession.

Tenure, , is based on a candidate demonstrating a sustained record of excellence over multiple years. Tenure is not based solely on the quantity of scholarly output, courses taught, or committees on [MW2] which one has served. Tenure is based on evidence leading to the belief that a candidate will continue being productive.

The candidate must present evidence of amendment proposed by senator Pavri) excellence meeting the required tenure criteria in all three areas of evaluation as established in the RTP policies of the department, college, and the University.

In rare instances, the University may decide that a candidate’s achievements merit promotion to the rank of associate professor without a concomitant awarding of tenure. This decision represents the belief that a candidate has produced a body of work sufficient for promotion, but has not yet fully demonstrated the sustained record upon which tenure is based.

5.3 Appointment/Promotion to Associate Professor

An associate professor is expected to be an excellent teacher who is highly effective in the classroom, fosters quality learning experiences, and is responsive to the needs of CSULB’s diverse students and to the University’s educational mission. At this rank, the faculty member is expected to have a successful and ongoing program of research, scholarship, and/or creative activity. The candidate is expected to have produced high-quality peer reviewed work, which contributes to the advancement, application, or pedagogy of his/her discipline or interdisciplinary fields of study. The candidate is expected to have made high-quality service contributions to the University or the expanded community.

5.4 Appointment/Promotion to Professor

Standards for promotion to full professor shall be higher than standards for promotion to associate professor. A full professor is expected to demonstrate a consistent record of excellence in teaching, student engagement, and curricular development. The successful candidate will have a proven program of research, scholarship, and/or [MW3] creative activity that includes high quality contributions to the advancement, application, or pedagogy of his/her discipline or interdisciplinary fields of study. The candidate is expected to have disseminated a substantial body of peer reviewed work at the national or international levels. In addition, a full professor shall have provided significant service and leadership at the University and in the community or the profession.

A professor’s post-tenure contributions may be somewhat more specialized in the teaching , scholarly, or service realm than they were pre-tenure. These candidates are still worthy of promotion, if they can provide convincing evidence that they made significant contributions to the University’s mission.[MW4]

5.5 Early Tenure

A potential candidate should receive initial guidance from the department chair and dean regarding the criteria and expectations for early tenure. Early tenure is granted only in exceptional circumstances and for compelling reasons. Assistant professors may apply for early tenure. A candidate applying for early tenure is expected to meet all criteria for early promotion to associate professor. Tenured associate professors may apply for early promotion to full professor. However, non-tenured associate professors may not apply for promotion to full professor without also seeking tenure.

5.5.1 Early Tenure

Early tenure may be granted in rare cases when a candidate demonstrates a record of distinction in all three areas and superior accomplishments significantly beyond what is expected for tenure on the standard six-year timeline. The candidate’s record must establish compelling evidence of distinction in all areas and must inspire confidence that the pattern of strong overall performance will continue.

In addition, candidates for early tenure are encouraged to participate in the external evaluation process according to the Academic Senate policy on external evaluation. .

6.0 STEPS IN THE RTP PROCESS

6.1 The Division of Academic Affairs determines the timelines for the RTP process, including deadlines for the submission of the candidate’s materials, dates for the Open Period, completion of all RTP reviews by all review levels, and final decision notification to the candidate. The deadlines for notification of final actions shall be consistent with the requirements of the CSU-CFA Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA).

6.2 The Division of Academic Affairs notifies all faculty members of their eligibility for review and specifies items required to be provided by all candidates.

6.3 Departments shall post in the department office a list of candidates being considered for reappointment, tenure, or promotion, following timelines and guidelines for the open period provided by the Office of Academic Affairs and consistent with the requirements of the CBA. A copy of all information submitted shall be provided to the candidate. The department RTP committee chair prepares an index of the submitted material to be included in the candidate’s file.

6.4 Candidates prepare materials for review and deliver them to the department RTP committee by the deadline.

6.5 The department RTP committee reviews the candidate’s materials and, using the standard university form, provides a written evaluation and recommendation to the next level of review by the deadline.

6.6 The department chair, if not an elected member of the department RTP committee, reviews the candidate’s materials and provides an independent written evaluation and recommendation to the next level of review by the deadline.

6.7 The college RTP committee reviews the candidate’s materials and provides an independent written evaluation and recommendation to the next level of review by the deadline.

6.8 The dean reviews the candidate’s materials and provides an independent written review and recommendation to the Provost by the deadline.

6.9 The Provost reviews the candidate’s materials and provides an independent written review and recommendation to the President. The President has the authority to make final decisions for the University with respect to reappointment, tenure, and promotion.

The President (or Provost as designee) notifies the candidate of the final decision regarding reappointment, tenure, and/or promotion by the deadline.

7.0 ADDITIONAL PROCESSES

7.1 Prior to the final decision, candidates for promotion may withdraw without prejudice from consideration at any level of review (see CBA). This provision also applies to candidates for early tenure.

7.2 If, at any time during the review process, the absence of required evaluation documents is discovered, the RTP package shall be returned to the level at which the requisite documentation should have been provided. Such materials shall be provided in a timely manner.

7.3 At each level of review, the candidate shall be given a copy of the recommendation, which shall state in writing the reasons for the recommendation, before the recommendation is forwarded to the next review level. The candidate shall have the right to provide a rebuttal/response in writing no later than ten (10) calendar days following receipt of the recommendation. A copy of all of the candidate’s rebuttal/responses shall accompany the RTP package and also be sent to any previous review levels.

7.4 The candidate or evaluators at each level of review may request an external evaluation, consistent with Academic Senate policy and procedures for external evaluation.

8.0 CHANGES AND AMENDMENTS TO THE RTP POLICY

Changes to CSULB RTP procedures may occur as a result of changes to the Faculty Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA). Additionally, campus administrators may make certain procedural changes to accommodate the university calendar or other campus needs. In general, changes to procedures do not require a vote by the faculty.

The faculty of CSULB, voting by secret mail ballot (with pro and con arguments attached), may amend the policy and evaluation criteria section of this document.

Amendments may be proposed either by the following:

(1) A direct faculty action via petition from ten percent (10%) of the tenured and tenure track faculty to the chair of the Academic Senate.

(2) By action of the Academic Senate.

Proposed amendments shall be submitted for discussion at a public hearing for the faculty called within fifteen (15) instructional days following their receipt and shall be distributed [MW5] by the chair of the Academic Senate to the faculty at least five (5) instructional days before the public hearing.

Amendments to this document shall become effective when they have received a favorable vote of a majority of the faculty voting in a secret mail ballot conducted by the Academic Senate within twenty (20) instructional days of the public hearing and they have the concurrence of the University President.

---

 

[1]Every effort has been made to ensure compliance with the current Unit 3 (Faculty) Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA). However, this document should not be considered as a substitute for those parts of the Agreement that affect RTP matters.

 

[2] Throughout this document, the designation ‘department’ applies also to ‘program’ or an equivalent unit in a non-instructional area whose employees are considered to be faculty under the provisions of the current Collective Bargaining Agreement. Thus, unit heads and directors are the equivalent of department chairs and deans.

 

[3] Evaluation of lecturers is not covered in this policy; see the Academic Personnel web site and the Policy on Range Elevation for Lecturers, PS 02-03).

---

[MW1]G. Pickett

[MW2]L. Vollendorf

[MW3]L. Vollendorf

[MW4]Amendment Proposed by A. Colburn

[MW5]Proposed by A. Colburn

California State University, Long Beach Policy Statement

---

02-03
March 18, 2002

RANGE ELEVATION FOR LECTURERS
(This Policy Statement supersedes Policy Statement 00-11.)

This policy was revised by the Academic Senate on November 8, 2001
and approved by the President on January 9, 2002.

This Policy has been developed in accordance with Section 12.15 Sections 12.15 – 12.20 of the Collective Bargaining Agreement between the California Faculty Association and the Board of Trustees of the California State University, and which states Procedures for range elevation on the salary schedule [for lecturers] shall be established at each campus by the President, after recommendation by the appropriate Academic Senate Committee.

Each lecturer is hired in a particular salary range (A, B, C, or D). A candidate who is awarded a range elevation moves from his/her current salary range to the next higher range (for example, from A to B), receives at least a 5% salary increase, and becomes eligible for Salary Step Service Salary Increases (SSIs) in the new range.

I. Eligibility and Notification

A. Eligibility: Lecturers eligible for range elevation on the salary schedule shall be limited to those who have no more Service Salary Increase eligibility in their current range, and have served five (5) years in their current range.

B. Timetable. The Office of Academic Affairs shall provide a timetable for all deadlines related to Range Elevation. This will be distributed each year prior to October 1st. The formal beginning of review for range elevation shall be on or about February 1 of each year. Conclusion of review normally shall be April 7. [CBA 12.16

C. Notification:

1. Each year the Office of Academic Affairs, Academic Personnel shall compile a list of lecturers eligible for range elevation. On or before November 1, the Office of Academic Affairs, Academic Personnel, shall notify those lecturers at the SSI maximum who have five (5) years of service in the current range that they may be eligible for range elevation. In that notification lecturers shall be informed that receipt of a previous Faculty Merit Increase may affect their eligibility for range elevation. [CBA 12.18] Also, every department shall receive a list of lecturers eligible in that department.

2. Failure to notify an eligible lecturer shall not be cause for automatic granting of a range elevation. An eligible lecturer not properly notified may apply for range elevation nonetheless. [CBA 12.18]

3. In the notification to the lecturers and the departments, the Office of Academic Affairs shall provide the website address (URL) for the Range Elevation Policy

4. Each eligible lecturer shall be considered for a range elevation on the salary schedule unless he or she informs the Department Chair in writing of his or her desire not to be considered at this time.

D. Effective Date. A range elevation salary increase shall be effective at the beginning of the first appointment in the academic year following the review. [CBA 12.16]

II. Department Evaluation Procedures

The award of a range elevation on the salary schedule may be made by the Dean after consultation with the pertinent department. That consultation shall be in the form of a written recommendation to the dean from the department.

A. Departments shall determine their own procedures for evaluating their lecturers and preparing recommendations regarding range elevation.

B. All current Unit 3 employees are eligible to participate in all departmental discussions and decisions pertaining to procedures for range elevation. All such employees must be fully informed of their right to participate and of the days, times, and locations of the meeting at which these issues will be discussed. Such notification must be in writing and must be given five (5) working days before any meeting to discuss these issues.

C. Departments may choose one of the following configurations to evaluate lecturers for the purpose of making a recommendation on Range Elevation.

- The departmental chair,
- A designee,
- An Elected Range Elevation Review Committee, or
- Any combination of one or more of the above.

D. If a department chooses to use a Range Elevation Review Committee, all Unit 3 employees are eligible to serve on such a committee, except current candidates for range elevation.

E. The voting franchise for the purpose of establishing range elevation procedures and the department policy governing elections related to range elevation shall be proportional to the time base of each Unit 3 member, i.e.

A Unit 3 member on .20 appointment casts 1 ballot

” .40 ” 2 ballots
” .60 ” 3 ballots
” .80 ” 4 ballots
” 1.0 ” 5 ballots

For purposes of determining the number of ballots an individual receives, appointments that fall between those listed shall be rounded upward.

F. In any subsequent election regarding the procedures for range evaluation, and/or the election procedures pertaining to range elevation, the proportional vote allotted to any employee cannot be less than the proportions described in II.E.

G. In any election relating to Range Elevation all voting must be by mailed secret ballots. Such elections must be held over a period lasting at least five (5) working days.

H. In the case of a lecturer who does not hold an appointment within a department, department-level evaluation shall be by an ad hoc committee of faculty appointed by the Dean of the appropriate college after consultation with the lecturer(s) as in II.B. above.

I. Each department shall forward its initial procedures on Range Elevation to the Office of the Academic Senate within 10 working days of approving the procedures. Any subsequent changes to the department’s procedures on Range Elevation must be forwarded to the Academic Senate by November 1 of the academic year the procedures take effect.

III. Evaluation Criteria

To be recommended for range elevation, a lecturer must show professional growth and development appropriate to the lecturer’s work assignment and the mission of the university during the period between the date of initial appointment or, where applicable, the date of the last range elevation and the time of the current request. This is the only review period in which candidates’ professional achievements shall be evaluated.

This section lists examples of activities that may be used to demonstrate appropriate professional growth and development. It is neither exhaustive nor minimal, but simply a listing of the typical professional activities engaged in by Lecturers in a wide range of disciplines. In all cases quality of performance and appropriateness of the activity shall be the primary consideration when evaluating the merit of a specific activity. Activities are listed alphabetically, and no weighting shall be inferred from the order.

- active participation at professional meetings and conferences
- activities enhancing the effective teaching of the discipline
- advising and mentoring student associations
- collaborative research and creative activity involving the campus and the community
- collaborative teaching
- contributions to improving the campus climate: the promotion of mutual respect and acceptance of diversity in all its forms
- creative activities in support of effective teaching
- curriculum and program development
- development of instructional materials
- development of standards and/or outcomes assessment
- editing of publications
- external fundraising and resource development related to the mission of the university
- fostering of collegiality
- grant proposals to conduct research in the discipline, to support pedagogy, or to further the mission of the University
- increased mastery of the discipline evidenced by additional relevant education or an additional degree
- involvement of students in the research and creative processes
- leadership and active participation in service activities of professional associations
- leadership and special contributions to the basic instructional mission of the university.
- leadership in faculty governance and campus life at the department, college, university, or CSU system level.
- maintenance and technical support of university labs, equipment, materials, supplies, safety standards and any other support of environments that require advanced professional attention.
- mentoring of colleagues
- organizing events and activities for the sharing of ideas and knowledge
- presentations at conferences
- professional contributions to the community, including professional efforts which bring the community and the campus together
- program advising
- publications, exhibitions, and/or performances that advance knowledge
- recruitment and retention of students
- research and/or creative activity in discipline related pedagogy
- research and/or creative activity in the discipline
- teaching and instructionally related activities
- thesis research and supervision

IV. The Application Process

A. The Candidate:

1. To be evaluated for Range Elevation, each candidate must submit application materials that conform to the requirements of his or her department.

2. At a minimum, the candidate shall provide the following materials:

- a current curriculum vitae,
- a description of the candidate’s work assignments for each semester of the period under consideration,
- a narrative presenting evidence, and/or examples, of her or his professional growth and development, and
- student evaluation summaries for all evaluated courses taught by the candidate in the department during the period of evaluation.

B. The Department:

Each Department, as part of its range elevation procedures, shall define the materials to be considered in an application for range elevation.

C. Additional Information

1. The Department Evaluator(s) may seek additional information or documentation needed to support a candidate’s claims. Department Evaluator(s) may also solicit written comments from the department chair or faculty peers to clarify information provided by the candidate. Any comments that are used to determine a recommendation must be included as supplemental attachments to the final written report and must be available to the candidate.

2. When a candidate is asked to provide additional information or documentation, the burden of supplying the requested material in a timely manner resides with the candidate. Failure to provide requested information shall not delay either the evaluation process nor the preparation of recommendation by the Department Evaluator(s).

V. The Evaluation Process

A. The Department Evaluation

1. The Department Evaluator(s) shall prepare a recommendation regarding range elevation for each eligible candidate considered. This recommendation shall be a written report that includes the decision as well as the reasons for reaching that decision.

2. The Department Evaluator(s) shall assess the quality and appropriateness of the candidate’s professional growth and development during the period of evaluation. Materials submitted by the candidate shall be evaluated in relation to the candidate’s work assignment while employed in the department. The Department Evaluator(s) may not require, but may consider, evidence of performance outside of the area of the candidate’s work assignment.

3. A copy of this recommendation shall be forwarded to the candidate, and the Dean, with a copy retained in the Department Office.

B. The Candidate’s Response (optional)

1. Upon receiving the recommendation from the Department Evaluator(s), the candidate may provide a written response to the recommendation. Such a response is optional.

2. The candidate has seven (7) days to submit a response to the recommendation, which should be addressed to the Dean, with a copy sent to the Department Evaluator(s).

3. The candidate’s response shall be attached to the candidate’s range elevation file at the Dean’s level, with a copy retained with the candidate’s file at the Department level.

C. The Dean’s Decision and Notification

1. The Dean shall make the final decision on awarding a range elevation to the candidate.

2. Following the seven (7) day period in which the candidate has the right to respond to the recommendation of the Department Evaluator(s), the Dean shall consider the application submitted along with the recommendation and the candidate’s response, if submitted.

3. The decision of the Dean shall be forwarded to the candidate and the Chair of the appropriate department.

4. In the event a candidate’s request is denied, the Dean must provide the candidate, the Department Evaluator(s), and/or the department Chair with a written explanation of the reasons for the denial, and apprise the candidate of the right to peer review (see VI below).

VI. Peer Review

Denial of range elevation shall be subject to a peer review process. pursuant to provision 10.11 except that the peer panel’s decision shall be final. On each campus the pool for funding successful lecturer range elevation appeals is limited to 4 steps per each 50 lecturer faculty eligible for range elevation.” (CBA12.19) Each year a Faculty Hearing Committee established in accordance with Article 10.12 of the CBA shall serve to hear appeals of any temporary faculty unit employee denied range elevation during that fiscal year. The Committee shall allow for appellants to make a presentation to the Committee and to be represented by CFA if so desired. The Committee shall convene and review the cases within thirty (30) days of the conclusion of the review period. The Committee shall render a decision within thirty (30) days of hearing the case. The decision of the Faculty Hearing Committee shall be final and binding. [CBA 12.20]

VII. Range Elevation Materials

The recommendations to grant or deny a range elevation shall not be considered during deliberations for reappointment unless the Lecturer includes the documents related to the recommendations in his/her personnel action file.

VIII. Reporting

At the end of the Academic Year, the Office of Academic Affairs will report on the number of Lecturers in each range who were eligible for range elevation, the number who applied in each category and the number who were successful in each category.

The Importance of GE Certification in Student Success

A line in the new General Education policy to be in effect in fall 2008 has been interpreted by CEP and others to mean that once students matriculate to CSULB, they may not be allowed to return to California community colleges (CCC) to request GE Certification. This interpretation will require thousands of CCC transfer students to take additional courses at CSULB, especially in the sciences.

The line from the new policy reads, “Transfer students who enter CSULB without full General Education Certification from a California community college must complete the CSULB general education requirements.” I am proposing that an amendment to this line be added that reads, “This does not preclude students from completing or requesting GE Certification after matriculating to CSULB.”

Transfer students have been allowed to return to the CCC to complete or request GE Certification for well over 20 years. It is a practice that occurs at most of our sister campuses, and is especially important now in view of the Chancellor’s Office initiative to facilitate graduation. Of the 12 campuses we contacted, all allow GE Certification after students have matriculated to their respective CSU campuses.

Most transfer students from California community colleges follow the CSU GE pattern with the intent to transfer to CSULB. The CSU GE pattern is the result of signed agreements at system-wide levels to accept specific California community college courses to meet general education requirements at all CSU campuses.

Full GE Certification (Categories A – E) verifies that students have met all lower division GE requirements at the CCC, and upon transfer, will only be required to complete the nine-units of upper division GE requirements at CSULB. Partial GE Certification in particular categories is also available to students if they have not met full GE Certification from their CCC.

Fewer than 50% of CCC transfer students receive GE Certification. Some do not know about the GE Certification process at their CCC. Some believe they automatically have GE Certification if they follow the transfer plan at their CCC. Some believe that their AA degree is GE Certification. Some like Engineering and Science majors don’t request GE Certification because they already have plenty of lower division science courses in their majors. Students must request GE Certification for it to appear on their final transcripts.

Students without GE Certification are held to CSULB requirements, and must complete additional GE courses at CSULB in Category B: Natural Sciences and Mathematics. Some need courses in Category C: the Arts and Humanities, and Category D: Social and Behavioral Sciences and History, bringing their units at graduation time to an average of 151 total units.

The CSU Transfer Plan is closely aligned to the Executive Order (EO) 595 which regulates GE in the CSU system. The plan requires a minimum of two science courses and one lab. CSULB is one of the few CSUs that require two science lectures (life and physical) and two science labs; therefore, entering CCC students who do not have GE Certification are always held to an additional lab course.

Science with lab courses at CSULB are already over-enrolled with long student wait lists specifically for seats in the lab sections. In addition, several life and physical science courses at CSULB do not offer independent lab sections; rather, they are embedded together with the lecture in one single course. Currently, even native CSULB students cannot get seats in needed lab science courses and some have delayed graduation as a result.

Without GE Certification, a student needs as much as 9 additional units of GE: an extra science lab, one to two additional humanities courses, and extra social science courses.

The consequences of not allowing students to complete or request GE Certification after matriculation to CSULB will affect:

CSULB Budget

This change in practice affects new transfer students, and Enrollment Services informs us that they have been instructed to retroactively apply the new policy to all currently enrolled transfer students from the CCC. Currently enrolled students have until the end of summer 2008 to submit a GE Certification. This is a huge drain on our budget because of the additional seats required in courses to serve these students.

CSULB Student Success and Time to Graduation

Many students find out that they do not have GE Certification after they file for graduation. If transfer students are held to additional CSULB GE requirements, it will further delay their graduation.

Recent data collected from CSULB Institutional Research and Assessment shows that transfer students average 151 total units at graduation, 30 beyond what is often needed. These students also average 69 units at CSULB alone, 19 beyond what is normally needed. If CSULB chooses to deny transfer students the opportunity to obtain GE Certification after matriculation, these unit counts can be expected to rise significantly, and time to graduation will be increased even further.

Public Relations with California Community Colleges

CSULB is seeking to build a seamless transfer process with our local community colleges. If CSULB chooses to disregard GE Certifications issued by local community colleges, the relationships that CSULB Outreach so carefully builds will be easily destroyed. The new practice also sends mixed messages to community college students and counselors, and creates confusion upon transfer.

CSULB Staff Workload

The new practice would require CSULB evaluators and advisors to scrutinize every GE Certification submitted by transfer students to determine where and when classes were taken. Some GE Certifications would be rejected at CSULB even though they would be accepted at most other CSU campuses. In a time when budget cuts, and possible staff reduction could be imminent, CSULB staff and faculty cannot afford to take on this additional workload.

Marilee Samuelson

Director, Academic Advising Center

April 29, 2008

AS-762-08CEPC

CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, LONG BEACH

MEMORANDUM

 

Date: 6 May 2008

To:       Praveen Soni, Chair, Academic senate

 

From:  David G. Huckaby, Chair, Curriculum and Education Policies Council

 

Re: Engineering waiver of GE requirements

 

During its meeting on 30 April 2008, the Curriculum and Educational Policies Council voted to recommend to the Academic Senate a waiver of some of the GE requirements for most of the majors in the College of Engineering. Although the waiver, as stated, does not specify this, the waiver is only for the high unit programs that currently require more than 120 units for graduation. As such, the B. S in Engineering Technology, Option in Technology and Engineering Education, and the newly approved B. A in Engineering would not qualify. Although no one to whom we talked could locate any document to that effect, engineering

students have had a six-unit waiver of GE units for many years on this campus. The only written statement concerning it available to the council was the form from Enrollment Services that engineering students use to declare the waiver. (We found the form somewhat confusing and intend to work with Enrollment Services to improve it.) In addition to specifically excluding the engineering technology program mentioned above, it excludes the computer science program. We understand that the reason for this is that, at the time of the original waiver, which was probably in the early 1980’s, the computer science program was an option in the B.

S. in Mathematics and not in engineering. I note in passing that the B. S. in Computer Engineering, which has the waiver, requires a minimum of 128 units; whereas, the B. S. in Computer Science, which does not, requires a minimum of 130 units.

 

The statement voted on by the council reads: “for students under the 2008 GE pattern, engineering majors may waive up to three units from the B.1.a., C.3., or 0.2. categories.” Although earlier versions of the waiver differed in this regard, the current waiver for students under the 2006 and later catalogs allows it only in those three categories. The information before the council suggests that the vast majority of students electing this waiver will do so for the first of the three possible categories, as most engineering majors do not have a biology course as a requirement. All those majors have as part of their major requirements at least 15 units of courses that also count in the B category. Those students majoring in one of the programs that do require a biology course would have to opt for one of the other two categories.

 

The new GE requirements without any additional waiver should not require any engineering major to take more total units to graduate than is now required. Currently, most engineering majors must take only 45 total units of GE Under the new GE pattern and without the additional three-unit waiver, these engineering majors would have to take 48 total units of GE, although at least three more of these units would now overlap with major requirements. If they get the three unit waiver, these students would have to take only 45 total units of GE and have three units deducted from the total number of units required to obtain their degrees. All of the

degree programs in this college, other than the one in the BA mentioned above, are in the Bachelor of Science, which may require from 120-132 units. Only if the required courses in the major plus those GE courses not also required in the major exceed 120 units will these degree programs require a minimum of more than 120 units. (The other two degrees with programs at CSULB, the Bachelor of Music and Bachelor of Fine Arts, each require a minimum of 132 units regardless of how many units are required in the major, which may not exceed 70.)

 

Amendment to G.E. Policy GE Certification for Transfer Students (AS-716-07/GEGC/CEPC)

6.2. Transfer students who enter CSULB with full GE certification from a California Community College must complete both the Human Diversity in the U.S. and the Global Issues requirements if these requirements were not met through transfer, but these students need not complete any other GE courses except the Capstone, which cannot be met through transfer from a community college. Transfer students who enter CSULB without full GE certification from a California Community College must complete the CSULB General Education requirements. This does not preclude students from completing or requesting GE Certification from California Community Colleges after matriculating to CSULB. Transfer students who enter CSULB without full GE certification or subject-area (partial) certification from a California Community College must either complete the CSULB GE requirements, or complete and obtain a GE certification from a California Community College which will be honored as meeting CSULB’s lower division GE requirements.

 

May 15, 2008, 2:15 p.m.

Towner Auditorium - PSY 150

 

1.          CALL TO ORDER

2.         APPROVAL:  Academic Senate Agenda for May 15, 2008

3.         APPROVAL:  Academic Senate Minutes of May 1, 2008

4.        REPORTS OF STANDING COMMITTEES AND COUNCILS

4.1          Executive Committee

4.11      Announcements

4.12     CFA Report

4.13     Nominating Committee

4.2         Councils

4.21 Status of Policy Statements before the Academic Senate (CONSENT CALENDAR)—None

 

5.         REPORT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEES—None

6.        SPECIAL ORDERS

6.1              �