Faculty Personnel Standards

Preamble This Department of Art Personnel Standards (Standards) document provides guidance and standards for those faculty seeking retention, tenure, and promotion. This document is also intended to provide guidance and standards to the faculty elected to the Departmental Personnel Committee (DPC) and the Chair of the Art department (DC).

Department of Art Personnel Standards and UPS 210.000 These Standards and UPS 210.000 establish the range of activities and levels of performance necessary to meet requirements for positive retention, promotion, and tenure decisions. UPS 210.000 defines the criteria for retention, tenure, and promotion (RTP) to be: Teaching Performance; Scholarly and Creative Activity; and Professional, University, and Community Service. Probationary faculty shall compile each year their Evidence of Performance (Portfolio and Appendix, Section VI.) to be reviewed by both the DPC and the DC. At various stages of the review process, the Dean of the College of the Arts, Faculty Personnel Committee (university), the Vice President for Academic Affairs, and the President or designee also review the Portfolio and Appendix.

The Developmental Narrative During the first year of employment in a tenure-track position, each probationary faculty shall write prospective developmental narratives for teaching, scholarly and creative activities and service, not to exceed 500 words for each narrative. These narratives shall describe the faculty member's professional goals, areas of interest, resources required and accomplishments (s)he expects to achieve in each of the three areas evaluated in order to meet these Standards and UPS 210.000 for retention, tenure, and promotion. These narratives will have no formal approval process, but will be reviewed by the DC and the Dean of the College of the Arts who will each provide written feedback on a timetable to be determined by the college dean with the final draft to be completed prior to May 1. These narratives shall be included with the self-assessment narratives in the faculty member's Portfolio that is submitted for retention review during the second year in the tenure track position.

During subsequent years, the developmental narratives may be revised to reflect changes and professional growth that will normally occur during the probationary period.

Mentors Before the end of the first two weeks of the fall semester, the DC shall consult with each newly appointed probationary faculty member concerning an appropriate faculty mentor and shall designate one or more tenured faculty members as mentors. In the event that the DC serves as a mentor, at least one additional mentor shall be designated. At any time thereafter, the probationary faculty member or mentor(s) may request the DC to make a change of assignment.

The primary responsibility of the mentor(s) is to provide guidance, advice, and support to the probationary faculty member during the preparation of the Developmental Narrative.

Election of the Department Personnel Committee The Department Personnel Committee (DPC) shall consist of an uneven number of members with a minimum of three. These members shall have been granted tenure and shall not include the DC. They shall be elected by the tenured and probationary (tenure track) faculty before the end of the spring semester; and at least one alternate elected in accordance with UPS 210.000.

Two members shall be elected for one-year terms and a third member shall be elected for a two-year term. The terms shall be staggered in such a manner that two members are elected each year. No one shall serve as a member more than four years in succession. The member receiving the greatest number of votes shall serve the two-year term.
At least one alternate shall be elected each year for a one-year term. The alternate(s) shall serve as a replacement in any instance involving a member's self-disqualification, temporary absence, or disqualification for any other reason, in accordance with the policy and procedures of UPS 210.000. Alternates shall be determined by the number of votes received and shall be called upon to serve in that order.
The members of the DPC shall elect the chair of the DPC.

Evidence of Performance 

The Portfolio The Portfolio is the sole basis for RTP evaluation, recommendations, and actions. It shall be cumulative and representative of performance, covering the period from the beginning of probationary service to the first day of the fall semester of the academic year during which RTP action is to be taken. In cases where prior service credit was granted, that time interval shall also be documented in the Portfolio. The narrative section of the Portfolio shall not exceed 1000 words for each area.

It is the responsibility of the probationary faculty member to meet the RTP timeline and ensure the completeness of his or her Portfolio.
The probationary faculty member shall present relevant types of evidence from his or her Portfolio in a one-hour interview to the DC and DPC. The probationary faculty member is encouraged to present materials that will substantiate their contribution/performance in each category.

The Portfolio shall include the following items:

• Table of contents of the Portfolio (available from the office of Faculty Affairs and Records).
• A table of contents of the Appendix to the Portfolio.
• A copy of these approved Department Personnel Standards.
  
  

The approved Development Plan (applies only to faculty who have a Development Plan approved prior to fall semester 2002); or Developmental Narratives in each of the three areas of performance in relation to these department personnel standards (each narrative shall not exceed 500 words) [applies only to faculty who began their probationary period in fall semester 2002 or later].

The faculty member's current curriculum vita that covers the entire academic and professional employment history.

Narrative summaries, which are concise self-assessments of accomplishments in each of the three areas of performance in relation to the applicable personnel standards (self-assessment narratives shall be clearly written, well organ-ized and shall not exceed 1000 words for each narrative).

A copy of the student opinion form used by the department in evaluating the faculty member.

Statistical summaries by class of responses to all multiple-choice questions on department student opinion forms for all classes that the faculty member has taught during the period under review.

Statistical summaries of grade distributions from all classes that the faculty member has taught during the period under review for which students received University credit (including service credit years), as well as any material that may help interpret these statistical summaries.

For probationary faculty, all evaluations, recommendations, responses and rebuttals, if any, and decisions for all previous full performance reviews (supplied by the office of Faculty Affairs and Records).

The Appendix to the Portfolio In addition to the Portfolio the faculty member shall assemble an appendix containing supporting materials that are directly relevant to the presentation in the Portfolio. The appendix may be cumulative, and must be so in cases where promotion or tenure is to be considered.

The Appendix shall include:

• Opinion forms for all of the courses that the faculty member taught at California State University, Fullerton, during the period under review, for which students received credit. These shall be identified clearly by course number, title, semester and year.
• A representative syllabus and other selected materials for each course taught during the period under review.(Multi-section courses need be represented only once).
• Supporting materials for accomplishments discussed in the narratives. (Any supportive materials indicated in self-assessment narratives must be footnoted to the appendix for ease of retrieval and evaluation.)

Evidence of Teaching Performance Teaching is the most important category under review. An environment where learning is central is mandatory. In a narrative limited to 1000 words, the faculty member shall discuss levels of student achievement, currency, relevance, assessment methods and grading procedures. The narrative is a self-evaluation of strengths and weaknesses, teaching philosophy and goals, and plans for the ongoing maintenance and improvement of teaching effectiveness. The department shall consider the following kinds of evidence as indicators of the quality of the faculty member’s teaching performance.

Mandatory Indicators of Teaching Performance:

• Clear and well-organized course outlines and supportive teaching materials.
• Student Rating of Instructor (SRI) statistical summaries.(SRI questionnaires are the same for every class at all levels throughout the Art Department).
• SRI questionnaire written comments.
• Grade distribution statistical summaries.
• Self-assessment narrative.
• Evidence of currency in the visual arts in the faculty member's area of expertise.
• Examples of student artwork(from studio courses) or research/essay papers (from lecture courses).
• Supportive Indicators of Teaching Performance that may be presented:
• Evidence of professional recognition of students and/or former students: grants, honors, awards, or commissions.
  Program development and innovation, support and continued supervision of resources, facilities beyond normal teaching duties.
• Research related to teaching the discipline.
• Participation on graduate student committees.
• Mentoring of undergraduate and graduate students.
  
  

Evaluations of teaching performance by colleagues or by external evaluators. The evaluations may include classroom visitations that assess pedagogical approach and methods, student response to instruction, and masteryrequirements. The choice of the evaluator(s) and the nature, frequency and procedures of the visitation(s) shall be the responsibility of the faculty member, in consultation with the chair and shall be included in the appendix. The evaluations shall be included in the Portfolio. If included, other relevant materials such as written comments from students and research or creative activities related to teaching the discipline shall be placed in the appendix.

Evidence of Scholarly and Creative Accomplishments In a 1,000 word narrative, the faculty member shall discuss and evaluate scholarly and creative achievements. Putting creative indicators in a well-defined and focused context and defining the professional objectives of the accomplishments is essential. Among the Art Department indicators are activities that by their very nature establish a form of peer review. There is a selective and highly competitive process involved in the participation in exhibitions, selection for publication by professional journals, awards or grants, letters of validation by off-campus peers, etc. Due to the nature of diverse disciplines within the Art Department, faculty must provide documentation to support their level of accomplishment(s).

The department shall consider the following kinds of evidence as indicators of the faculty member’s performance in scholarship and creative activity:

• One-person exhibition, gallery or museum.
• Retrospective exhibition.
• Invitational or competitive shows.
• International or national traveling group shows.
• Regional group shows.
• Commissions, awards or grants.
• Curatorial work.
• Research/Creative articles in art, design, professional or art history journals.
• Research/Creative paper presented at regional, national or international scholarly conference.
• Book publication.
• Publication of reviews or articles on art, design, art history in professional or scholarly journals.
• Work reviewed or discussed and/or reproduced in off-campus publications.
• Letter of validation by off-campus peers in reference to specific creative and/or scholarly accomplishments.
• Significant leadership of professional organizations.
• Commendations related to research/contributions to the field.
• Intramural and extramural grant proposals.
• Works in progress.
• Other accomplishments appropriate to the field.
• Evidence of Professional, University, and Community Service
  
  

In a 1,000 word narrative, the faculty member under review shall discuss contributions to the Profession, to the University, and to the Community during the period under review. Professional and service activities that encourage mutually beneficial working partnerships, serve the needs of the profession and/or external community, enhance the campus' role as a regional center, and/or leads to student opportunities and learning are supportive of the department's mission. The department shall consider the following kinds of evidence as indicators of the quality of the faculty member’s contributions to the profession, to the University, and to the community through professional and service activities.

• Participation in professional organizations.
• Participation in workshops.
• Participation on juries for professional groups.
• Presentation of papers to community groups(such as docent councils or museum support groups), distinct from research papers presented at scholarly conferences.
• Membership on Art Department committees.
• Membership on College of the Arts committees.
• Membership on Senate Committees.
• Membership on University committees.
• Department service(such as student recruitment and alumni event participation).
• Jury activity for public groups.
• Mentoring of probationary faculty.
• Organizing conference sessions.
• Serving on organization boards or committees.
• Being a discussant of presented papers.
• Other appropriate activities.
• Evaluation of Evidence of Performance
  
  

UPS 210.000 defines the criteria for retention, tenure, and promotion (RTP) to be: Teaching Performance; Scholarly and Creative Activity; and Professional, University, and Community Service.

The DPC and the DC shall review the faculty member’s Portfolio and conduct a formal one-hour interview evaluating performance in Teaching, Scholarly/Creative, and Service. Emphasis shall be placed upon qualitative over quantitative measures of achievement guided by the principles and using the rating system that follows:

Documentation and evaluation criteria:

The materials contained in the Portfolio are the sole basis for Retention/Tenure/Promotion evaluations, recommendations, and actions. Therefore, the portfolio must contain all relevant evidence. It is the responsibility of each faculty member under review to be aware of all deadlines and criteria affecting his/her case and to complete the Portfolio, and any other supporting materials called for in UPS 210.000 by the due date. The DPC and the DC shall make evaluations and recommendations based solely upon the documented evidence contained in the Portfolio. In the one-hour interview (see Section VI.A.3.), the faculty member under review shall present relevant evidence from his or her Portfolio that will substantiate his or her performance in each area. The interview is also a forum for DPC and DC questions.

Category Weights:

Performance/ accomplishments shall be required in all three categories; the following order represents the relative importance of the evaluation of each category. Excellence in teaching is the most important criteria, as recognized in the sliding percentage scale. The other two areas individually cannot be greater than Teaching. Scholarly and Creative activity is second in importance. Service cannot be greater than Scholarly and Creative. All can slide up or down as fits the profile of performance in any given cycle. It is the faculty member’s responsibility to clarify the relative weights of each area, but specific numerical percentages need not be assigned.

The following is a guide, and percentage of importance in each category shall not be less than or greater than the following:

• Teaching Performance: 35 - 50%
• Scholarly and Creative Activity: 31 - 40%
• Professional, University, and Community Service: 19 - 31%
• *The weight of all categories at best would always total 100%.
• All categories of review will be evaluated on the following scale: “Excellent” “Satisfactory” and “Inadequate.”
• A majority of evaluations by the DPC members of "Excellent" shall constitute a recommendation of "Excellent" in each area of performance.
• A majority of evaluations by the DPC members of "Satisfactory " shall constitute a recommendation of "Satisfactory" in each area of performance.
• A majority of evaluations by the DPC members of "Inadequate" shall constitute a recommendation of "Inadequate" in each area of performance.
• Evaluation of Teaching Performance
  
  

Teaching is the most important area under review. The DPC and the DC shall review the mandatory and supportive indicators of teaching (see Section VI.D.) and take into consideration the level and types of classes taught as well as the quality of the faculty member’s performance as a teacher. Ratings are assigned as follows:

• "Excellent" | The overall review of mandatory and supportive indicators of teaching performance rated “Excellent.” As one of the indicators of teaching performance Student Ratings of Instruction (SRI) questionnaires shall not be used by any level of evaluation as the sole measure of teaching effectiveness. However an excellent rating for this indicator would represent no less than 90% of “A” and “B” responses subject to interpretation, and patterns of SRI comments rated excellent.
• "Satisfactory” | The overall review of mandatory and supportive indicators of teaching performance rated “Satisfactory.” A satisfactory rating for this indicator would represent no less than 70% of “A” and “B” responses subject to interpretation, and patterns of SRI comments rated satisfactory.
• "Inadequate" | The overall review of mandatory and supportive indicators of teaching performance rated “Inadequate.” An inadequate rating for this indicator would represent responses below 70% of “A”, “B”, and “C” ratings overall, subject to interpretation, and patterns of SRI comments rated inadequate.
  
  

Evaluation of Scholarly and Creative Activity Among the Art Department indicators are activities that by their very nature establish a form of peer review. There is a selective and highly competitive process involved in the participation in exhibitions, selection for publication by professional journals, awards or grants, letters of validation by off-campus peers, etc.

A common definition of peer review for the RTP process shall be: substantiation of the creative and scholarly activities of the individual under review by qualified individual/s, institutions, organizations, publications, or societies off-campus. Evidence of performance for scholarly and creative accomplishments will be evaluated on quality, appropriateness and relative merit.

Scholarly and Creative performance shall be accorded “Excellent”, “Satisfactory”, or “Inadequate” as determined by the following ratings:

• "Excellent" | This rating is a result from a sustained record of Scholarly and Creative accomplishments of eminently substantial quality.
• "Satisfactory" | This rating is a result from a continuing record of Scholarly and Creative accomplishments of notable quality.
• "Inadequate" | This rating is a result from a sporadic record of Scholarly and Creative accomplishments that are undocumented or are of questionable quality.
  
  

Evaluation of Professional, University, and Community Service

Service shall be accorded “Excellent”, “Satisfactory”, or “Inadequate” as determined by the following ratings:

"Excellent" | This rating is determined by active participation and membership in professional organizations and on department, school or university committees of significant importance.

"Satisfactory" | This rating is determined by involvement on University committees during the period under review and appropriate professional involvement.

"Inadequate" | This rating is determined by little or no service.

Standards for Retention, Tenure, and Promotion

Requirements for Retention

The goal of the RTP process is to produce faculty members who qualify for tenure after their probationary employment. To be retained during the probationary period, a faculty member is required to demonstrate progress toward tenure such that a positive tenure decision is likely. A probationary faculty member is required to show appropriate accomplishments, growth, and promise in each of the three areas of assessment. Moreover, when weaknesses have been identified in earlier review cycles, a probationary faculty member is expected to address these weaknesses explicitly and show appropriate improvement. The decision to retain (reappoint) a probationary faculty member is an affirmation that satisfactory progress is being made toward tenure; therefore, a probationary faculty member shall not be retained if the cumulative progress toward tenure is insufficient to indicate that requirements for tenure appear likely to be met.

Requirements for Tenure

The tenure decision, usually rendered in the sixth probationary year, is designated by UPS 210.000 as the most significant personnel decision. Therefore, the faculty member's overall performance during the probationary retention period must meet at least a "Satisfactory " standard of performance in all three areas of review, and have documented evidence showing improvement in any areas evaluated below minimum in preceding years. In Teaching the faculty member shall have received a minimum of two “Excellent” ratings during the probationary retention, with an “Excellent” rating received within the sixth probationary year. In Scholarly and Creative the faculty member shall have received at least two “Excellent” ratings. In Service the faculty member shall have received at least one “Excellent” rating.

Requirements for Promotion to Professor

Within the three areas of review previously listed, documentation of activities for the years following promotion to Associate Professor or the last full review shall be required from each faculty member being considered for promotion to Professor. Tenured faculty seeking promotion shall demonstrate a record of performance across the three categories that show a sustained commitment to these Standards. Continued "Satisfactory" performance in all three areas is essential. The faculty member under review shall receive at least one “Excellent” rating in Teaching Performance or Scholarly and Creative Accomplishments.

Requirements for Promotion to Associate Professor

Promotion to Associate Professor is automatic with the granting of tenure.

Requirements for Early Tenure

Early tenure requires that all expectations for the entire probationary period have been met and that performance for the entire probationary period in teaching and scholarly/creative activities exceed the expectations stated in UPS 210.000 and these Department Personnel Standards.

The faculty member under consideration shall meet the following criteria governing recommendations for early tenure in Art:

• Teaching: The overall review of mandatory and supportive indicators of teaching performance rated “Excellent” for each of the four consecutive semesters preceding the recommendations for early tenure.
• Scholarly and Creative Accomplishments: Ratings of "Excellent" in the area of scholarly/creative activities must be evident each of the four consecutive semesters preceding the recommendations for early tenure.
• Professional, University, and Community Service: Ratings of “Satisfactory” in the area of service for each of the four consecutive semesters preceding the recommendations for early tenure.
  
  

Requirements for Early Promotion:

Early Promotion to Associate Professor requires that the probationary faculty member has displayed accomplish-ments, growth, and future potential that strongly indicate that (s)he will, by the completion of the probationary period, meet the expectations for tenure stated in UPS 210.000 and these Standards. In addition, performance in teaching and scholarly/creative activities shall meet the expectations stated in the Requirements for Early Tenure above.

Early Promotion to Professor requires that all approved objectives for the entire probationary period have been met and exceed department Standards, to include additional achievements such as the awarding of Outstanding Professor or equivalent, Pulitzer Prize or equivalent or active participation in CSU system governance.
02/10/04