MATHEMATICS DEPARTMENT
CRITERIA AND
PROCEDURES
for
REAPPOINTMENT,
TENURE, AND PROMOTION
ACADEMIC
YEAR 2004-2005
1. Preface
The
Reappointment, Tenure, and Promotion (RTP) process is a critically important
faculty responsibility. RTP is the
mechanism by which we assure the success of our faculty and thereby assure
educational quality for our students. While the president makes final decisions
on reappointment, tenure, and promotion, it is the department faculty who are
in the best position to provide clear expectations, create an environment
conducive to achieving expectations, and render the most informed
recommendations to the president.
This document sets forth the expectations of quality of instruction, scholarship, and service held by the faculty of the Mathematics Department. The use of the word ¡°mathematics¡± in this document is to be understood as encompassing mathematics, mathematics education, and statistics. The criteria and procedures contained herein shall be used to determine whether a faculty member eligible for Reappointment, Tenure, or Promotion is meeting those expectations (such a faculty member will be referred to here as a Candidate). This document also describes the responsibility of the Candidate and of the Department's RTP Committee (DRTPC) in all matters of the RTP process.
2. Statements of Responsibility
2.1 The Candidate
It is the responsibility of the Candidate to be familiar with the expectation of quality, criteria, and procedures in this document. The Candidate must be familiar with the University Manual, especially Appendices 10 and 16 which speak directly to matters concerning the RTP process. During the first week of fall quarter of a year of eligibility, the Candidate shall notify the DRTPC Chair in writing of the intent to request an RTP action(s) or that no action will be requested. This notification will be non‑binding.
It is the responsibility of the Candidate to furnish the necessary documentation showing that all criteria for the action(s) requested have been met. This documentation must be specific and verifiable. All decisions will be based only on material contained in the Personnel Action File (PAF), the supporting documentation submitted by the Candidate, and on the Candidate's self‑evaluation statement. Therefore, the Candidate shall maintain a complete portfolio of all evidence and documentation in the areas of Teaching, Scholarship, and Service supporting the Candidate's requested actions to be made available upon request. Suggestions of possible material to include in this portfolio are given in the respective sections.
The Candidate's self‑evaluation statement is an important part of the information to be used in the RTP decision process. Here the Candidate should explain how her or his professional activities and documentation decisively show that the Candidate has met the criteria for each area of responsibility. This documentation must include a detailed description of the teaching, scholarship, or service performed; additional documentation shall normally be placed in the Candidate¡¯s portfolio. The Candidate, however, may place specific additional documentation in the submitted RTP package if she or he feels that it is necessary for a proper evaluation and should consult the DRTPC Chair if unsure where to place such materials. In his or her self-evaluation, the Candidate should carefully demonstrate how the documentation establishes the quality of the activity and should not rely solely on quantity of activities. The Candidate should not request points for professional activities but rather shall be clear enough in her or his self-evaluation that the importance of a given activity can be judged properly by the DRTPC. Candidates for reappointment must discuss their progress toward meeting the criteria for tenure. All Candidates must discuss progress made on any recommendations for improvement given in the previous RTP cycle.
2.2 The DRTPC
It is the responsibility of the DRTPC to evaluate the quality of the Candidate's teaching, scholarship, and service activities and to award the appropriate number of points based on the information supplied by the Candidate. After examining, verifying, and evaluating the documentation in the PAF of the relevant evaluation period and that submitted by the Candidate and in accordance with this document's criteria and procedures, the DRTPC will judge the quality and acceptability of the activities. This evaluation may involve the solicitation of recommendations of colleagues from off‑campus, in which case the Candidate may suggest names of such colleagues.
Based on this examination and evaluation, the DRTPC
will decide whether the Candidate does or does not meet the criteria for the
requested action(s) by a simple majority of the DRTPC members eligible to vote
on the issue, with abstentions or absences without proxies counting as negative
votes. This may entail multiple
decisions, one for each requested action.
The DRTPC will make a positive recommendation on a requested action(s)
if the Candidate was found to meet the criteria and will make a negative
recommendation otherwise. The
DRTPC shall explain its decision in writing. Any minority report shall be part of the DRTPC
recommendation. The DRTPC must
also include a discussion of progress made on any recommendations for
improvement given in the previous RTP cycle. For action requests covering a range of time such as
promotions or tenure, the DRTPC will honor the point totals awarded by all
previous DRTPC.
Since the decision made by the DRTPC is that the
Candidate did or did not meet the criteria for the requested action, the
DRTPC's written explanation of their decision is a very important part of the
information to be used in the RTP decision process beyond the Department. As the members of the DRTPC will often
be more experienced in teaching, scholarship, and research than the Candidate,
it is important for them to guide the Candidate in his or her efforts to be a
quality teacher-scholar. As
candidates will often emphasize one area or other of teaching, scholarship, and
service, it is also important for the DRTPC to respect this choice of
activities and evaluate the Candidate holistically. The clarity and logic of this explanation of their decision
will assist others in the process and will serve both the Candidate and the
Department. Therefore, the DRTPC
must fully and completely explain how its evaluation of the Candidate's
activities and documentation led them to the decision they reached. In this written evaluation, the DRTPC
must identify and explain any exceptional qualities exhibited by the Candidate
in the areas of teaching, scholarship, and service. The DRTPC should also address any concerns that arose in
their evaluation of the Candidate so the Candidate understands the collective
recommendation of the DRTPC.
If eligible to evaluate the Candidate, the Department Chair shall independently submit a written statement regarding the Candidate. This statement is submitted as part of the Candidate's evaluation documents.
3. Statements of Expectations and Assessment in
Teaching, Scholarship, and Service
3.1 Teaching
The faculty of the Mathematics Department recognizes the primary importance of teaching performance among the responsibilities and duties of its members. The faculty of the Department recognizes the wisdom of promoting a diverse set of learning opportunities for the students of mathematics. Candidates have the freedom to employ pedagogies that they believe will promote learning. Thus, the use of teaching and learning methods such as lecture, board work, technology, homework, projects, presentations, small group techniques, course development in xerographic form, and course management software shall be valued to the extent that they promote student learning.
Using departmental forms, the Candidate must conduct a minimum of one in‑class student evaluation per quarter, and a minimum of four evaluations per year in the period under consideration, unless his or her annual assignment is less than four classes. Summaries of these will be included in the Candidate's PAF.
A minimum of two peer evaluations of teaching performance shall be conducted in the period under consideration using the DRTP Peer Evaluation Form. A minimum of one peer evaluation per quarter shall be conducted in at least two different quarters in each academic year unless the Candidate¡¯s assignment prevents it. Any classroom visitation by a peer evaluator shall be done before the end of the eighth week of the quarter. The Candidate shall supply a copy of the syllabus, handouts, exams, projects, etc. within 3 working days of the time of the visit. The peer evaluator must submit a copy of the evaluation to the DRTPC Chair by the end of the ninth week of the quarter. A copy of the evaluation must be given to the Candidate by the DRTPC Chair within two weeks of the evaluation and no later than the tenth week of the quarter. The DRTPC Chair is responsible for ensuring that the minimum number of peer evaluations is conducted. These evaluations do not need to be done by DRTPC members. Any request by the Candidate to receive a peer evaluation by a non-member of the DRTPC should be directed to the DRTPC Chair. The author of the peer evaluation should include strengths and weaknesses observed during the visit or in the supplied class materials, and shall specifically note if no deficiencies are observed
All
official student evaluations and all peer evaluations conducted during the
period under review must be submitted by the Candidate as part of his or her
RTP package. The candidate is
expected to discuss the manner in which these tools have influenced his or her
teaching. In addition, the
candidate shall put together a teaching portfolio containing syllabi, exams,
handouts, and other relevant documentation pertaining to teaching-related
activities. The DRTPC may refer to the teaching portfolio in the evaluation of
Category 2, listed below. This
portfolio will not accompany the Candidates RTP package, but will be listed in
an appendix under ¡°additional materials available¡±.
The Candidate's self‑evaluation statement should clearly state his or her principles about and approach to teaching and should explain how she or he meets the department's criteria for teaching. As an evaluation of these objectives is essentially qualitative, the Candidate must demonstrate an acceptable level of performance through submission of appropriate documentation. In the case of non-traditional courses (such as on-line courses, supervising student teaching, etc.), sufficient documentation of the teaching activities should be provided by the Candidate to allow the DRTPC to evaluate the assignment. The DRTPC will consider all documentation regarding the quality of teaching provided by the Candidate that contributes to the Candidate's effectiveness. The DRTPC¡¯s main concerns will be with the Candidate¡¯s ability to effectively communicate and elucidate mathematical concepts, and with the Candidate¡¯s efforts to continuously improve his/her teaching. Generally, activities in the following categories will be considered in the DRTPC¡¯s evaluation:
1. Effectiveness
in communicating and elucidating course content
¡¤ effectively organizing the course,
¡¤ clearly communicating ideas and concepts,
¡¤ effectively answering students¡¯ questions, both in and outside of class
¡¤ effectively using teaching and learning methods.
2. Maintaining
appropriate academic standards
In addition to the categories above, the Candidate may wish to discuss other teaching-related activities, some of which are exemplified in the categories listed below. The DRTPC will consider all of these categories in evaluating the Candidate¡¯s overall teaching contribution to the Department.
A.
Extra-curricular
teaching activities
B. Efforts towards
improving teaching quality
C. Other activities
3.2 Scholarship
This section examines the Candidate's generalized scholarship in mathematics, mathematics education, and statistics. Scholarship activities have been organized into six categories; see Appendix II. (Some activities, of course, may not easily fit into a particular category. In this case, the Candidate is encouraged to seek the advice of the DRTPC.) Ideally, the Candidate will participate in a range of activities that embrace several categories.
The DRTPC will evaluate the Candidate's performance in each of the categories. See Appendix II for examples from each of the categories. A Candidate who displays no activities in a category will earn 0 points for that category. Minimal effort will be awarded 1 point, active participation will be awarded 2 points, and exceptional accomplishments will be awarded 3 points. More weight will be given to activities that are sustained over the period under review and to those whose scope extends beyond Cal Poly Pomona.
1. Meetings, Workshops, and Seminars
The DRTP will award 0-3 points for this Category and will give more weight to active participation and to activities of longer duration. The Candidate should provide a sufficiently detailed description so that the DRTPC can accurately judge the significance of the activities and the Candidate¡¯s role in them. While the department recognizes the importance of attending conferences, no more than 2 points per year shall be awarded for attending conferences.
2. Presentations
The DRTPC will award 0-3 points for this Category and will give more weight to invited presentations as well as presentations at national and international meetings and presentations of longer duration. The Candidate should give complete citations of these addresses.
3. Professional Service to the Discipline
The DRTPC will award 0-3 points for this Category. The Candidate should provide a sufficiently detailed explanation so that the DRTPC can accurately judge the contributions of the Candidate in these activities.
4. Publications
The DRTPC will award 0-3 points for each item in this Category. Moreover, the DRTPC will give more weight to refereed articles published in professional journals and to texts published by well‑known publishers. The Candidate should give complete details of the publication and specify if the journal is a refereed journal.
5. Grant Proposals
The DRTPC will award 0-3 points for this Category and will give more weight to proposals for external grants and for proposals that are funded. The Candidate should provide a sufficiently detailed explanation so that the DRTPC can accurately judge the Candidate¡¯s role in obtaining the grant(s).
6. Other Activities
The DRTPC will award 0-3 points for this Category. The Candidate should provide a sufficiently detailed explanation so that the DRTPC can accurately assess the Candidate¡¯s contributions in this area. One point per year per project shall be awarded for work in progress. For a project to receive more than 2 points total, the Candidate must sufficiently document that significant effort has been made, despite the lack of a publishable result.
The Scholarship section of the Candidate¡¯s portfolio may contain items such as copies of publications, grant proposals, and other information which the Candidate believes will support her or his contributions in the above categories
3.3 Service
The faculty of the Mathematics Department recognizes service as part of the professional responsibility of each of its members. Active involvement in the work of governance and business of the department, college, or university is expected of each member. In particular, this includes participation in departmental meetings.
During the beginning of the probationary period, the Candidate will be expected to participate in a variety of committees but without assuming any responsibility. This will afford the Candidate the opportunity to learn about departmental governance matters. The Candidate is then expected to become a contributing member on a smaller number of committees of his or her choosing. Toward the end of the probationary period, the Candidate is expected to have developed enough expertise to chair a committee or assume the responsibility of a department coordinator. The Candidate is expected to include in his or her service documentation at least one extra-departmental committee (such as an Academic Senate committee or College committee) or a committee outside the university (such as a Mathematics Association of America committee).
Service points will be awarded on an annual basis only for each year (or two years in the case of reappointment to the 3rd probationary year) under consideration. The Candidate is not expected to perform any service in the first probationary year but will be awarded the appropriate number of points if active service was performed. After the 2nd probationary year, Candidates can expect to receive 0 points for no contribution to a committee, 1-2 points for active participation in a committee, and 3 points for chairing an active committee or making exceptional contributions to a committee even if he or she was not the Chair. As some committees have an extensive workload over a prolonged period of time, e.g., the Math Education committee or the Search (Hiring) committee, the DRTPC may award 4 points if the Candidate can appropriately document her or his substantial contributions to such a committee.
Points can only be awarded if the Candidate provides adequate documentation of his or her contributions to the committees¡¯ activities. Documentation must include a detailed description of the service performed and in sufficient detail so the DRTPC can accurately award points; the Candidate may also include additional information such as written reports, letters from the committee chair, minutes of meetings, products developed by the committee, letters from members of the committee, etc. and should place this additional information in the Service section of her or his portfolio.
1.
Attendance of a department, college, or
university committee
In the first two probationary years, the Candidate may receive service credit for regularly attending committee meetings without contributing. Credit in this area will not be allowed beyond the 2nd probationary year and cannot be applied more than once to the same committee. The DRTPC will award 1 point per committee per year.
2. Contributing member in a
department, college, or university committee
If a Candidate chooses to serve on a committee beyond one year, the Candidate is expected to become a contributing member sharing the workload of that committee. Based upon its evaluation of the submitted documentation, the DRTPC will award 0 points if the documentation is not sufficiently detailed or 1-4 points per committee per year when the documentation is sufficiently detailed.
3. Chair a
department, college, or university committee
To receive service credit for this activity, the committee must have been an active committee and the Candidate must submit documentation supporting that activity and the quality of the work of the chair. Based upon its evaluation of the documentation, the DRTPC will award 0 points if the documentation is not sufficiently detailed or 1-4 points per committee per year when the documentation is sufficiently detailed.
4. Departmental coordinator
To receive service credit for this activity, the coordinator must have carried out the work and met the responsibilities of the coordinator position. The Candidate must submit documentation supporting the quality of the work as coordinator. Based upon its evaluation of the documentation, the DRTPC will award 0 points if the documentation is not sufficiently detailed or 1-4 points per year when the documentation is sufficiently detailed.
5. Other significant
service
The DRTPC will award points for other service activity for which the Candidate documents and requests recognition (see Appendix III for a partial list of this type of service). Based upon its evaluation of the documentation, the DRTPC will award 0 points if the documentation is not sufficiently detailed or 1-4 points per activity per year when the documentation is sufficiently detailed, with the score of 4 being reserved for exceptional contributions.
4. The
Criteria
It is the responsibility of each evaluating body to write a report that clearly explains how the Candidate was evaluated and rated, using the Mathematics Department Criteria for Reappointment, Tenure, and Promotion. Specifically, the DRTPC will support its recommendation(s) with a written analysis of the Candidate's numerical scores, including an assessment of the quality of the Candidate's achievements. In this written evaluation, the DRTPC must identify and explain any exceptional qualities exhibited by the Candidate in the areas of teaching, scholarship, and service.
University policies including the Unit 3 Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) and Appendices 10 and 16 of the University Manual define university procedures and expectations. This document is a supplement to these policies and may not conflict with these policies. In the event of discrepancies, the CBA takes first precedence and university policies take second precedence over departmental policies. The CBA requires that a tenure-track faculty member be provided a copy of this document within two weeks of the start of his or her first quarter at Cal Poly Pomona. It is recommended that this document be maintained on the department web page so that they are also available to candidates for faculty positions.
The following sections of this document describe the minimum qualifications for each RTP action. In exceptional cases, the quality of achievements in one area may compensate for work that is slightly below the minimum requirements for another area.
Requests for early tenure or promotion will not be considered unless the Candidate has completed at least two years of full‑time service at this campus prior to the effective date of tenure or promotion.
4.1 Reappointment
A Candidate for reappointment must use the Department RTP criteria in effect at the time of her or his initial probationary appointment. Current procedures and policies apply. For reappointment to a third probationary year, the Candidate must be evaluated by the DRTPC primarily in teaching performance and scholarship. The Candidate is not expected to perform any service in the first probationary year. (A probationary year of service is any three quarters in a period of four consecutive quarters. The first probationary year begins with the first fall term of appointment.) For reappointment beyond a third probationary year, the Candidate must be judged by the DRTPC as progressing satisfactorily toward the expectations for tenure. If any problems were discussed in earlier evaluations, the DRTPC will expect to see progress made in resolving these problems.
4.2 Tenure
A Candidate for tenure may choose between the criteria in effect at the time of the initial probationary appointment and those in effect at the time of the request for action. In any case, current procedures and policies apply. A candidate requesting both tenure and promotion must choose a single set of criteria for both actions.
A Candidate's credited service period for tenure consideration is the number of years from date of hire at this campus plus the number of years for which credit was granted at time of hiring.
A probationary faculty member is normally considered for tenure during the sixth year of credited service. A faculty member may request early tenure prior to the sixth year of credited service.
4.2.1 Normal Tenure
It is
expected that probationary faculty will demonstrate their accomplishments in
the areas of teaching, scholarship, and service. By the end of the probationary period, the DRTPC must
consider the Candidate's teaching to be at a good level of quality that is
likely to be maintained. Progress
must be demonstrated in areas where need for improvement was indicated by
previous DRTPC.
In order for a Candidate¡¯s teaching to be considered successful, it should satisfy the following criteria:
a. Effectiveness in communicating and elucidating course content, as described in Section 3.1.1;
b. Maintaining appropriate academic standards, as described in Section 3.1.2;
c. The Candidate¡¯s overall contribution to the department, as resulting from categories 1-2 and A-C in Section 3.1 should reflect dedication to teaching.
In the area of scholarship, the Candidate must have a record, sustained over several years, of dedicated efforts and achievements. A minimum of 9 points in the area of scholarship is required. In the area of service, the Candidate will be expected to have a minimum of 14 points, with active service on at least one committee outside the department during that time.
A total of 27 points is necessary in the combined areas of scholarship and service for normal tenure, thus giving the Candidate the flexibility to concentrate his or her efforts in scholarship or service.
Overall, the DRTPC must be convinced that the Candidate's performance will continue at this level, or higher, in future years. If the Candidate has been promoted to associate professor during the probationary period, it is expected that the level of performance attained prior to that promotion will have been maintained in the period between the promotion and the tenure request.
4.2.2 Early Tenure
In the area of teaching, a Candidate must be judged by the DRTPC as having clearly exceeded the quality of teaching necessary for normal tenure. In each of the years considered in this request, the DRTPC must consider the Candidate's teaching to be at a level of quality that clearly surpasses that of an acceptable teacher with comparable experience and that is likely to be maintained.
In the area of scholarship, the Candidate must accumulate a minimum of 13 points. The Candidate¡¯s activities in the area of scholarship must also include refereed publications or successful grant proposals for a specific project.
In the area of service, the Candidate must accumulate a minimum of 20 points, with active service on at least one committee outside the department during that time.
A total of 40 points is necessary in the combined areas of scholarship and service for early tenure, thus giving the Candidate the flexibility to concentrate her or his efforts in scholarship or service.
4.3 Promotion to Associate Professor
A Candidate for promotion may choose between the criteria in
effect at the time of the initial probationary appointment and those in effect
at the time of the request for action.
In any case, current procedures and policies apply. A Candidate requesting both tenure and
promotion must choose a single set of criteria for both actions.
A
Candidate is normally eligible to apply for promotion to associate professor at
the time they apply for tenure.
4.3.1 Normal Promotion to Associate
Professor
It is expected that probationary faculty will demonstrate their accomplishments in the area of teaching scholarship, and service. In each of the years considered in this request, the DRTPC must consider the Candidate's teaching to be acceptable for that year and at a good level of quality that is likely to be maintained. Progress must be demonstrated in areas where need for improvement was indicated by previous DRTPC.
In the area of scholarship, the Candidate must have a record, sustained over several years, of dedicated efforts and achievements. A minimum of 9points in the area of scholarship is required.
In the area of service, the Candidate will be expected to have a minimum of 14 points, with active service on at least one committee outside the department during that time.
A total of 27 points is necessary in the combined areas of scholarship and service for normal promotion to associate professor, thus giving the Candidate the flexibility to concentrate his or her efforts in scholarship or service.
4.3.2 Early Promotion to Associate
Professor
In the area of teaching, a candidate must be judged by the DRTPC as having clearly exceeded the quality of teaching necessary for normal promotion to associate professor. In each of the years considered in this request, the DRTPC must consider the Candidate's teaching to be at a level of quality that clearly surpasses that of an acceptable teacher with comparable experience and that is likely to be maintained.
In the area of scholarship, the Candidate must accumulate a minimum of 13 points. The Candidate¡¯s activities in the area of scholarship must also include refereed publications or successful grant proposals for a specific project.
In the area of service, the Candidate must accumulate a minimum of 20 points, with active service on at least one committee outside the department during that time.
A total of 40 points is necessary in the combined areas of scholarship and service for early promotion to associate professor, thus giving the Candidate the flexibility to concentrate her or his efforts in scholarship or service.
A Candidate may apply simultaneously for early tenure and early promotion to associate professor.
4.4 Promotion to Full Professor
Faculty
shall not be considered for promotion to full professor unless they are
tenured. A Candidate may apply
simultaneously for tenure and promotion to full professor. Once tenured, the Candidate is eligible
for a subsequent promotion after having served four years at the rank of
associate professor. An
application for promotion prior to attained eligibility is an application for
early promotion.
A Candidate requesting promotion to full professor must have an extensive record of achievements. There should be a continued involvement in professional development activities and a continued engagement in service activities.
4.4.1 Normal Promotion to Full Professor
In the area of teaching, the Candidate must be judged by the DRTPC as having clearly exceeded the quality of teaching necessary for normal promotion to associate professor. The Candidate must have received consistently positive ratings in previous reviews with noted comments indicating the quality of performance is very high and there must be evidence that this level of quality in teaching will be maintained.
In the area of scholarship, the Candidate must have a record of scholarship sustained over several years of dedicated efforts and achievements and must accumulate a minimum of 8 points. It is expected that this record will include publications or successful grant writing.
In the area of service, an increase in involvement is expected, compared to what is expected from a Candidate for promotion to associate professor. A Candidate must have assumed positions of leadership and responsibility at the department, college, or university levels. A minimum of 15 points in service is required.
A total of 27 points is necessary in the combined areas of scholarship and service for promotion to full professor, thus giving the Candidate the flexibility to concentrate his or her efforts in scholarship or service.
4.4.2 Early Promotion to Full Professor
The DRTPC must be persuaded that the strength of the Candidate's achievements compensates for the brief time period.
In the area of teaching, the candidate must be judged, by the DRTPC, as having taught with exceptional skills for a number of years. A Candidate must be judged by the DRTPC as having clearly exceeded the quality of teaching necessary for normal promotion to full professor. In each of the years considered in this request, the DRTPC must consider the Candidate's teaching to be at a level of quality that clearly surpasses that of an acceptable teacher with comparable experience and that is likely to be maintained.
In the area of scholarship, the Candidate must have an impressive record of achievements, sustained over several years and must accumulate a minimum of 12 points. The Candidate¡¯s activities in the area of scholarship must also include refereed publications or successful grant proposals for a specific project.
In the area of service, a significant increase in involvement is expected, compared to what is expected from a Candidate for promotion to associate professor. A Candidate for early promotion to full professor must have assumed positions of leadership and responsibility in service activities at the department level as well as the college or university levels. A minimum of 20 points in service is required.
A total of 40 points is necessary in the combined areas of scholarship and service for early promotion to full professor, thus giving the Candidate the flexibility to concentrate her or his efforts in scholarship or service.
5. Procedures
5.1 DRTPC Selection
The DRTPC shall consist initially of seven (7) and three (3) alternate full‑time, tenured faculty members who will serve for the academic year. The DRTPC shall be elected in the winter quarter preceding the beginning of service and shall meet during this quarter to select a chair. Its term of service shall begin in the subsequent spring quarter and last for one calendar year. A faculty member on professional leave (sabbatical or difference-in-pay) may serve if elected and willing. A tenured faculty member who will be a candidate for promotion may be elected, but may only participate on reappointment cases and may not participate in promotion or tenure recommendations. The DRTPC is responsible for all issues arising from its recommendation even if they arise after the completion of its term of service.
The election of the DRTPC shall be by means of a mail ballot. The ballot shall contain the names of all full‑time, tenured faculty members able to serve. The Department Chair is not eligible to serve on the DRTPC in any capacity. The ballot will be distributed by the Department Chair to all probationary and tenured faculty members of the department and shall contain the instruction: "Vote for seven."
Upon completion of the balloting, the vote totals for each individual will be listed in decreasing order. The nine individuals with the highest vote totals will be resubmitted to the probationary and tenured faculty again with the instruction: "Vote for seven." In the event of tie votes in the 10th position, all candidates tied for this position shall be submitted on the second ballot. Without ratification of the majority of the probationary and tenured faculty the voting process is to be repeated.
The seven individuals with the highest vote totals form next year's RTP committee, and the remaining three will serve as alternates. Any necessary replacements or additions to the initial DRTPC shall be made in a similar manner from the same list during the beginning of the Fall quarter of the committee's year of service.
Any member of the initial DRTPC who becomes a Candidate for promotion shall be ineligible to participate in DRTPC committee deliberations concerning promotion or tenure. In promotion considerations, the DRTPC members deliberating must have a higher rank than the Candidate being considered. If the initial seven‑member DRTPC has fewer than three members senior in rank to all promotion Candidates, then the DRTPC shall be increased in size by selecting such individuals until there are three members senior in rank to all promotion Candidates.
5.2 Duties of the DPTPC Chair
The DRTPC Chair shall be responsible for ensuring that the provisions of this document and those of Appendix 16 of the University Manual are carried out. The DRTPC Chair will be the official overseer of the RTP package for the period between the submission of the package to the DRTPC by the Candidate and the forwarding of the package to the Dean's office. Specifically, in this period the DRTPC Chair and only the DRTPC Chair shall be responsible for additions to the package or any changes in the content of the package and notification of the appropriate parties of any additions or changes.
In the
Fall quarter, the DRTPC Chair (i) ensures that Candidates have information they
need, including information about what actions they must/may apply for,
information they need to prepare requests, department criteria; (ii) assists
Candidates in understanding expectations, preparing packages; (iii) informs
Faculty Affairs of requests; (iv) ensures that packages are complete; (v) provides the department
recommendation to the Candidate.
Throughout the year, the DRTPC Chair ensures that peer evaluations are
conducted for all faculty members who will be candidates for RTP action in the
future and ensures that peer evaluations are provided to Candidates in a timely
manner (within two weeks of a classroom visit). The DRTPC Chair is also responsible for forwarding the peer
evaluations to the Dean for the inclusion in the Candidate¡¯s PAF.
All eligible Candidates are to notify the DRTPC Chair before the end of the first week of the fall quarter of intent to request an RTP action(s) or that no action will be requested. This notification shall not be binding.
5.3 RTP Document Revision
Each year the department shall appoint an RTP Document Review Committee. This committee shall be viewed as an adjunct of the RTP Committee for the sole purpose of proposing changes in departmental RTP criteria or procedures. The RTP Document Review Committee shall work with the Mathematics Department, the Mathematics RTP Committee, the College of Science RTP Committee, the Dean's office, and other segments of the University involved in the RTP process to produce a document which reflects the University's commitment to quality education.
Proposed revisions shall be submitted in writing to all probationary and tenured faculty members of the department. During the week following this submission, critical comments or alternative proposals may be communicated in writing to the Document Review Committee Chair. The committee shall subsequently consider such written communications and finalize the proposed revisions.
Following the submission of the finalized revision proposals to the probationary and tenured faculty, a department meeting shall be held to discuss the acceptance or rejection of the proposed revisions. No further changes in the RTP Criteria and Procedures document will be considered after this meeting. Ratification of the finalized revision proposals on an item by item basis shall take place by means of a written mail ballot. Adoption of each item shall require the approval of a majority of the probationary and tenured faculty. The RTP document with ratified revisions shall be forwarded to the College RTP Committee and College Dean for review according to the time line provided by the College.
5.4 Evaluation of Faculty on Leave
The Department
Chair and a faculty member who is still eligible for some RTP action and who
requests a leave of absence from normal faculty duties will prepare a Memo of
Understanding (MOU) detailing activities and conditions of evaluation for RTP
purposes during the leave so that existing and appropriate RTP Document
criteria will apply. This MOU,
which must be agreed to by the current DRTPC, the Chair, and the Candidate,
will detail precisely what is expected of the Candidate for each action still
pending. Candidates shall observe
the same criteria, procedures, and timelines as candidates in residence, unless
the MOU explicitly states otherwise.
Candidates may provide their RTP requests by fax, and must provide fax
numbers or addresses to be used for sending recommendations to the
Candidate. It will be the
Candidate¡¯s responsibility to meet all deadlines. It is recommended that the Candidate acquire assurances that
the work duties associated with the leave will allow for fulfillment of the
activities in the MOU.
APPENDICES
These appendices contain examples of activities the Candidate may choose to document and use in his or her self‑evaluation as evidence that the Candidate has met the criteria for the requested action. The lists are meant to be suggestive and helpful but not necessarily exhaustive. It is not anticipated that a Candidate will engage in all these activities. In some cases, items in one category might be better used by a Candidate in another category or the Candidate may have an activity that does not fit nicely into one the given categories. The Candidate is always free to seek advice relating to their RTP review and process.
Appendix I-A
Examples of measures to be considered by the DRTPC in evaluating teaching performance:
Ability and willingness to teach courses at a variety of levels
Ability to explain concepts several different ways to fit students needs
Adequate coverage of course syllabus
Clear communication of ideas and concepts
Effective in answering students¡¯ questions
Effective use of teaching and learning methods, which may include:
-Lecture
-Board work
-Technology
-Homework and projects
-Small group techniques
-Course development in xerographic form
-Course management software
Ability to create and maintain a positive classroom atmosphere
Effective course organization
Use of additional (i.e., beyond the required minimum) peer teaching evaluations for improving teaching
Use of additional (i.e., beyond the required minimum) student course evaluations for improving teaching
Appendix I-B
Examples of additional activities to promote the study, learning, and teaching of mathematics to be considered by the DRTPC:
Help students or faculty with mathematics-related concerns beyond the classroom and office hours
Tutor or mentor students or faculty in a structured program
Supervise student teachers
Supervise undergraduate research projects
Supervise students in independent study
Supervise master¡¯s theses
Develop and teach special
topics courses
Teach an honor¡¯s section of a math course
Participate in mathematics-related student activities
Support students in mathematics-related activities such as contests
Make presentations that relate to teaching or learning mathematics to students, parents, or teachers
Sponsor students in programs to support graduate studies
Appendix II
Examples of activities and documentation in scholarship to be considered by the DRTPC:
1. Meetings, Workshops, and Seminars
Consistently attending professional meetings
Participating in professional discipline seminars, workshops, summer institutes, and courses
Organizing or leading seminars, workshops, or summer institutes
2. Presentations
Colloquium addresses
Presentations at contributed paper sessions
Presentations at special sessions
Invited addresses
3. Professional Service to the Discipline
Refereeing or reviewing research articles or books for professional journals (for blind refereed articles, only submit the name of the journal and correspondence from the journal)
Reviewing grant proposals for state or federal agencies
Reviewing textbooks
4. Publications
Expository articles
Research articles
Textbooks
Research monographs
5. Grant Proposals
Cal Poly grants
State and federal government grants
Commercially funded grants
Private foundation grants
6. Other Activities
Academic and discipline based software production
Course development notes in xerographic form
Manuals or technical reports of a professional nature
Work in progress
Appendix III
Examples of other significant service:
Advise or mentor undergraduate and graduate students
Develop and teach new or special topics courses
Hold an office in a professional organization
Make professional presentations to schools, civic groups, or community organizations
Organize a professional meeting or special session
Participate in curriculum development
Participate in fund raising activities
Participate in professionally related student activities
Participate in professional consultation of benefit to the university
Participate in special assignments
Serve on a committee of a professional organization
Serve on an editorial board of a professional journal
MATHEMATICS
DEPARTMENT RTP CLASSROOM
PERFORMANCE
EVALUATION FORM
|
1. Candidate's Name: |
|
|
2. Class Visited (MAT/STA Number and Section): |
|
|
3. Time: |
|
Date: |
|
Quarter: |
|
4. Performance Evaluation:
|
5.Evaluator's Name/Signature: |
|
/ |
|