Retention, Tenure and Promotion (RTP) Standards - SoE

Definition:Standards governing RTP process for faculty in the School of Education.
Authority:The collective bargaining agreement The California State University and the California Faculty Association.
Scope:Eligible Unit 3 School of Education faculty at California State University San Marcos.
Responsible Division:Academic Affairs
Approval Date:06/22/2012
Implementation Date:07/01/2012
Originally Implemented:12/09/1991
Signature Page/PDF:View Signatures for Retention, Tenure and Promotion (RTP) Standards - SoE Policy


Procedure

I. SCHOOL OF EDUCATION RTP STANDARDS

A. Preamble

  1. This document sets forth general standards and criteria for retention, tenure, and promotion of full-time faculty in the School of Education as a unit within the College of Education, Health, and Human Services.
  2. The provisions of this document are to be implemented in conformity with University RTP Policies and Procedures; the CSU Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA), Articles 13, 14, 15; and the University Policy on Ethical Conduct.
  3. The School is guided also by the standards of the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE), American Speech Language Hearing Association (AASHA), and the national accrediting agency for schools, colleges, and departments of education and California Commission on Teacher Credentialing (CCTC).

B. Definitions of Terms and Abbreviations

  1. The School of Education (SoE) uses the same definitions, terms, and abbreviations as defined in the University RTP document.  For clarity, the use of "is" is informative, "shall" is mandatory, "may" is permissive, "should" is conditional, and "will" is intentional.
  2. A “standard” is a reference point or formalized expectation against which progress can be measured for retention, tenure, and promotion.
  3. Faculty have a right to clearly articulated performance expectations. College, Departmental and School RTP Standards provide consistency in guiding tenure-track faculty in the preparation of their working personnel action files (WPAFs).
  4. College, Departmental, and School RTP Standards educate others outside of the discipline, including deans, university committees, and the provost, with respect to the practice and standards of a particular department/discipline/field.
  5. Colleges, Departments, and Schools must respect the intellectual freedom of their faculty by avoiding standards that are too prescriptive.  Department and School standards should be as brief as possible with emphasis on the unique nature of the department.
  6. All College, Department, and School RTP Standards shall conform to the CBA and University and School RTP documents.  The SoE RTP Standards document shall contain the elements of School RTP standards described below and shall not repeat the CBA, or School RTP documents, or include School-specific advice.
  7. All College, Department, or School RTP Standards must be approved by a simple majority of all tenure-track faculty within a department or School and then be approved by School/school/library and the Academic Senate before any use in RTP decisions. 

II. ELEMENTS OF THE SoE RTP DOCUMENT

A. Introduction and Guiding Principles

  1. All standards and criteria reflect the University and School Mission and Vision Statements and advance the goals embodied in those statements.
  2. The performance areas that shall be evaluated include scholarly teaching, scholarly research/creative activities, and scholarly service.  While there will be diversity in the contributions of faculty members to the University, the School affirms the university requirement of sustained high quality performance and encourages flexibility in the relative emphasis placed on each performance area.  Candidates must submit a curriculum vita (CV) and narrative statements describing the summary of teaching, research/ creative activity, and service for the review period.  The faculty member must meet the minimum standards in each of the three areas.
  3. Items assessed in one area of performance shall not be duplicated in any other area of performance evaluation.  Items shall be cross-referenced in the CV, narrative statements, and WPAF to demonstrate connections across all three documents. Candidates who integrate their teaching, research/creative activities, and/or service may explain how their work meets given standards/criteria for each area.
  4. The School recognizes innovative and unusual contributions (e.g., supervising research, using particularly innovative or challenging types of pedagogy, writing or rewriting programs, curriculum development, assessment development, accreditation or other required report generation).
  5. Retention, tenure, and promotion decisions are made on the basis of the evaluation of individual performance.  Ultimate responsibility for understanding the standards, meeting the standards, and effectively communicating how they have met the standards rests with the candidate.  In addition to this document, the candidate should refer to and follow the University RTP Policies and Procedures.  Candidates should also note available opportunities that provide guidance on the WPAF and describe the responsibilities of the candidate in the review process (e.g., Provost’s RTP meetings; Faculty Center Professional Development, and advice and counsel by tenured faculty.  Candidates are encouraged to avail themselves of such opportunities. 
  6. Candidates for retention will show effectiveness in each area of performance and demonstrate progress toward meeting the tenure requirements in the areas of scholarly teaching, scholarly research/creative activities, and scholarly service.
  7. Candidates for the rank of Associate Professor require an established record of effectiveness in scholarly teaching, scholarly research/creative activities, and scholarly service to the School and University.
  8. Candidates for the rank of professor require, in addition to continued effectiveness, an established record of initiative and leadership in scholarly teaching, scholarly research/creative activities, and scholarly service to the School, University, community, and profession.  Promotion to the rank of Professor will be based on the record of the individual since promotion to the rank of Associate Professor.
  9. The granting of tenure at any rank recognizes accomplishments and services performed by the candidate during the individual’s career.  The record must show sustained and continuous activities and accomplishments.  The granting of tenure is an expression of confidence that the faculty member has both the commitment to and the potential for continued development and accomplishment throughout the individual’s career.  Tenure will be granted only to individuals whose record meets the standards required to earn promotion to the rank at which the tenure will be granted.

III. GENERAL STANDARDS

A. Retention: A positive recommendation for retention requires that the candidate’s record clearly meets the articulated standards for the granting of a retention decision in each of the three areas: scholarly teaching, scholarly research/creative activities, and scholarly service.

B. Tenure and/or Promotion: A positive recommendation for tenure or promotion requires that the candidate’s record clearly meets the articulated standards for the granting of a tenure/promotion decision in each of the three areas: scholarly teaching, scholarly research/creative activities, and scholarly service.

C. Early Tenure (prior to the 6th year in rank): This option for Assistant Professors is considered an exception.  A positive recommendation for early tenure requires that the candidate’s record clearly meets the articulated standards for the granting of a tenure/promotion decision in ALL areas. To be eligible for early tenure, a candidate must show a sustained record of successful experience at a university, and that experience must include at least one full year at California State University San Marcos prior to the year of review for tenure.

D. Early Promotion (prior to the 6th year in rank): This option for Associate Professors is considered an exception. A positive recommendation for early promotion requires that the candidate’s record clearly meets the articulated standards for the granting of a tenure/promotion decision in ALL areas. To be eligible for early promotion a candidate must show a record of successful experience at a university, and that experience must include at least one full year at California State University San Marcos prior to the year of review for promotion.

E. Faculty who are hired at an advanced rank without tenure may apply for tenure after two years of service at CSUSM (i.e., in fall of their third year at CSUSM).  A positive recommendation requires that the candidate’s record at CSUSM clearly demonstrates a continued level of accomplishment in all areas and, together with the candidate’s previous record, is consistent with the articulated standards for the granting of tenure at the faculty member’s rank.

IV. STANDARDS AND CRITERIA FOR SCHOLARLY TEACHING

A. School Priorities and Values in Teaching and Learning

  1. In the School of Education, “effective Scholarly Teaching” is defined as activity that promotes student learning, reflection, and professional growth in support of the School Mission and is demonstrated by information in the teaching portfolio section of the WPAF. Scholarly teaching in the SoE should explicitly support the Mission Statement.   Scholarly teaching is multifaceted and may include instructional activity that takes place at off-site locations. 
  2. The most important teaching activities include, but are not limited to:
    • Classroom modality, face-to-face, blended, online, on-campus, off-site, distance learning teaching
    • Supervision of teacher candidates
    • Supervision of masters theses or projects and doctoral dissertations and research
    • Supervision of student independent study
    • Training and/or supervision of lecturers, colleagues, and Distinguished Teachers in Residence (DTiR)
    • Student advising and counseling
    • Laboratory teaching
    • Clinical teaching/ practice
    • Seminar courses
    • Undergraduate and graduate courses
    • Supervision of field work and independent research
    • Supervision of teaching and graduate assistants
  3. As a School that primarily focuses on preparing students to become effective educators, it is expected that the faculty in the School of Education will consistently model effective instructional practices and continue to improve as an educator.  Effective faculty members set clear student learning outcomes for their students, employ a range of instructional strategies, and teach in ways that effectively engage all students in the learning process.
  4. SoE approaches to support excellent teaching include collaboration, team teaching, lesson study groups, and co-teaching.
  5. Evaluations of scholarly teaching will focus on determining a profile of the candidate's teaching effectiveness. To determine such a profile, scholarly teaching will be assessed by holistic evaluation of evidence, including candidates’ reflective statement on teaching, student evaluations, reflective practice, and selected items that the candidates believe best represent their teaching, as described in the University RTP document and further illustrated below in section B.

B.  The following evidence of scholarly teaching is required.

  1. Scholarly Teaching Reflective Statement
    A reflective narrative including any selected items from section IV. A .2. (p. 4 above) and all scholarly teaching evidence discussed in the file should reflect continued success and/ or improvement in teaching. In this statement, candidates shall provide a clear and concise reflective self-assessment of their teaching philosophy, experience, and performance.  The reflective statement may include the candidates’ philosophy of teaching and learning, pedagogical connections between the techniques they employ when teaching and their philosophy of teaching and learning, impact of any notable teaching accomplishments or awards, improvements made as a result of lessons learned from their teaching and/or student evaluations, impact of course innovation or development, and/or their approach to supervision of student teachers. As part of the reflective statement, candidates shall provide a brief summary of student evaluation ratings exemplifying scholarly teaching supported by a brief discussion of these evaluations.  Evaluation ratings and narrative shall specify rationale for categories chosen (e.g., quality of course, instructor preparedness, active learning encouraged) and particular teaching context (e.g., new prep, co-taught, curriculum modifications, extenuating circumstances).  Course evaluations and narrative should reflect evidence of improvement in evaluations.
  2. Teaching and/or Supervision Assignments
    Evidence:  If not already a part of the curriculum vita, candidates will list all courses and/or all student teaching supervision assignments for the period under review, as illustrated below.

  3. Semester & Year

    Course Number

    Course Title

    Section

    Units

    No. of Students Enrolled

    Comments

    Evaluation Ratings (specify categories/items referenced)

     


     


     


     


     


     


     


     


  4. Student Evaluations from Teaching and/or Supervision Assignments
    Evidence:  Provide complete sets of (percentage as specified by CBA) university-prepared student evaluation reports, and from courses taught and since the last promotion.
  5. Representative Syllabi from Courses Taught
    Evidence:  Provide a representative sample of syllabi from core courses taught since last promotion that illustrate course objectives, student learning outcomes, sample assignments, and current practice in the field and instructional practices.

C. The Following Evidence of Scholarly Teaching is Optional:

  1. Use of Exemplary Teaching Practices in Coursework and/or Clinical Practice
    Evidence:  Provide evidence that illustrates the use of exemplary teaching practices.  Candidates might provide evidence that demonstrates the effective use of such things as technology, teaching strategies for diverse learners, student projects, student learning outcomes, portfolios, etc.
  2. Curriculum, Program, and/or Course Development and/or Revision
    Evidence:  Provide evidence that illustrates any new developments or improvements in curriculum, programs, and/or courses.  Evidence might include a brief description of improvements, curriculum forms, syllabi changes, links to online materials, etc.
  3. Academic Advising
    Evidence:  Provide evidence of effective academic advisement of students and the impact of this work.  Academic advisement includes the many ways the candidate supported students in their academic pursuit, such as on a thesis or dissertation committee, mentorship on a research or graduate project, or as an academic advisor to a student in a program.  Evidence might include the names of the students, the role(s) the candidate played, the dates of this work, and any evidence related to the impact.
  4. Other Selected Items that Best Represent Candidate’s Teaching
    Evidence:  Additional evidence of scholarly teaching activities not listed above, including but are not limited to:
    • Assessment of student learning outcomes
    • Letters from former students (identified as solicited or unsolicited)
    • Teaching awards
    • Other activities to promote teaching excellence (e.g., self evaluation, peer evaluation, in-service education of incumbent educators in the field)

D. Assessment of Scholarly Teaching

  1. General Standards
    Candidates will be assessed on the quality of the evidence provided on the set of indicators they select, rather than on the quantity of indicators selected. In all cases, candidates will be assessed on the quality and the totality of the evidence provided.  When judged as a group, no one indicator may be used to determine the overall rating of teaching effectiveness. 
  2. Tenure and/or Promotion from Assistant Professor to Associate Professor
    At the Assistant Professor level, scholarly teaching that meets standards is expected to demonstrate classroom effectiveness for the types of courses taught.  Evidence of classroom effectiveness may include, but is not limited to student evaluations, syllabi that clearly articulate course objectives and requirements, effective instructional practices, engaging assignments directed at meeting the course objectives, documentation that illustrates clear connections throughout an entire teaching event, and assessments that effectively measure and align with student learning outcomes.
  3. Tenure and/or Promotion from Associate Professor to Professor
    As more experienced faculty, Associate Professors being considered for promotion to Professor are held to a higher standard.  Accordingly, to be rated meets standards, a candidate at the Associate Professor level is expected to demonstrate leadership and initiative in teaching and curriculum related activities.  This is in addition to documentation of continued teaching effectiveness (Section IV).
  4. Retention
    Candidates for retention shall include the required items for courses taught and additional optional materials in their teaching portfolio to show evidence of efforts and effectiveness in teaching.  Because this is an evaluation intended to provide guidance, candidates will be assessed on their current teaching performance as well as on efforts that have been made to address prior performance feedback.

V. STANDARDS AND CRITERIA FOR SCHOLARLY RESEARCH AND CREATIVE ACTIVITIES

A. School Priorities and Values in Research and Creative Activity

In the School of Education, scholarly research/creative activities is defined as creating, synthesizing, and disseminating knowledge of teaching, learning and schooling in ways that fulfill the Mission and core values of the School. The School of Education encourages scholarship that contributes to and transforms many communities from young to the elderly (e.g., PreK-12 education, higher education; local and regional centers/ agencies), indicating collaboration with multiple groups.  Research involving reflective practice is valued.  Sustained scholarly activity that demonstrates support of the SoE Mission is expected.

B. School’s Research/ Creative Activity Standards within Context of Discipline

Scholarly research/creative activities take many forms in the SoE.  These may include, but are not limited to, qualitative, quantitative, and applied scholarly research conducted both individually and collaboratively.  Applied scholarly research in PreK-12 schools is defined as creative activity that relates directly to the faculty member’s intellectual work.  This type of scholarship is carried out through such activities as program development, program or curriculum evaluation, policy analysis, action research, collaborative research with educators and community members, etc.  These activities are tied directly to the professor's special field of knowledge and are aimed at substantive change in educational practices.  Applied scholarly research requires rigor and accountability.

C. Faculty Description of Contributions when Multiple Authors are Present

When multiple authors are present on scholarly research and creative activities, candidates shall specify their specific role on item (e.g., role: first author; second author; equal authorship; etc.).

D. Major Challenges facing faculty in the SoE in terms of limitations

Faculty members in the School of Education may experience challenges based on the perceptions of outside disciplines in terms of scholarly research and creative activity, when applied research or action research is mostly qualitative in nature. They may also experience limitations when colleagues from other disciplines do not understand that SoE scholarly activity includes evaluation of new programs, participation in accreditation activities, or participation in large-scale research efforts.  Finally, when budgetary constraints prohibit SoE faculty from traveling to disseminate research findings at national or international conferences, scholarly presentations may more often be local.

E. Evidence of Scholarly Research and Creative Activities

Evaluations of scholarly research/creative activities will focus on developing a profile of the candidate’s scholarly research/creative activities as well as an understanding of the impact and benefit their work has had on the field, including the PreK-12 community.  To determine such a profile, the candidate’s scholarly research/creative activities will be assessed by holistic evaluation of the candidates’ reflective statement, scholarly work, and selected items that the candidates believe best reflects their progress, as described in the University RTP document and further illustrated below. 

1. Scholarly Research/Creative Activities Reflective Statement
Candidates shall provide a clear reflective assessment of scholarly research/ creative activities as well as the impact of this work.  The reflective statement may also include short-term and long-term goals for research/ creative activities, connections between research/ creative activities and the courses taught, and the impact of research/ creative activities. 
a. Category A Evidence must include external peer review process:

  1. Papers published or accepted for publication in peer reviewed/ refereed journals recognized as reputable and of high quality
  2. Peer or editor reviewed published book chapters of original material and original monographs
  3. Peer or editor reviewed books, manuscripts, electronic or other media published or accepted for publication as works that contribute new knowledge and/or to practice as demonstrated by professional and academic reviewers
  4. Peer reviewed /refereed presentations at national or international conferences
  5. Significant program development including applied scholarship, curriculum writing, or accreditation work, which requires outside agency approval and/or peer review.
  6. Funded peer reviewed external grants for scholarly research/creative activity work, in progress or completed
b. Category B Evidence may include, but is not limited to:
  1. Papers published in refereed proceedings
  2. Refereed presentations at professional meetings
  3. Invited presentations at professional meetings
  4. Editor reviewed articles published in journals, newspapers, magazines, and other media
  5. Published case studies
  6. Applied scholarly research/creative activity that is published, presented at a conference or meeting, or applied in an educational setting
  7. Published review of books, articles, programs, and conferences
  8. Session discussant at a professional meeting
  9. Invited keynote or speaker
  10. Special recognition and awards for research/creative activities
  11. Funded regional or internal grants for scholarly research/creative activity work (e.g., local organizations, University Professional Development, Distinguished Teacher in Residence, etc.)
  12. Self published books
  13. Workshops
  14. Unfunded peer reviewed external grants for scholarly research/creative activity work
  15. Working papers
  16. Submitted papers
  17. Sponsored or contract research
  18. Technical reports
  19. Unfunded grant

F. Assessment of Scholarly Research/ Creative Activities

  1. General Standards
    Candidates will be assessed on the quality of the evidence provided, the evidence of sustained scholarship, and the totality of their work.  A variety of types of work must be provided including peer reviewed publication.  When judged as a group, no one indicator of scholarly research/ creative activities may be used to determine the overall rating of quality of scholarly research/ creative activities.  In all cases, the scholarly reputation of the publication and/or meeting will be considered when evaluating the contribution. 
  2. Tenure and/or Promotion from Assistant Professor to Associate Professor
    a. At least two items by year 4 and one additional item by year 6 from Category A.
    b. At least one item per University retention review (years 2, 4, and 6) from Category B.
  3. Tenure and/or Promotion from Associate Professor to Professor*
    a. At least three items from Category A.  At least two items must be peer reviewed or refereed publications.
    b. At least three items from Category B.
    *Only items not considered in the last promotion may be considered.
  4. Retention
    Candidates for retention shall include documentation that may include more items in Category B than A to demonstrate effectiveness in performance and demonstrate progress toward meeting the tenure requirements in the area of scholarship.

VI. STANDARDS AND CRITERIA FOR SCHOLARY SERVICE

A. School Priorities and Values regarding Service Contributions

Consistent with our Mission Statement, the School of Education places a high value on scholarly service as an essential component of faculty work. The School views activities that enhance the institution and advance the profession at the local, state, national and international levels as integral components of faculty service.  In the School, Scholarly Service is defined as activities that contribute to the life of the university, School, department or school districts and/or activities that contribute to professional agencies and organizations. Service activities are expected to advance the School and university mission statements.

B. Most Important School Priorities regarding Service

Evaluations of scholarly service will focus on determining a profile of the candidate's scholarly service activity. To determine such a profile, service will be assessed by holistic evaluation of the candidates’ reflective statement, scholarly service work, and selected items that the candidates believe best reflects their progress, as described in the University RTP document and further illustrated below.  Particular consideration should be given to the service necessary to develop courses/programs/majors and a campus structure of a growing campus.

  1. Scholarly Service Reflective Statement
    Candidates are to provide a clear and concise reflective self-assessment of their scholarly service activities and the impact of this work.  Candidates may include statements regarding any short-term and long-term goals for scholarly service activities, connection to the University’s and/or School’s Mission, reasons for their involvement, and the impact of their service activities.
  2. Internal Scholarly Service Activities
    a. Evidence of Scholarly Service to the School and/or Program may include, but is not limited to:


    1) Leadership/membership in School governance and/or groups that carry on the business of the School (e.g., committees [elected or appointed], ad hoc committees, task forces, etc.)
    2)  Leadership/membership in School accreditation efforts
    3) Development of new courses or programs for the School
    4) Program coordination and/or service (e.g., student interviews, development of student learning outcomes, administration, etc.)
    5) Mentoring of students, tenure-line faculty, lecturers and/or Distinguished Teachers in Residence
    6) Collaboration with colleagues within the School and across Schools

    b. Evidence of Scholarly Service to the CSU System and/or University may include, but is not limited to:


    1) Innovative leadership initiatives at the university or CSU system level
    2) Leadership/membership in groups that carry on the business of the university (e.g., committees [elected or appointed], ad hoc committees, task forces, etc.)
    3) University professional activities, (e.g., service toward university accreditation, etc.)
    4) Act as an advisor for a student organization
    5) Commencement marshal
    6) Mentoring of students, tenure-line faculty, lecturers and/or Distinguished Teachers in Residence

  3. External Scholarly Service Activities

    a. Evidence of Scholarly Service to the Profession may include, but is not limited to:

    1) Peer reviewer for journal or conference proposals
    2) Membership on Editorial Board for peer reviewed/ refereed journal or publication
    3) Leadership in professional organizations as an officer, on a committee or task force, etc.
    4) Consultation and expert services
    5) Providing continuing education for community

    b. Evidence of Scholarly Service to the PreK-12 and Greater Community may include, but is not limited to:

    1) Assist schools, districts, or community organizations/ agencies in occasional tasks, (e.g., interview committee for a school principal, academic competition judge, grant or award application, textbook adoption committee, etc.)
    2) Consulting (paid or unpaid) with schools, (e.g., presenting professional development sessions, conducting research for the school or district, etc.)

  4. Service Awards and Special Recognition

C. Assessment of Scholarly Service

  1. General Standards
    Candidates will be assessed on the evidence of the quality of evidence provided, the evidence of sustained service, and the totality of their work.  When judged as a group, no one indicator may be used to determine the overall rating of scholarly service activity.  Note:  Submitting letters from committee chairs about attendance is not considered best practice.
  2. Tenure and/or Promotion from Assistant Professor to Associate Professor
    Candidates for promotion from Assistant to Associate Professor must provide evidence of effective sustained internal and external service contributions.
  3. Tenure and/or Promotion from Associate Professor to Professor
    Candidates for promotion from Associate Professor to Professor must provide evidence of leadership in one or more service activities in addition to demonstrating sustained active participation in both internal and external service activities.
  4. Retention
Candidates for retention must provide appropriate and effective evidence of significant internal service.  While not required, external service contribution will be considered in the evaluation