California State University, Long Beach
Policy Statement
July 12, 1996


This policy was recommended by the Academic Senate on May 2, 1996
and approved by the President on June 14, 1996.


California State University, Long Beach is committed to providing an instructional program of high quality for all of its students. A strong faculty, dedicated to excellence, who continue to grow professionally throughout their careers is necessary to fulfill that commitment. The purpose of this document is to encourage the faculty to develop a culture that values all aspects of faculty involvement in the university and its mission. The University's faculty personnel policies should facilitate the individual's continuing professional development, as well as absolute levels of achievement.
The University Retention, Tenure, and Promotion (RTP) policy is designed to articulate the main professional standards which all faculty are expected to meet, as well as the manner by which their work should be evaluated. Such a process depends very heavily upon the evaluation work of professional peers. College and Department1 RTP Documents are to be used as guidelines, by faculty and their mentors, in assessing progress through the stages of the RTP process. They are also to be used by RTP committees in evaluating candidates. Consequently these documents must clearly and completely define the standards by which RTP candidates will be judged. The documents shall specify the minimum level of performance which is expected for a positive recommendation at each step of the RTP process. Colleagues have the primary responsibility for evaluating the work of faculty and for making the expected standards clear to those being evaluated and consistent with the mission of the University.
The University seeks to promote continued professional growth. Therefore, the process of evaluation at all levels of review should take into consideration the pursuit of new interests and the acquisition of new skills by the individual faculty member.


A. The Candidate has the primary responsibility for collecting and presenting the evidence of her/his accomplishments to those charged with the responsibility of reviewing and evaluating the faculty member. However, candidates should make every effort to seek advice and guidance on the RTP process so that they understand how criteria and standards are applied. Regular discussions with department chairs and experienced colleagues are necessary if candidates are to understand the process and participate in it effectively.
B. The Department is responsible for defining in writing its mission and goals as they relate to faculty contributions so that candidates understand what is expected of them as members of that faculty. Within the context of University and college policies, departments must determine and articulate the criteria and standards which they wish to have applied in the evaluation of candidates. They should also be prepared to advise and support candidates in their efforts to develop as teachers, scholars, artists, and members of the University community. The Department is responsible for maintaining the open file as specified in the Memorandum of Understanding, and for forwarding its contents to the Department Committee, and a copy of its contents to the candidate.

1 Throughout this document, the designation 'department' applies also to 'program' or an equivalent unit in a noninstructional area whose employees are considered to be faculty under the provisions of the current Memorandum of Understanding. Thus, unit heads and directors are the equivalent of department chairs and deans.
1. The Department RTP Documents. At a minimum, Department Documents shall specify in writing the standards to be applied in evaluating Scholarly and Creative Activities in the discipline, consistent with University criteria as described in Section III.A below and with the mission of the department. Department documents shall clearly specify what activities are considered appropriate as "scholarly and creative activities" for the discipline. In the other areas, departments may rely on RTP documents at the University and college levels. For each type of activity, the performance expected in order to obtain a positive recommendation in this category at each step of the RTP process should be specified. The Department RTP Documents are subject to ratification by a majority of tenured and probationary department faculty members voting and to approval by the College Faculty Council and College Dean. Department RTP Documents shall be subject to regular review by the department faculty in order to keep them consistent with the department's mission and the current state of the discipline.
2. The Department Chair has a number of responsibilities, particularly with regard to probationary faculty, that require her/him to be the primary source of information regarding department procedures and deadlines. But the Chair must also provide guidance to candidates over time as to whether their performance is consistent with department expectations. The Chair must initiate collegial discussions with candidates about their overall career development and provide professional mentoring, as appropriate. Chairs have the responsibility for communicating department, college, and university policies to candidates. Chairs also have the option of writing an independent evaluation of RTP candidates under the provisions of our current Memorandum of Understanding. They should consult this document for the appropriate procedures to be followed.
3. The Department RTP Committee
a. The Department RTP Committee has the primary responsibility for evaluating the work of the candidates in all areas and makes the initial recommendation to the University regarding tenure and promotion. Committee members, therefore, have the very serious responsibility of applying the criteria and standards of the department to the performance of their colleagues in the RTP process. Department Committees are also the primary means by which the professional standards and practices of individual academic disciplines are communicated to other levels of review outside of the department.
b. Because the evaluation of teaching effectiveness by professional peers is so significant in this process, it is important that departments develop and utilize systematic means for acquiring evidence of candidates' teaching accomplishments. For example, if in-class visitations are to support peer evaluation, such visitations should be done regularly and consistently for all candidates in the department.
c. Although the candidate has the basic responsibility for providing the evidence of her/his performance to be evaluated, the Department Committee may request additional information from the candidate to assist in its evaluation. Department Committees may also seek the advice of colleagues at other universities if members do not feel qualified to evaluate the professional work of candidates or if candidates believe that such consultation would be desirable. Such an action must be taken in consultation with the candidate, consistent with the University Procedure for External Evaluators.
C. The College
1. College RTP Documents shall specify in writing the standards to be applied in evaluating candidates in all areas, consistent with University criteria as described in Section III.A. below and with the mission of the college. College RTP Documents are subject to ratification by a majority of tenured and probationary college faculty members voting and to approval by the Dean and the Vice President for Academic Affairs.
2. The College RTP Committee reviews the materials submitted by the candidate and, considering the Department recommendations and applying the standards of the College RTP Document to the candidate's file, forwards its own independent recommendation via the College Dean to the Vice President for Academic Affairs. It is the committee's responsibility to apply the criteria and standards of the College RTP Document to all department recommendations and to ensure consistency of standards across the college as a whole. College Committees may also seek the advice of external evaluators, as described in Section II.B.3.b., above.
3. The Dean of the College performs an evaluative role parallel to that of the College Committee and forwards an independent recommendation to the Vice President for Academic Affairs. The Dean may also seek the advice of external evaluators, as described in Section II.B.,3.b., above. The Dean has additional responsibilities associated with her/his leadership of the College. The Dean shall provide general oversight of the RTP process within the College, assisting and instructing Department Chairs in their role, and encouraging departments to develop and clarify their expectations for faculty performance. The Dean should also discuss the process and its requirements with candidates early in their careers and at regular intervals thereafter.
D. The Vice President for Academic Affairs receives and reviews all materials submitted by prior levels of review and provides general oversight of the RTP process within the University, establishing the annual calendar of the RTP cycle and distributing the appropriate information to prospective candidates as well as to members of college and department committees.
E. The President has the authority to make final decisions for the University with respect to retention, tenure, and promotion.


A. Criteria The criteria for evaluation for each of the three areas of professional review (Instruction and Instructionally Related Activities, Scholarly and Creative Activities, and Professional Service) are divided into two distinct categories: Essential Criteria and Enhancing Criteria. Essential Criteria describe the nature and level of performance required of all faculty in the University. Enhancing Criteria establish standards by which faculty, following diverse career paths, are evaluated beyond the Essential Criteria. Colleagues in the department and on review committees play the central role in evaluating the quality of performance in each of these areas.
1. Instruction and Instructionally Related Activities. Instruction and Instructionally Related Activities include teaching in the classroom setting, advising, supervision of student research and fieldwork, the development of curriculum, and related activities involving students.
a. Essential Criteria: Teaching will be evaluated in terms of four dimensions: (1) Pedagogical Approach and Methods, (2) Student Response, (3) Ongoing Professional Development as a Teacher, and (4) Ongoing Professional Development in the Discipline.
(1) Pedagogical Approach and Method: Instructional methods should be appropriate to courses taught, and materials should be up-to-date and appropriate to the topic. Reason for choices of learning goals and instructional methods should be presented. Grading practices, standards, and criteria should be articulated clearly. Results of grading practices should be reasonably consistent with university norms. Course materials should clearly convey to students the learning goals of the course and the relationship of the course to the major and/or to general education. Course requirements, including the semester schedule, assignments, and grading policies should be included. Course materials should also identify the purposes for which a course may be meaningful to students, such as preparation for further courses, graduate school or employment or the intrinsic interest of the material, development of civic responsibilities and/or individual personal growth.
(2) Student Response to Instruction: Student ratings of instruction should be favorable, compared to department, college and university averages. These ratings should reflect a favorable student perception of the instructor's conveyance of knowledge, effort, availability, organization, and attention to individual needs.
(3) Ongoing Professional Development as a Teacher: Thoughtful, deliberate effort to produce continuous improvement in teaching effectiveness is expected of all candidates. This pattern of change should be described in a narrative and supported by exemplary materials. This record may include regular and ongoing interactions with colleagues regarding pedagogy, such as discussions of pedagogical issues, classroom visits and consultation on course development. The record may include involvement in programs of the CSULB Center for Faculty Development; participation in teaching development seminars or conferences sponsored by the department, college, University or professional organizations; giving or receiving of formal or informal pedagogical coaching and/or other activities which contribute to professional development of teaching effectiveness.
(4) Ongoing Professional Development in the Discipline. All candidates are expected to keep abreast of discipline developments through participation in discipline conferences, reading of discipline-appropriate materials such as journals and books, interaction with practitioners in the field, electronic communications with colleagues and/or other activities.
b. Enhancing Criteria: There are many ways that faculty may go beyond the essential criteria for teaching effectiveness to enhance their achievement; the following are illustrative, not exhaustive, of the possibilities. Faculty may develop innovative approaches to teaching or exemplary ways of fostering student learning in the classroom. Faculty may also be involved outside the classroom in such areas as academic advising, field trips, student mentoring, collaborative research projects with students, thesis supervision, support of student organizations and/or recruitment and retention activities. New curriculum, instructional programs or materials may be developed, including electronic or multimedia software or new advising materials or programs. Conducting assessment of one's instructional effectiveness in order to improve instruction (e.g., varied classroom evaluation techniques) can be a particularly appropriate method for continuous improvement of instructional effectiveness. Offering teaching colloquia to department colleagues or pedagogical workshops at discipline meetings may demonstrate department or discipline leadership regarding instructional issues.
2. Scholarly and Creative Activities.
a. Essential Criteria: Faculty are expected to remain engaged in an ongoing program of scholarship or creative activity that demonstrates intellectual and professional growth in the discipline over time. All faculty are expected to produce scholarly and/or creative achievements which contribute to the advancement, application, or pedagogy of the discipline (or interdisciplinary studies), which are disseminated to appropriate audiences, receiving favorable review from professional peers prior or subsequent to dissemination.
b. Enhancing Criteria: Faculty may enhance their scholarly and creative achievement with substantial records of peer reviewed professional activities and products. Such activities and products may include books, articles in professional journals, scholarly presentations, software and electronically published documents, and artistic exhibits and performances, especially if these receive favorable notice or reviews from professional peers. Faculty may also enhance their scholarly and creative achievement with editorial assignments with recognized professional publications, including journals, newsletters, or electronic media. Other achievements of this nature are appointments to selection panels for grants, fellowships, contracts, awards, and conference presentations, as are other adjudication assignments calling for professional expertise. Applied research or professional activity may use theory and knowledge of one or more disciplines to address practical problems of importance to the discipline and to society; such applied professional activity may include research on instructional processes and outcomes. Additional activities may be judged to enhance faculty scholarly and creative achievement so long as these are peer reviewed, are disseminated to appropriate professional audiences, are appropriate to the mission of the department and college, and make significant contributions to the discipline or to interdisciplinary studies.
3. Professional Service. Professional Service may be contributed to the University, the community, and the discipline, but it must directly involve the academic expertise of the faculty member.
a. Essential Criteria. All faculty are expected to participate actively in the collegial processes of faculty governance, as well as in appropriate professional organizations and/or activities.
b. Enhancing Criteria. Faculty may enhance their service achievements with active involvement on committees at all levels of the University and the University system, with emphasis upon the departmental and school levels for assistant and associate professors. Whatever the level of service within the University, the quality of that service is the primary consideration. Authorship of documents, reports and other materials pertinent to the University, college, or department missions or procedures may comprise a service contribution. Sponsoring student groups and participating in educational equity programs are also service contributions.
In addition to campus governance activities, faculty members may participate in community service to professional organizations and in professionally-related activities (e.g., local, state, national, and/or international levels) through such discipline-oriented activities as committees; workshops; speeches; media interviews, articles, and/or editorials; performances; and/or displays. Service to the community may also include consultantships to public schools, local government, and community service organizations. Service contributions based on consultancies, whether paid or unpaid, shall be evaluated on the basis of their contributions to the mission of the University and particularly to the candidate's department or program. Meaningful service must be clearly related to the academic expertise of the faculty member. The Department must make clear to the candidate what types of service, whether paid or unpaid, are consistent with the mission of the Department and its instructional program.
B. Evaluation
1. General Principles
a. The quality of faculty performance is the most important element to consider in evaluating individual achievement. Both essential and enhancing criteria are evaluated in the context of the mission of the department and the college, and of the professional interests of the individual faculty member.
b. In order to present their achievements in the most coherent intellectual and professional context, candidates are urged to present a written narrative describing their work in each of the categories to be evaluated. The narrative is intended to serve as a guide to reviewers in understanding the faculty member's professional goals and values as they relate to the essential and enhancing criteria and the mission of the department , college, and University. All supporting materials should be referenced and clearly explained.
c. The University realizes that faculty develop skills and competencies over their careers. In each of the three review areas, candidates are urged to identify, within the materials submitted, examples which they believe represent their best efforts and to explain why these may be regarded as significant contributions. Reviewers shall give particular consideration to the quality of these best examples.
d. In evaluating the performance of faculty, the University recognizes that each faculty member has different strengths so that successful candidates for retention, tenure, or promotion need not have achievements which are necessarily alike. Candidates who fulfill the requirements for advancement may enhance their achievements in very different areas depending upon their professional interests. Reviewers should be aware of these variations and understand how they benefit the University as a whole.
e. Computers and network technology provide alternative modes of professional activity and new media for dissemination. Such contributions must be evaluated even though the methods for evaluation are still evolving. The following guidelines are suggested: (1) appropriate methods of evaluation must be identified on a case by case basis; (2) external evaluators, used in compliance with university policy, may prove to be particularly effective for these assessments; (3) technology-related work may be considered to be either essential or enhancing, depending on its relation to the criteria in Section A.; (4) the training effort involved in technology-related professional activity needs to be credited appropriately; and (5) categorization of such work as research or instructionally related activities may need to be done on an individualized basis.
The candidate bears the primary responsibility for explaining the significance of activities that employ new technology. When possible and appropriate, the candidate should identify potential methods of evaluation. Faculty involved in technology-related work should consult frequently with mentors and other colleagues concerning the significance and direction of the work. Such discussions should be specific, involving the issues of training time, media of dissemination, potential methods of evaluation, and the boundaries between research and instructionally related activities.
2. Instruction and Instructionally Related Activities
a. The focus in the evaluation of teaching should be upon the overall teaching performance of the candidate over time rather than her/his performance in a few classes or over a brief period.
b. Instructional activities that involve supervision of students, such as thesis or field work, should be appropriately evaluated as part of the teaching assignment.
c. If formal, scheduled student advising is part of the candidate's assigned workload, such advising shall be considered as part of teaching, and the file should include appropriate documentation, including the extent, nature, and quality of such advising activity.
3. Scholarly and Creative Activities
a. In the evaluation of scholarly and creative activities, departments and colleges should make clear to candidates, from the outset, what constitutes appropriate accomplishment in this area. Definitions of appropriate scholarly and creative activity may vary somewhat among departments and colleges, but should reflect the mission of this University.
b. Consistent with the emphasis on professional growth and development that underlies the evaluation process, the candidate's documentation of scholarly and creative activities and the evaluation review of that documentation should focus on the concept of progressive professional development. This consideration should be the central organizing element of the candidate's narrative.
c. In addition to the candidate's narrative essay, the documentation of scholarly and creative activities should include all works produced during the period of evaluation.
d. In the evaluation of publications, manuscripts, and other creative works, quality is the primary criterion.
e. Joint authorship or participation in scholarly and creative activities is normally valuable and creditable, but is often difficult to evaluate. Candidates shall identify the specific extent of their participation in jointly authored activities.
f. Consistent with the objective of obtaining the best and most thorough evaluation possible of the candidate's scholarly and creative achievements, external evaluations of the candidate's contributions to his or her academic field should certainly be considered.
(1) Unsolicited evaluations in the form of published reviews of the candidate's work (or unpublished unsolicited evaluations if they are included in the file) may be considered. It is also appropriate to consider the quality of the journal or other context within which the work is published or otherwise disseminated to the scholarly and creative community, as well as citations to the candidate's work in other publications.
(2) The solicitation of external evaluations of a candidate's contributions is encouraged, particularly in circumstances such as small departments and/or interdisciplinary programs where there may be few peers who are well enough qualified to evaluate the candidate's scholarly and creative achievements.
4. Professional Service
a. The emphases in the evaluation of professional service shall be on: (1) the quality and significance of the activity, as measured by the degree to which the activity contributes to the mission of the University; and (2) the extent and level of the candidate's involvement.
b. Assessment of the service to both the University and the community shall be based on the information described in the narrative, as well as on supporting evidence which may include, but shall not be limited to, letters of invitation, memoranda acknowledging the quality of the contribution, printed programs, and other appropriate documentation.


A. Retention is awarded to probationary faculty upon the completion of a performance review. The successful candidate will have performed satisfactorily in each area to be evaluated, although consideration will be given to the limited opportunities new appointees have for professional service. Probationary faculty should show evidence of a strong commitment to teaching and instructionally related activities and to a program of scholarly and creative activity.
B. Tenure is awarded to probationary faculty who have met the essential criteria in instruction and instructionally related activities, scholarly and creative activities, and professional service. In addition, they shall have demonstrated fulfillment of some of the 'enhancing criteria,' as described in Section III.A. Tenure represents the University's long-term commitment to a faculty member and is only granted when there is strong evidence that the individual has the potential to continue to make increasingly distinguished contributions to the University and its instructional program, as well as to the academic community.
C. Early Tenure and/or Promotion are granted only in exceptional circumstances and for compelling reasons.
1. Early Tenure. To receive a favorable recommendation for early tenure, a candidate must achieve a record of accomplishment which meets the essential criteria at a superior level in all three areas of review at an early point in time. In addition, the candidate must present a record of significant enhancing achievements. The length of the candidate's record must be sufficient to provide confidence that the pattern of achievement will continue.
2. Early Promotion. To receive a favorable recommendation for early promotion, a candidate must achieve a record of accomplishment which meets the essential criteria at a superior level in all three areas of review at an early point in time. In addition, the candidate must present a record of significant enhancing achievements. The length of the candidate's record must be sufficient to provide confidence that the pattern of achievement will continue.
D. Assistant Professor: The appointee ordinarily shall hold the doctorate or recognized terminal degree in the field of specialization. The appointee should also show potential for effective teaching, scholarly and creative activities, and professional service, as defined in Section IV. A. above and consistent with the mission of the department, college, and University.
E. Associate Professor: In addition to having the qualifications of an Assistant Professor, the candidate ordinarily shall have had successful experience in teaching and scholarly/creative activities. Meeting essential criteria is necessary, though not sufficient, for promotion or appointment to the rank of Associate Professor. In addition to meeting the essential criteria, there should be evidence of progressive professional development in the areas of instruction and instructionally related activities, scholarly and creative activities, and professional service, and demonstrated fulfillment of some of the "enhancing elements" in each of these areas, as defined in Section III, A. above.
F. Professor: In addition to having the qualifications of an Associate Professor, there shall be substantiation of continued effectiveness and professional growth in instruction and instructionally related activities and evidence of relevant and effective professional service. The candidate ordinarily shall have established a record of sustained scholarly or creative activity, reflecting intellectual and professional growth and demonstrating fulfillment of several of the 'enhancing elements', as described in Section III.A.
G. Joint Appointments: All information in this document applies to faculty appointed jointly to two or more departments. However, it is particularly important for the involved departments to maintain a clear set of requirements for tenure and advancement as applied to the joint appointee. These requirements must be worked out through a process of consultation and collaboration with the departments and the candidate, with the approval of the dean(s) of the affected college(s).


The faculty of CSULB, voting by secret mail ballot (with pro and con arguments attached), may amend this document. Amendments may be proposed either by:

A. direct faculty action via petition from ten percent (10%) of the faculty to the Chair of the Academic Senate, or
B. by action of the Academic Senate.

Proposed amendments shall be submitted to discussion at a public hearing for the faculty called within fifteen (15) instructional days following their receipt and shall be distributed in writing by the Chair of the Academic Senate to the faculty at least five (5) instructional days before the public hearing. Amendments to this document shall become effective when they have received a favorable vote of a majority of the faculty voting in a secret mail ballot conducted by the Academic Senate within twenty (20) instructional days of the public hearing and they have the concurrence of the University President.

EFFECTIVE: Fall 1997