Unit 18 NSFs — Procedures for Excellence Review

These procedures are based on the Non-Senate Instructional/Unit 18 Contract, Article 7b.

Open All | Close All

Determine Eligibility

Eligibility for Initial Review for Excellence

When a NSF is appointed to the 18th quarter or 12th semester, the department shall conduct an Excellence Review to in the academic year, in which the 18th quarter or 12th semester of service, to determine whether the NSF meets the excellence standard required for continuing appointment. (Article 7b, Section A.3 and A.4)

Evaluation

Evaluation of the academic qualifications or performance of NSF for purposes of consideration for a continuing appointment, shall be made on the basis of demonstrated excellence in the field and in teaching, academic responsibility, and other assigned duties which may include University co-curricular and community service. (Article 7b, Section E)

An evaluation of NSF shall be based on an academic review file. The academic review file shall contain only material relevant to consideration of the personnel action. All relevant materials shall be given due consideration:

  1. student evaluations, provided that the quantitative measure in the student evaluation is not the sole criterion for evaluating teaching excellence;
  2. assessment by former students who have achieved notable professional success;
  3. assessments by other members of the department, and other appropriate faculty members;
  4. development of new and effective techniques of instruction and instructional materials; and
  5. assessments resulting from classroom visitations by colleagues and evaluators.
Materials Provided by the NSF
Reference Article 7b, Section F. 3 and 4 for detailed information.

NSF may provide materials for their personnel review file. Materials need to be submitted to the department by the date provided to the NSF in his/her notification letter. All relevant materials will be given due consideration by all levels of review. These materials may include any or all of the following:

  • NSF may provide a self-statement or self-evaluation of his/her teaching objectives and performance.
  • NSF being evaluated may provide letters of assessment from individuals with expertise in her/his field, and/or other relevant materials to the evaluation file prepared by the University, which shall be included as part of the evaluation process. Those from whom letters may be provided include but are not limited to:
    • departmental NSF;
    • departmental Academic Senate faculty;
    • other academic appointees;
    • students; and/or,
    • other colleagues external to the University of California.
Procedures for Excellence Review
  1. A NSF will be notified in writing in the academic year, in which her/his 18th quarter or 12th semester occurs, to undergo an excellence review . This notice, along with these procedures for Excellence Review, should be provided to eligible NSF no less than thirty (30) calendar days prior to the commencement of the Excellence Review. (Article 7b, Section F.1)
  2. A committee shall review and make recommendations on NSF performance pertaining to the excellence review. The committee shall be at the Departmental level, except where not practicable, in which case it will be as close to the departmental level as is practicable (e.g. school, division or college). Such committees will be comprised of academic appointees with sufficient knowledge of the NSF’s field of expertise. The membership of the Excellence Review Committee is not confidential. (Article 7b, Section F.5)
  3. Based on the evidence available, the review committee will make a recommendation. Performance-based decisions concerning the Continuing Appointment and termination for non-excellence shall be based upon the material contained in the academic review file. (Article 7b, Section F.9)
  4. The University shall make reasonable efforts to ensure that a qualified NSF will participate on such review committees although no individual shall be required to serve on the committee. Unless the NSF on the committee is a standing appointment, the NSF being reviewed shall be consulted about the NSF appointment on the committee. Care shall be taken to ensure that the committee is composed of faculty who can offer a neutral assessment of the NSF’s performance. The NSF, on the review committee, shall be under the same obligation as any other member of the personnel committee with respect to the confidentiality of the review process. (Article 7b, Section F.6)
  5. The NSF being reviewed may provide a written list of suggested peers from whom input may be solicited and/or identify qualified persons from whom input may be solicited. The NSF being reviewed shall be afforded an opportunity to raise concerns about possible bias on the part of individuals involved in their review. Any such statement provided by the NSF shall be included in the academic review file. (Article 7b, Section F.7)
  6. Instructional performance is measured by evaluation of evidence demonstrating such qualities as: (Article 7b, Section E.1)
    1. command of the subject matter and continued growth in mastering new topics;
    2. ability to organize and present course materials;
    3. ability to awaken in students an awareness of the importance of the subject matter;
    4. ability to arouse curiosity in beginning students and to stimulate advanced students to do creative work; and,
    5. achievements of students in their field.
  7. Due attention should be paid to the variety of demands placed on instructors by the types of teaching called for at various levels and the total performance of the NSF should be judged with proper reference to assigned teaching responsibilities. (Article 7b, Section E.2)
  8. The NSF shall be provided with a copy of the review committee’s recommendation.
  9. The NSF may submit a written response to the recommendation from the department, program or unit, which shall be included in her/his excellence review file. (Article 7b, Section F.8)
  10. Depending upon the department practice, the file may be considered by the voting members of the department. If so, the department will add additional comments, which may include a faculty vote.
  11. The file is then forwarded to the Department Chair for his/her recommendation.
  12. The file is submitted to the Dean (or designee) for his/her recommendation, and forwarded to the Office of Academic Personnel. Reviews for Excellence will be submitted to the Unit 18 Review Committee for its recommendation to the Vice Provost for Academic Personnel who will make a final decision.
Notification of Excellence Review Outcome

The NSF member will receive a notification letter informing them of the final decision on the proposed action.

  1. If, as a result of the excellence review, the NSF is deemed excellent and the NSF has performed service in the 18th quarter or 12th semester, the NSF shall have Continuing status:
    1. If instructional need exists in the 19th quarter or 13th semester, a notice of Continuing appointment should be issued to the NSF (in accordance with Article 7c) normally by the end of the 18th quarter or 12th semester, or as soon as practicable.
    2. If instructional need does not exist in the 19th quarter or 13th semester, a notice of Continuing Status, including information about the right of first refusal for two years for NSF work should be issued to the NSF as soon as practicable.
  2. If, as a result of this review, the University determines that the NSF is not qualified to perform anticipated responsibilities at an excellent level, the NSF will be released as the end of her/his appointment.

Open All | Close All

Comments are closed.