Unit 18 Faculty — Procedures for Pre-Six Academic Review

These procedures are based on the Unit 18 Faculty Contract’s Article 7A – Pre-Six Appointment and Reappointment.

Open All | Close All

I. Eligibility for Pre-Six Academic Review

A Unit 18 faculty member with a two or three-year reappointment shall undergo a Pre-Six Academic Review that concludes in time to complete reappointment consideration and provide reappointment offers no later than May 1 (semester)/June 1 (quarter) in the second year of a two-year appointment or the third year of a three-year appointment, except under the following circumstances:

  1. when there is a scheduled Excellence Review during the appointment;
  2. when the Unit 18 faculty member has less than a two or three-year reappointment pursuant to Article 7A, Section E (Special Considerations); and/or,
  3. when the Unit 18 faculty member failed to timely submit interest for reappointment or submits a written declaration of non-interest for the following academic year.

NOTE: In accordance with the Transition-Plan Side Letter, a pre-six Unit 18 faculty member who held an appointment during AY 21/22 and who was reappointed for AY 22/23 and AY 23/24 shall undergo a Pre-Six Academic Review as follows:

  1. Those with at least 9 academic year quarters, 12 fiscal year quarters or 6 academic year semesters of service as of July 1, 2022, shall be evaluated between July 1, 2022 – June 30, 2023;
  2. Those with less than 9 academic year quarters, 12 fiscal year quarters or 6 academic year semesters of service as of July 1, 2022, shall be evaluated between July 1, 2023 – June 30, 2024.
II. Evaluation

Review of pre-six Unit 18 faculty shall be made on the standard of teaching effectiveness, academic responsibility per Article 3, and other assigned duties.

The University has the sole discretion to make determinations regarding the assessment of a Unit 18 faculty’s performance. 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 Unit 18 faculty member should be judged with proper reference to all assigned duties.

Performance shall be evaluated according to the following criteria as they are relevant to the Unit 18 faculty member’s assigned duties and demonstrated by the materials in the review file. Teaching effectiveness is measured by evaluation of evidence demonstrating such qualities as:

  1. Dedication to and engagement with teaching;
  2. Command of the subject matter and continued growth in mastering new topics.
  3. Organizing and presenting course content effectively and with demonstrated learning outcomes;
  4. Setting pedagogical objectives appropriate to the course topic, level, and format;
  5. Responding to student work in ways commensurate with student performance, course topic, level, and format;
  6. Awakening in students an awareness of the importance of the subject matter;
  7. Inspiring interest in beginning students and stimulating advanced students to do complex work; and,
  8. Developing pedagogically effective assignments, lecture slides, lesson plans, exams, and/or other course materials and/or prompts for student work.
III. Materials for Academic Review File

Unit 18 faculty will work with their department to provide materials needed for the review by the date provided to the Unit 18 faculty member in their notification letter. All relevant materials in the review file will be given due consideration. These may include but are not limited to:

  1. A self-statement regarding the Unit 18 faculty member’s performance, teaching objectives, and teaching activities;
  2. Written observations resulting from classroom observations conducted by faculty colleagues and evaluators;
  3. Student evaluations, provided that the quantitative measure in the student evaluation is not the sole criterion for evaluating teaching;
  4. In addition to the syllabi, up to six (6) additional materials relevant to effective teaching (e.g., pedagogical methods, student learning outcomes, assignments, lecturer slides, lesson plans, exams, and prompts for student work).
IV. Procedures for Pre-Six Academic Review
  1. A Pre-Six Unit 18 faculty member will be provided written notice of the pre-six academic review, its timing, criteria, and these procedures. Notice shall be provided no less than thirty (30) calendar days prior to the Pre-Six Academic Review. If less than thirty days’ notice is provided, the University shall not unreasonably deny an extension to the Unit 18 faculty member to submit their materials for the review file.
  2. The input of qualified continuing Unit 18 faculty in the Pre-Six Academic Review process is encouraged, but not required.
  3. The department will evaluate the Unit 18 faculty member’s performance in accordance with the Evaluation section of these procedures.
  4. 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.
  5. The file is then forwarded to the department chair (or equivalent) for their recommendation.
  6. The file is then forwarded to the dean (or designee) for final decision.
    1. If this review is positive, the pre-six Unit 18 faculty member shall receive one salary point merit increase at the commencement of the next appointment.
    2. If the review is negative, the pre-six Unit 18 faculty member shall not be considered for reappointment.
  7. In accordance with the Notification section of these procedures, the dean’s office will notify the Unit 18 faculty member of the Pre-Six Academic Review outcome within twenty (20) calendar days from its completion.
V. Notification of Pre-Six Academic Review Outcome
  1. The dean’s office will notify the Unit 18 faculty member of the Pre-Six Academic Review outcome within twenty (20) calendar days of its completion.
  2. The outcome of a review shall indicate whether a pre-six Unit 18 faculty member demonstrated teaching effectiveness during the review period. A positive review outcome is a finding of teaching effectiveness.
  3. If the outcome of the review is negative, finding that the Unit 18 faculty member did not demonstrate teaching effectiveness during the review period, the notification will include an explanation.

Open All | Close All

Comments are closed.