Faculty Affairs and Records

Review Step Introduction

Updated

Part Time Lecturer Annual Periodic Workflow

Lecturer Evaluation Review Steps Breakdown - Word

All Other Lecturer Evaluation Workflows

Lecturer Evaluation Review Steps Breakdown - Word

Range Elevation Workflow

Eligibility to Review Lecturer Evaluations

For full eligibility details please reference UPS 210.070 Section VII.B

To be considered eligible to evaluate Lecturer WPAFs, a Department Chair member MUST meet the following criteria:

  • All evaluators must be tenured
  • Cannot be on leave during any part of the semester in which the cycle is occurring
  • Cannot have any conflict of interest (i.e. Nepotism)
  • For FERP faculty who are teaching in both semesters of the academic year, permission must be requested from the Provost to serve as a DPRC member (Contact FAR for details)

* In any Department where the Department Chair is un-tenured or doesn't meet the criteria listed above, the Department Chair review level will be skipped and the case will be evaluated by the Dean.

Candidate Role:

Responding to the Rebuttal Period initiated by the Department Chair

Responsibilities for the Review Step:

Due to a recent change in UPS 210.070 (June 2021), the Department Chair and DPRC review levels are NO LONGER SEPARATE.  Both the Department Chair and the DPRC will have simultaneous access to their assigned Lecturer Interfolio cases, however each review committee is responsible for conducting its own rebuttal period.  For the Department Chair, the evaluation should be uploaded or shared with the faculty member under review until AFTER the DPRC has concluded its rebuttal period.

  1. Login
  2. Evaluate each WPAF in each case against UPS 210.070 or the appropriate Department Standards for Lecturer Faculty (DSLF)
  3. Upload a completed evaluation to the“Required Items”box on the“Case Details”page of each case.
  4. The evaluation shall be prepared on the Lecturer Evaluation Form (or Department equivalent) and contain, at a minimum:
    1. Details on the candidate/type of evaluation
    2. The Department Chair’s name
    3. Date the evaluation was completed
    4. The overall rating of the candidate
      1. Summary of Lecturer Ratings
    5. A written statement on the candidate’s performance
  5. Conduct the Rebuttal Period through Interfolio for the Chair Evaluation ONLY
  6. Share a copy of any rebuttals to the Chair Evaluation with the DPRC
  7. Forward case to the next review level by the due date listed FAR Annual Lecturer Timetables

*PLEASE NOTE: FAR will not be creating binders this year, all paperwork that would normally have to go into the binder will be assigned as “Required Documents” at each review level.  The process for satisfying these requirements will be discussed below

Summary of Review Periods for Lecturer Evals

Part-time Lecturers might not have the SOQ and Grade Distribution Data for the entire period of review, because they do not always work for the entire Academic Year.  

Often Part-time Lecturers will work only 1 semester in an Academic year.

Full-time Lecturers/Part-time Lecturers
Review Type Interfolio Status  Required Volume of Documentation
Initial Annual Periodic  Lecturer - Annual Periodic
This type of review applies only to Lecturer faculty undergoing their first evaluation at CSUF
  • 1 Semester's worth of documentation and data, dating from the initial hire date 
Subsequent Annual Periodic Lecturer - Annual Periodic
  • 2 Semester's (1 Academic Year's) worth of documentation and data
Year 3 of 3 Periodic (3-Year Periodic) Lecturer - 3YR Periodic
  • 5 Semester's (2 1/2 Academic Year's) worth of documentation and data, dating from the start of the contract
6-Year Comprehensive  Lecturer - 6YR Comprehensive 
  • 11 Semester's (5 1/2 Academic Year's) worth of documentation and data, dating from the initial hire date
Range Elevation  Range Elevation 
  • 10 Semester's (5 Academic Year's) worth of documentation and data

Summary of Lecturer Ratings

Part-Time Lecturer Evaluations 
Review Type Rating #1 Rating #2 Rating #3 Rating #4
Annual Periodic Exceeds Expectations
Satisfactory
Needs Improvement
Unsatisfactory
Year 3 of 3 Periodic Exceeds Expectations
Satisfactory
Needs Improvement
Unsatisfactory
6-Year Comprehensive  Exceeds Expectations
Satisfactory
Needs Improvement
Unsatisfactory
Range Elevation Exceeds Expectations Satisfactory
Needs Improvement
Unsatisfactory
Recommend Range Elevation
Do Not Recommend Range Elevation
Full-Time Lecturer Evaluations 
Review Type  Rating #1 Rating #2 Rating #3 Rating #4
Annual Periodic Exceeds Expectations
Satisfactory
Needs Improvement
Unsatisfactory
Year 3 of 3 Periodic  Exceeds Expectations
Satisfactory
Needs Improvement
Unsatisfactory
6-Year Comprehensive  Exceeds Expectations
Satisfactory
Needs Improvement
Unsatisfactory
Range Elevation Exceeds Expectations
Satisfactory
Needs Improvement
Unsatisfactory
Recommend Range Elevation
Do Not Recommend Range Elevation
Previous Article How to Forward your Cases to the Next Review Level
Next Article Log In Options