Full-Time Faculty Evaluation Process and Instructions

All deadlines for the Full-Time Faculty Evaluation Process can be found in the Steps and Deadlines Chart at the end of Section 7. Tenure-track evaluations, and evaluations of tenure and rank advancement applications must take place during the spring semester. They must be completed by March 31. Academic supervisors have the discretion to hold other post-tenure reviews and informal reviews of tenured faculty during the fall semester.

Setting Goals: Each year, the faculty member will, in discussion with the academic supervisor, evaluate progress during the prior period to update goals in the areas of Teaching, Professional Activity and Development, and Service (Form 1 Faculty Planning and Support). The goal setting process includes an evaluation of the prior period and includes planning and support needed to meet the new goals.

• The academic supervisor will convene the goal setting meeting for each faculty member.
• These goals will be recorded on Form 1 and filed in the faculty member’s division/department faculty file. The faculty member also will upload this form to their professional portfolio to the Institutional Documents section.
• Form 1 goals should be appropriate for the faculty member’s career stage and trajectory, the needs of the department, and the Mission, Vision, Values, and Strategic Plans of the college.
• Form 1 goals should be achievable within an academic year working in a full-time faculty position. If the faculty member is on an institutionally approved reduced load or leave, the goals will reflect this.
• Goal-setting will be finished by the appropriate deadlines.
• Appropriate, goals may be modified during the evaluation period as circumstances change. Significant changes should be addressed in the professional portfolio.
• The Form 1 will record accomplishments from the prior year, how those inform new goals, and indicate resources for planning and support in agreement with the academic supervisor.

Non-Tenure-Track/Tenure-Track Evaluation and Formal Post-Tenure Review

Selection of Evaluation Sitting Committee: By the appropriate deadline, during the Form 1 goals meeting, the faculty member and the academic supervisor select two sitting committee members from the Standing Committee.

• Evaluation standing committees are comprised of all tenured faculty within a department/division. Peer evaluation is a Standard Professional Performance expectation of all tenured faculty members.
• The faculty member will respond to the academic supervisor with their request. Tenure-track faculty are encouraged to maintain consistency in their peer evaluators but may also select new members during their pre-probationary period.

Formation of Evaluation Sitting Committee: The academic supervisor coordinates evaluation sitting committee requests to ensure that evaluation sitting committee participation is equitably distributed among tenured faculty.

• If there are not enough tenured faculty members within a department/division to form evaluation sitting committees for all faculty needing evaluation, a faculty member may request tenured faculty members from a different department/division or school to serve on the evaluation sitting committee, subject to the faculty member’s dean approval.
• Faculty applying for rank advancement to full professor must be reviewed by full professors. Full professors will prioritize serving on rank advancement evaluation sitting committees before other sitting committees. The rank advancement committee will be selected from a school’s Standing Committee of Full Professors. This committee consists of all full professors in that school. If disciplinary appropriate, the faculty member may request full professors from a different school, subject to the faculty member’s dean’s approval.
• The academic supervisor will confirm sitting committee assignments to faculty under review and their peer evaluators.
• The academic supervisor serves as the chair of the evaluation sitting committee but may designate a peer evaluator to be chair in consensus with the peer evaluators. A peer evaluator serving as chair will have access to the administrative assistant resources of the department/ division.
  • The evaluation sitting committee chair ensures that all steps of the evaluation process take place and that all deadlines are met.
  • The evaluation process is open to the faculty member being reviewed. All discussion, forms, and decisions may be openly discussed with the faculty member at any time.
  • Formal post-tenure sitting committees will consist of:
    • The provost or provost’s designee,
    • Two tenured faculty members from a different department or degree-granting institution than the faculty being evaluated, and
    • An additional tenured faculty member selected by the faculty member to be evaluated.

Teaching Observations: Peer evaluators must observe a minimum of one class period or its equivalent during the evaluation process. Academic supervisors may conduct teaching observations at their discretion

• Peer evaluators will initiate contact with the faculty member to coordinate teaching observations and request access to syllabi, course materials, Canvas sites, and other artifacts necessary to conduct a meaningful observation. Faculty being reviewed will respond to these requests in a timely manner.
• When a faculty member teaches in multiple modalities, committee members will coordinate so that multiple modalities are observed. Committees are encouraged to use technology to facilitate observation.
  • Teaching observations should not be disruptive to student learning. When observing online courses, the observers should be granted appropriate access to the Canvas course. Observers should retain this access only as long as is necessary to observe (up to two weeks).
• Evaluation sitting committee members are encouraged to discuss the teaching observation with the faculty member being reviewed before completing the teaching observation report.
• After the teaching observation, the evaluation sitting committee member will use a teaching observation form and/or write a report of the observation, noting commendations and recommendations relevant to the Standards of Professional Performance in Teaching.
• The evaluation sitting committee member will provide a digital copy of the teaching observation form and/or report to the faculty member no later than seven business days after the observation. The faculty member will upload the report to their professional portfolio under Teaching Observations.
• Teaching observations should take place by the appropriate deadline.

Submission of the Professional Portfolio: The faculty member must submit their Professional Portfolio to the evaluation sitting committee by the appropriate deadline. Evaluation sitting committee chairs may ask for earlier submission but may not require it.

Completion of “Form 2: Faculty Evaluation”: Prior to the Faculty Performance Evaluation Meeting, each evaluation sitting committee member will complete the Faculty Evaluation Form by reviewing the contents of the faculty member’s professional portfolio and division/department faculty file, and their professional knowledge of the faculty member’s performance. This evaluation will be conducted according to the Faculty Evaluation Guidelines in Section 8 of this document.

Evaluators will rate faculty in each area of responsibility: teaching, professional activity & development, and service as “Standard Professional Performance,” “Below Standard Professional Performance,” or “Exceeds Standard Professional Performance” using the Faculty Evaluation Guidelines in Section 8 of this document.

Faculty Performance Evaluation Meeting: The deadline for Faculty Performance Evaluation Meetings will be determined by the academic supervisor and the dean. The deadline will make it possible to complete the tenure-track and rank advancement evaluation processes by March 31. Those involved in formal evaluation processes (faculty being evaluated and evaluation sitting committee members) will be notified of their Faculty Performance Evaluation meeting dates no later than the appropriate deadline. The meeting will follow these steps:

• First, in the spirit of the evaluation process, the evaluation sitting committee meets with the faculty member to address any questions that evaluation sitting committee members may have regarding performance. Evaluation sitting committee members may update Form 2 based on the discussion.
• After the faculty member leaves, the evaluation sitting committee members discuss their responses to Form 2. Sitting committee members are free to share the content of this discussion with the faculty member being reviewed. This discussion will not include personnel matters that are confidential to the academic administrator.
• Evaluation sitting committee members vote to determine ratings of Meets, Below, or Exceeds Standard Professional Performance for Teaching, Professional Activity & Development, and Service. Each member of the evaluation sitting committee has an equal vote. The rating will be determined by majority vote.
• The chair will record the rating and the vote tally on Form 3 and will write the rationale and recommendations. If the chair is the academic supervisor, they may designate a peer evaluator to write the rationale and recommendations.
  • Tenure-track evaluations will use “Form 3 TT: Tenure-Track Evaluation Summary and Recommendation”.
  • Post-Tenure Reviews will use “Form 3 PT: Post-Tenure Review Summary”.
  • Non-Tenure Track Evaluations will use “Form 3 Non-Tenure-Track Evaluation Summary.”
• If it is relevant to the faculty evaluation process, supervisory or personnel information regarding the faculty member will be disclosed to the dean only by the academic supervisor using “Form 4: Academic Administrator Supervisory Evaluation”. This information, and form, will be placed in their HR personnel file, not their division/department faculty file. This information will not be shared with peer evaluators. The faculty member under review will be notified immediately and may respond in writing to the dean within 10 days.

The next steps in the faculty evaluation process depend on the type of faculty evaluation.

During formal faculty evaluation processes, the dean, provost, and president are not required to agree with the previous recommendation but are bound to thoroughly review all recommendations and documents submitted to them by the Sitting Committee, academic supervisor, and Human Resources.

Non-Tenure Track Evaluation: The evaluation sitting committee chair or designee will complete and transmit “Form 3 Non-Tenure-Track Evaluation Summary” to the dean, the faculty member, and the faculty member’s department file.

Instructions for Tenure-Track Evaluation: The evaluation sitting committee will vote on the recommendation for a Letter of Evaluation (a Letter of Progress or a Letter of Concern). Each member of the evaluation sitting committee has an equal vote. The recommendation will be determined by majority vote. The chair will complete “Form 3 TT: Tenure-Track Evaluation Summary and Recommendation” with the decision and vote tally and will draft any necessary comments.

• A Letter of Progress recommendation is warranted if the majority vote of the evaluation sitting committee finds that the faculty member has met or exceeded Standard Professional Performance in teaching and at least one other area. A Letter of Progress will include recommendations for continued improvement in performance in all areas.
• A Letter of Concern recommendation is warranted when the majority vote of the evaluation sitting committee finds that the faculty member has not met Standard Professional Performance in teaching or in more than one area of evaluation, if recommendations from previous Letter(s) of Progress or remediations from a previous Letter of Concern have not been met, or if the faculty member has violated Standards of Professional Responsibility.
• A Letter of Concern should clearly articulate the deficits in a faculty member’s performance and provide specific and attainable steps towards remediation.

The chair of the evaluation sitting committee will transmit the “Form 3 TT: Tenure-Track Evaluation Summary and Recommendation” and the “Form 2: Faculty Evaluation” forms to the dean and notify the faculty member of the committee’s recommendation. The faculty member may submit to the dean a written response regarding the recommendation within 10 business days.

If the dean does not agree with the evaluation sitting committee’s recommendation, the dean will consult with the entire evaluation sitting committee before deciding on the Letter of Evaluation.

• By March 31, the dean will send to the faculty member a Letter of Progress with recommendations for continued improvement or a Letter of Concern with detailed requirements for remediation.
• The evaluation sitting committee chair will ensure that the Letter of Evaluation and Form 3 TT and Form 2 are placed in the faculty division/department faculty file.

Instructions for Application of Tenure:

Along with the professional portfolio requirements, the faculty member will submit to the chair of the evaluation sitting committee the Application for Tenure form that includes a link to the digital professional portfolio.

Faculty may request to credit years of previous satisfactory academic service for tenure using the “Request to Credit Previous Satisfactory Academic Service” form. Faculty are encouraged to submit the form at least a year before they apply for tenure. Forms need to be submitted by the following dates: September 1 for submitting the application to the academic supervisor which then goes to the sitting committee; December 15 for submitting the application from the Dean to the Provost.

If approval of crediting previous years of satisfactory academic service towards tenure is not recommended by the evaluation sitting committee, dean, or provost, the faculty member will be notified within 10 business days.

Instructions for Evaluation of the Application for Tenure:

The evaluation sitting committee will read the application for tenure statement prior to the Faculty Performance Evaluation meeting.

• If the evaluation sitting committee has recommended a final Letter of Progress, they will discuss and vote upon the Application for Tenure. The evaluation sitting committee will use the definition of tenure found in the Academic Freedom, Professional Responsibility and Tenure Policy and Procedures. Each member of the evaluation sitting committee has an equal vote. The application for tenure recommendation will be made based on majority vote.
• The evaluation sitting committee chair will record the recommendation and vote tally on the application for tenure form and all evaluation sitting committee members will sign it.
• The academic supervisor will forward the application for tenure, the Form 3 TT and Form 2, and Form 4 (if relevant), to the dean and the faculty member.
• The dean will review the materials, the professional portfolio, and any pertinent information from Human Resources before indicating their recommendation for approval or denial of tenure on the application form. By March 31, the dean will transmit the application for tenure and attach a detailed letter recommending approval or denial of tenure to the provost.
• The provost will review the application for tenure and professional portfolio and make a recommendation to the president.
• The probationary period may be extended, interrupted, or reduced at the discretion of the Provost for Academic Affairs in collaboration with the department faculty and academic administrator.
• If approval of tenure is not recommended by the evaluation sitting committee, dean, or provost, the faculty member will be notified within one business day of the first level of nonrecommendation. The faculty member may submit a written response to their tenure application materials within 10 business days.

Instructions for Formal Post-Tenure Review:

The evaluation sitting committee chair will complete “Form 3PT: Post-Tenure Review Summary” and will transmit the completed form to the faculty member and ensure that it is placed in the faculty member’s division/department faculty file.

• Along with the professional portfolio requirements, the faculty member will submit to the chair of the evaluation sitting committee the Application for Rank Advancement to Full Professor form that includes a link to the digital professional portfolio.
• Faculty are not automatically advanced to the rank of Full Professor after 6 years of post-tenure work. Faculty who intend to apply for advancement to Full Professor should meet with their academic supervisor to signal this intent in at least the academic year prior to application. Since the criteria for Full Professor is rigorous and takes multiple years to achieve, faculty should plan as early as possible for this by working closely with members of the Standing Committee of Full Professors and their Sitting Committee. Faculty may want to start this conversation as early as their first post-tenure year.

Instructions for Application for Rank Advancement to Full Professor:

Associate Professors are eligible to apply for rank advancement starting in their fifth year as a tenured faculty member. In order to apply for full professor, they must achieve “Exceeding Standard Professional Performance” in Teaching and at least one of the two other evaluation areas in their current or most recent formal post-tenure evaluation. They must meet at least Standard Professional Performance in the other area.

• Along with the professional portfolio requirements, the faculty member will submit to the chair of the evaluation sitting committee the Application for Rank Advancement to Full Professor form that includes a link to the digital professional portfolio.
• Faculty are not automatically advanced to the rank of Full Professor after 6 years of post-tenure work. Faculty who intend to apply for advancement to Full Professor should meet with their academic supervisor to signal this intent in at least the academic year prior to application. Since the criteria for Full Professor is rigorous and takes multiple years to achieve, faculty should plan as early as possible for this by working closely with members of the Standing Committee of Full Professors and their Sitting Committee. Faculty may want to start this conversation as early as their first post-tenure year.

Instructions for Evaluation of Application for Rank Advancement to Full Professor:

The evaluation sitting committee will read the application for rank advancement prior to the Faculty Performance Evaluation meeting.

If the faculty member meets the eligibility requirements for application, the evaluation sitting committee will discuss and vote upon recommendation for approval. The evaluation sitting committee will use the description of “Full Professor” of this document. Each member of the evaluation sitting committee has an equal vote. The application for rank advancement recommendation will be made based on majority vote.

• The evaluation sitting committee chair will record the recommendation and vote tally on the application form and sign it. The chair will draft a detailed letter to the dean with the rationale for approval or denial of rank advancement to be signed by the full committee.
• The academic supervisor will forward the application for rank advancement, the letter of rationale, and Form 4 (if relevant), separately to the dean and the faculty member.
• If approval of rank advancement is not recommended by the evaluation sitting committee or the academic supervisor, the faculty member will be notified within one business day. The faculty member may submit a written response to the dean within 10 business days of receiving the notification.
• The dean will notify the faculty member of the decision no later than March 31. If rank advancement is not approved, the denial will be accompanied by specific reasoning for the decision and clear steps the faculty member may take to meet rank advancement criteria.

Completing the Formal Evaluation Cycle:

By the end of the appropriate semester, the academic supervisor will meet with each faculty member who has completed a formal faculty evaluation process to review Form 3 and to set Form 1 goals. The academic supervisor or the faculty member under review may request that the evaluation sitting committee members attend this meeting.

This step in the formal evaluation cycle may take place during the Faculty Performance Evaluation meeting.

Informal Evaluation of Tenured Faculty:

Each year tenured faculty will evaluate the prior year’s goals and set new goals with their academic supervisor. These goals should be made with consideration of whether the faculty member wishes to pursue advancement to full professor in the future. The academic supervisor will discuss the prior year’s goals, accomplishments, goals for the upcoming year, and any further planning or support needed. Both the academic supervisor and the faculty member will then complete Form 1 Faculty Planning and Support and file it in the faculty member’s division/department faculty file.

Faculty Evaluation Levels and Guidelines

The Faculty Evaluation levels and guidelines derive from the SLCC Faculty Job Description (Faculty Handbook, Appendix 1) and the Standards of Professional Responsibility (SLCC Policy C4S01.01.III.B). These guidelines provide evaluation sitting committees, academic supervisors, deans, and the provost a metric by which to evaluate faculty.

Teaching, as a profession, is both an art and a science. SLCC faculty prioritize teaching and student learning over the other two areas of responsibility (consistent with SLCC Mission and USHE R485). Faculty evaluation will examine faculty performance as interdependent areas of teaching, professional activity & development, and service that create a whole greater than the sum of its parts.

See standards of collegiality in section 4.2 of this document. Most measures of collegiality reside in the standards of professional performance in service.

Faculty must address each area of responsibility--teaching, professional activity & development, and service—to ensure that the professional portfolio contains sufficient material for the evaluation sitting committee to make decisions regarding the level to which faculty members have met individual criteria.

Evaluation Levels

Standard Professional Performance is the expectation of all full-time, tenure-track and tenured faculty at Salt Lake Community College. Standard Professional Performance is recognized when evaluators find that the faculty member demonstrates a pattern of consistently meeting standards in an area.

Exceeds Standard Professional Performance is warranted when evaluators find that in addition to meeting an area’s standards, the faculty member has also performed beyond them in any of the descriptive categories noted below. This may consist of a pattern of moderate surpassing of multiple expectations, or there may be a single significant achievement. If it is not possible for the evaluation sitting committee to articulate a specific rationale for Exceeds Standard Professional Performance, Standard Professional Performance should be assigned.

Below Standard Professional Performance is warranted when evaluators find that the faculty member has not met the standards of an area. This may consist of a pattern of moderate struggles with multiple criteria, or there may be a single significant failure or serious problem. If it is not possible for the evaluation sitting committee to articulate a specific rationale for Below Standard Professional Performance, Standard Professional Performance will be granted.

Guidelines for Evaluation of Teaching:

The standards of teaching at Salt Lake Community College are informed by the overlapping concepts of Field/Disciplinary, Curriculum Development and Evaluation, Teaching Practice and Lesson Planning, and Pedagogy and Reflection.

Standard Professional Performance Criteria for Teaching

• Promotes an atmosphere of fairness and equity in their relationships with students; creates a respectful, inclusive, effective, safe, open, fair, and supportive learning environment for students.
• Provides students with a clear written syllabus with course learning objectives and evaluation criteria as specified in the CCO.
• Effectively uses resources and technology to aid student learning and the Canvas LMS to communicate course information and individual messaging with students.
• Consistently implements effective and engaging teaching practices that promote critical thinking and successful learning of college-approved course outcomes.
• Provides timely, appropriate, and instructive formative and summative feedback and evaluation of student work to reflect learning outcomes as stated in the CCO. (“Timely” is flexibly defined but should be reasonable, respectful, and appropriate to the needs of the specific correspondence or assignment.)
• Keeps informed and knowledgeable about ongoing developments in their field and applies knowledge appropriately and effectively to their instruction.
• Demonstrates consistent availability to consult with students outside of class meeting times through office hours and other forms of communication (e.g., Canvas, email, phone, etc.).
• Avoids misusing the classroom by presenting personal views on topics unrelated to the course subject matter. If offering personal views for pedagogical reasons, does so with care for maintaining an inclusive space and does not reward agreement or penalize disagreement with personal views.
• Participates in regular assessment, update, and production of curriculum and course quality, design, and implementation with department/division.
• Meets all basic requirements below to ensure the smooth administration of their work (These criteria should be managed by the academic administrator and not included in the professional portfolio.)
  • Is available to teach courses directed by academic needs of the program and availability of the staffing pool.
  • Meets with scheduled classes; cancels or reschedules classes only with adequate notice to students and prior approval of department administration (except when notice is beyond faculty control). If absence is anticipated, faculty should arrange alternative learning method rather than canceling the class.
  • Is available for student consultation during regular posted office hours and provides students with additional means of contacting the faculty member.
  • Meets deadlines for submission of syllabi, office hours, calendars, final grades, and spreadsheets to department office.
  • If applicable, is responsible for teaching-related administrative tasks such as following procedures for equipment maintenance, purchase, and inventory procedures.
  • When necessary, prepares and submits incident reports to the dean of Student Services for inappropriate student behavior as defined by the Code of Student Rights and Responsibilities Policy.
  • Follows the guidelines set by FERPA, GRAMA, the ADA, and HIPAA regarding student confidentiality.

Guidelines for Evaluation of Professional Activity and Development:

The standards of professional activity and development are based on two intersecting areas that faculty engage in as professionals. Professional Activity concerns activities that faculty engage in to remain current with, participate in, or further the knowledge of their discipline, fields, or industries. Professional Development concerns activities that faculty engage in to improve their pedagogical knowledge and effectiveness as teachers. (Because faculty at Salt Lake Community College represent a wide range of disciplines, fields, and industries, not all the Professional Activity standards will apply to all faculty.)

Standard Professional Performance Criteria for Professional Activity:

• Maintains appropriate proficiencies/credentials/ licenses/certifications in relevant fields/disciplines.
• Maintains membership in professional organizations (as department funding permits).
• Stays current with developments and/or research in their discipline/field/industry through reading, research, conferences, workshops, education, and other resources (as department funding permits).
• Shares information and knowledge from conferences with colleagues as opportunities permit.

Standard Professional Performance Criteria for Professional Development

• Maintains a professional portfolio that self-assesses and documents performance in teaching, professional activity & development, and service.
• Participates in at least one pedagogical development activity per academic year (from Faculty Development or another institutionally recognized source)

In addition to the areas above, faculty must meet the professional standards in the Academic Freedom, Professional Responsibility, and Tenure Policy (SLCC Policy, Chap. 4, III, B, 2, c-f.) regarding academic honesty, integrity, and appropriate attribution.

Guidelines for Evaluation of Service:

The standards of faculty service represent two distinct areas: Service to the College and Service to the Community. Service to the College is an expectation of all SLCC faculty. Service to the Community is an opportunity for faculty and is not required. Faculty may include community service in their Form 1 goals.

Standard Professional Performance Criteria in College Service

• Actively participates in department, division, school, and college meetings, initiatives, and strategic planning.
• Serves on at least one significant department, school, or college committee and/or fulfills specific assignment(s) as directed by department or College.
• Responds to discussions and requests for department work in timely manner (e.g. answers email, completes task assignments, etc.) (“Timely” is flexibly defined but should be reasonable, respectful, and appropriate to the needs of the specific correspondence or assignment.)
• Assumes an informal or formal role in the student advising process, per departmental expectations.
• Attends Convocation, Commencement, and other obligations with faculty contract days.

Tenured Faculty:

Because of their standing as outlined in the Academic Freedom, Professional Responsibility, and Tenure Policy (section C.3.A), tenured faculty have the following Standard Professional Performance expectations:

• Serves on Faculty Evaluation Standing Committee and Evaluation Sitting Committees. as necessary
• Mentors junior faculty, if applicable.
• Regularly serves at the school or college level.

“When Assigned” Service:

Faculty may be assigned additional responsibilities or tasks to support the priorities of a department/ division. These “When Assigned” requirements should not negatively impact the faculty member’s potential to meet Standard Professional Performance in teaching, professional activity & development, and service. Such assignments should be accompanied with specified descriptions of responsibility or outcomes (e.g., position description).

Standard Professional Performance Criteria in Community Service:

If the faculty member includes community service activities in their portfolio, they will be evaluated in the Faculty Evaluation process.

Descriptive Categories of Exceeding Standard Professional Performance:

These categories are not exhaustive; faculty may exceed Standard Professional Performance criteria in other ways. Faculty may exceed standard professional performance in the following categories (in alphabetical order):

• Administrative Service: Serve as an academic administrator, program director, or coordinator.
• Assessment: Initiate, develop, or participate in assessment beyond those standard to, or required of programs or departments/divisions.
• Civic Engagement: Partner with the community in the transformative, public good of educating students ("SLCC Values").
• Extracurricular Teaching: Formally share their teaching experience and expertise with other faculty through guest lectures, workshops, or other extra-curricular opportunities; or when they mentor or advise students for specific extra-curricular achievements (unless this work takes place within a co-op, internship, or special topics course assignment).
• Formal Education: Complete advanced formal education through accredited institutions or institutionally recognized organizations or resources exceed standard professional performance.
• High Impact Practices: Develop, incorporate, and reflect upon (or assess) any of the American Association of Colleges and Universities designated High Impact Practices (HIPs) into their curriculum. Faculty may advocate in their portfolio that another practice will be considered high impact.
  • First Year Seminars/Experiences
  • Common Intellectual Experiences
  • Learning Communities
  • Writing Intensive Courses
  • Collaborative Assignments/Projects
  • Undergraduate Research
  • Diversity/Global Learning
  • Service Learning, Community-Based Learning
  • Internships
  • Capstone Projects
• Innovation: Initiate, develop, collaborate, or lead innovations in pursuit of college Vision, Mission, or Strategic Plans.
• Institutional Representation: Represent the college formally or informally (e.g. statewide major's meetings, K-12 initiatives, community partnerships, boards).
• Leadership: Voluntarily take on leadership/mentorship roles in course assessment and curriculum development; serve as officers of disciplinary/industry organizations or lead disciplinary/industry conferences or other activities; serve as chairs or leaders of department, school, or college-wide committees; advise student clubs or student-based activities; or develop, lead, or coordinate college events or programs.
• Professional Service: Serve disciplinary/industry organizations or bodies in official manners (e.g. committee membership, reviewer, examiner, evaluator).
• Recognition: Earn official recognition of their teaching, professional activity, or service through an SLCC program, disciplinary organization or body, or another professionally recognized body.
• Scholarship: Produce original scholarship for their field/discipline/industry or for the study of teaching and learning through presentations at local, regional, national or international conferences; publications in print or digital journals; or other venues. Scholarship activities with peer-reviewed acceptance processes should be weighted more in evaluation than those without.
• Surpassing Requirements (Examples): Accept overload teaching assignments on the request of the department/division. Engage in professional development or service beyond standard professional performance requirements of full-time faculty (e.g., serve on multiple committees, participate in multiple development activities).

Tenured Administrators Returning to Faculty

Administrators holding tenure who previously achieved tenure in a teaching department retain tenure and are eligible at any time, regardless of whether a position is open, to return to a full-time teaching position for which they are qualified. The academic administrator will return to their faculty rank held prior to accepting an administrative position (see also “Academic Freedom, Professional Responsibility and Tenure Policy and Procedures). They may follow the rank advancement to full professional application process according to the processes and instructions in this document.