Providing Feedback to Professional Leave Applicants

1. Providing Feedback to Professional Leave Applicants FA-010-910

2. Resources • Professional Leave Committee, Deans, All faculty, Sabbatical leave policies at other CSU institutions

3. Background • Appendix 26, gives the Professional Leave Committee the responsibility for “judging the merits of all applications” based upon “an evaluation of the written request and an interview of the candidate” and providing the Provost with “a ranked list of faculty and librarians it recommends to be granted paid leaves.” While the appendix provides that faculty whose request for leave is denied may “submit a written request for reconsideration” to the Provost, there is no provision that faculty may receive feedback on their unsuccessful proposal.

4. Summary of Changes • Consolidates different policy aspects into a single policy document • Separates the sabbatical and DIP policies • Provides information on contractual requirements such as: • Number of leaves • Employment requirement • Service to university during the leave

5. Summary of changes • Defines eligibility criteria • Defines evaluation criteria • Appropriateness • Benefits • Feasibility

6. Appropriateness • Appropriate sabbatical leave may include the following projects. The list implies no order of importance. • Studies leading to increased mastery of the applicant’s own field. • Studies leading to the development of new areas of specialization. • Studies leading to significant improvements in curricula. • Studies leading to a command of advanced methods of teaching. • The pursuit of a scholarly research or creative project of a scope or nature not feasible through a normal workload assignment. • The pursuit of a professional goal that requires extensive travel.

7. Benefits • Sabbatical leave activities shall demonstrate clear promise of producing results beneficial to one or more of the following: • the University • the faculty member’s professional development as a teacher and scholar, • the faculty discipline, and students.

8. Feasibility • Clearly define and articulate the project objectives. • Include a well defined project plan that describes the project activities illustrating, when needed, preliminary arrangements, contacts, prior research, etc. • Include an appropriate timeline indicating that the proposed project cannot be accomplished in less than the leave time and can be completed in the time requested.

9. Evaluation Methodology • There is significant differences among the CSU campuses in the evaluation methodology • Sabbatical as a “Faculty Right” • University level peer review committee similar to Cal Poly, Pomona • Apportioning of the available leaves to the college based on number of eligible faculty and evaluation by college peer review committee • Use of time since last sabbatical or professional leave as a criteria

10. Summary of Changes • Proposed Evaluation Methodology • Does not alter the current university level process • Emphasizes the requirement for the Department chair to consult with the department to determine if the leave affects the programs • Requires input from the Department Chair and the Dean through a structured approach similar to RSCA • Department and Chair evaluations use: • Five point Likert scale • Limits comments to five sentences

11. Summary of Changes • Provides information on • Acceptance of the leave and indemnification of State • Post leave report