UCSC:APO:CAPM rev 11/07

006.000 GUIDELINES FOR DELINQUENT NARRATIVE EVALUATIONS

A. POLICY REFERENCE

Academic Senate Regulation 9.2

B. GENERAL

  1. Faculty at UCSC must give, as part of each student's grade in each course, a narrative evaluation of the student's work. Evaluations are required for all courses taken for credit. For undergraduate students, evaluations are required for all passing grades (A,B,C,D,P). Evaluations are not required for I, W, F, or NP grades, although faculty members may write evaluations if they choose. For graduate students, an evaluation is required for any course taken for credit, regardless of the grade received (even a failing grade).
  2. Evaluations are due within fifteen working days after the end of the quarter (Academic Senate Regulation 9.2.2). Delinquency is determined by: 1) timeliness and 2) proportion of total evaluations submitted. Evaluations will be considered substantially delinquent if 10% or more of a class are not received within fifteen working days after the due date (excluding courses with enrollment of one student). Mitigating circumstances such as delayed reports from field supervisors, illness, or other circumstances beyond the control of the faculty member shall be taken into consideration. Should there be a delay, the department chair must judge whether or not the circumstances are such that the faculty member can be considered to be in good-faith compliance with the requirement that the evaluations be written in a timely fashion.
  3. Departments can access reports regarding narrative evaluation submission and timeliness via COGNOS. The Timeliness Report provides information on a faculty member’s timeliness, but only lists courses for which narratives were submitted. The Outstanding Evaluations Report lists courses for which narratives have not been submitted. Both reports should be used to evaluate a faculty member’s timeliness in submitting narrative evaluations.
  4. Departments should be aware however that the Outstanding Evaluations Report will only report on those courses for which the faculty member submitted the corresponding grades. Therefore, departments may also wish to check the Missing Grades Report, available in COGNOS, to ensure greater accuracy.

C. ACADEMIC PERSONNEL ACTIONS

  1. It is the duty of the department chair to determine whether or not a faculty member has, in good-faith, complied with the requirement that evaluations be written and submitted within fifteen working days after the end of the quarter (CAPM 312.245).
  2. In order to determine compliance, the chair should:

    a) Make a written request to the faculty member for explanations of any missing evaluations and projected completion date.

    b) If the faculty member replies that s/he has not yet written the evaluations, the chair will determine whether or not the reasons given for the delay are valid.

    c) If the reasons for the delay are determined to be valid, the chair and the faculty member in question will agree in writing on a new completion date. If the new date for completion is not met, the faculty member must provide reasons why s/he needs another extension, or else be considered to be delinquent on the evaluations.

  3. Evaluations submitted via e-mail will be entered into the NES system within 30 days of receipt. However, because of the possibility of delay in processing, department chairs may wish to check with the Registrar’s Office to be sure that the evaluations have not been submitted by the faculty member.
  4. The department letter for faculty personnel actions must include an assessment of the timeliness with which student narrative evaluations are completed. Substantially delinquent evaluations must be treated in department letters as a serious deficiency in evaluation of the faculty member’s overall teaching record. The extent and duration of the deficiency must be documented in the review file. Failure to comply with narrative evaluation requirements may lead to a denial of salary increase, merit increase, promotion, reappointment, sabbatical or other leave. For Unit 18 titles, because teaching is the main responsibility of lecturer appointments, failure to comply with narrative evaluation requirements in a timely fashion is an especially serious deficiency.

D. DELINQUENT NARRATIVE EVALUATIONS AND ACCESS TO STUDENT EVALUATIONS

Student evaluations of a faculty member’s teaching are normally part of the review file for a personnel action. Students are informed that the faculty member cannot have access to the student evaluations until the faculty member has completed the narrative evaluations for the class. If the chair determines that the faculty member has delinquent narrative evaluations at the time the faculty member is to submit materials for the review file, those student evaluations cannot be included in the file. Consequently, the chair will include in the department letter a statement that the student evaluations are not included because of delinquency in completing narrative evaluations for the course. The absence of student evaluations due to delinquent narratives will be considered a major deficiency in the faculty member’s teaching record.

E. DELINQUENT NARRATIVE EVALUATIONS AND REQUESTS FOR LEAVE

  1. Leave privileges (sabbatical or leave with or without salary) shall not normally be approved for faculty members who are substantially delinquent in submitting evaluations. It is the responsibility of the department chair to insure that delinquent narrative evaluations have been completed before forwarding or approving a leave (CAPM 312.245).
  2. Chairs may recommend individual exceptions to this policy under justifiable circumstances. Authority for approval of exceptions to this policy rests with the individual with the authority to approve the leave.