General Principles

Step Plus is an opportunity for departments to provide explicit evaluation of peers for greater than one step advancement, based on performance that exceeds expectations for a 1.0-step advancement. All merit and promotion dossiers, reviewed are normative time, should be considered for Step Plus advancement (i.e., 1.0-, 1.5-, and 2.0-step).

Every department has the right to determine its own voting process (so long as that process is not in conflict with Academic Senate Bylaw 55), but voting in the Step Plus system must accomplish the minimum requirements of:

• a specific action recommended by the department; and
• a vote from Senate peers that clearly indicates the degree of support for the proposed action.

Once your department agrees on a Step Plus ballot, it must be used for all Step Plus actions for that review cycle. Changes can be made for the following review cycle, if needed.

It is optional to include on the ballot an opportunity to rate a candidate’s performance in specific academic areas and has a number of potential advantages.

• The guidelines for advancement under Step Plus hinge on the degree to which performance exceeds expectations for a 1.0-step merit advancement, and in how many of the fundamental areas.
• The use of specific criteria for evaluation has been shown to reduce the effects of unconscious biases.
• By providing ratings of performance in different areas of academic evaluation, departments have an opportunity to clarify their academic priorities and expectations, and to provide stronger justification for the recommended action. 
• Your department members should decide whether you will incorporate performance ratings into your ballot. If so, you need to determine the categories for rating and the scoring system (e.g. three or five rating categories). Because the recommendation for advancement hinges on how peers perceive the candidate’s academic performance, we recommend that the performance ratings section precede the actual voting section on the ballot. One possible example for ratings is shown below.

Evaluative Rating for the Professor Series: an example in two ballot formats

Note: This is an optional section of the ballot. Departments may select additional performance areas beyond the three fundamental ones for evaluation (teaching, research and service), and may also choose to more finely decompose any of those three areas (e.g. “classroom teaching” and “grad student mentoring” as components of “teaching”, etc.). “Contributions to diversity” should be considered in evaluation for merit advancement and promotion (APM 210), but can be evaluated either as a separate area or as a component of performance in teaching, research and/or service. Below is an example of a way to gather this information.

Table-oriented Evaluation

If possible, please provide comments on the candidate's contributions to meeting the campus diversity goals in teaching, research, and/or service:

Question-oriented Evaluation

(1) Please choose one rating to indicate your overall evaluation of Teaching:

5. Excellent
4. Very Good
3. Average
2. Below Average
1. Poor
ο Abstain

Comment on Teaching:
 

(2) Please choose one rating to indicate your overall evaluation of Service:

5. Excellent
4. Very Good
3. Average
2. Below Average
1. Poor
ο Abstain

Comment on Service:
 

(3) Please choose one rating to indicate your overall evaluation of Scholarly/Creative Activities:

5. Excellent
4. Very Good
3. Average
2. Below Average
1. Poor
ο Abstain

Comment on Scholarly/Creative Activities:
 

(4) If possible, please provide comments on the candidate's contributions to meeting the campus diversity goals in teaching, research, and/or service:

Voting on Advancement: sample ballot

Note: The language on the ballots will need to be modified for merits versus promotions. If voting indicates support for an advancement that would cross a promotion boundary or merit advancement to Above Scale, extramural letters will be required. If the candidate is four years or less at rank or clearly does not meet the criteria for promotion (e.g., absence of an in-press or published book in the book disciplines), the candidate has the option to have promotion removed from the Step Plus ballot. In all other circumstances, the promotion options under Step Plus must be included on the ballot.

Voting Example

Description: Dr. [name] is under review for advancement from Professor, Step X, effective 07/01/YYYY. Which of the following options do you feel is most appropriate for an advancement from Professor, Step X, to be effective 07/01/YYYY? Please vote for only one option. (Note: a vote for a higher step implies support for all lesser advancements.)

• I vote in favor of a 2.0 step merit increase
• I vote in favor of a 1.5 step merit increase
• I vote in favor of a 1.0 step merit increase
• I do not support merit advancement. (Please provide comment below on reason for “No” vote)
• ABSTAIN
• Comment on selection: