Faculty Evaluation

Goals

Provide a process by which a faculty member can assess his or her performance in meeting the duties and expectations of the college as listed in the Faculty Handbook Duties of Teaching Faculty;

Provide feedback from the faculty member’s dean as to whether or not he or she has met the expectations as listed in the Faculty Handbook: Criteria to be considered in Promotion Recommendations and Criteria to be considered in Tenure Recommendations;

Provide the faculty member with direction for professional growth and improvement.

Instructions

Prior to October 1, the faculty member should develop a PLAN for the academic year using the Faculty Evaluation Plan. The plan should indicate the category that the activity addresses (e.g., Teaching - Student Evaluation, Student Advising, Instruction, Student Relations/Retention, Curriculum Development; Faculty Development; and Service/Outreach). This plan must address categories from the previous year’s evaluation if the faculty member received any “Improvement Needed” or “Unsatisfactory” scores.

Prior to October 15, the faculty member will meet with the dean to discuss his or her plan. If the faculty member and dean cannot reach agreement on the faculty member’s plan, the appeal process should be initiated.

Between October 15 and October 31, the vice president of academic affairs will review each faculty member’s evaluation plan for growth and development and offer recommendations if perceived as needed.

The faculty member, with the approval of the dean, may add to or delete from the plan throughout the academic year.

Prior to April 1 (or June 1 for 12-month faculty), the dean and/or vice president of academic affairs should inform the faculty member in writing if they have any concerns about the faculty member’s performance and progress toward being awarded tenure and/or promotion in rank. These concerns should be addressed in making recommendations for advancement and growth in the next year’s evaluation document.

Prior to April 1 (or June 1 for 12-month faculty), the faculty member and dean should meet to review the plan, to discuss any areas identified where performance is not acceptable, and to discuss possible activities for advancement and growth for the next year’s evaluation document. If consensus of agreement cannot be made, the appeal process should be initiated by the faculty member. (see appeal process below)

Between April 1 and graduation (or June 1 and June 30 for 12-month faculty), the vice president of academic affairs will review each faculty member’s completed evaluation document. If the vice president of academic affairs does not concur, written documentation must be provided to the faculty member and dean prior to graduation (or June 30, as appropriate).

Appeals Process

If a consensus of agreement about a faculty member’s performance cannot be reached at the year-end meeting with dean, the faculty member has 15 days from the date of the meeting to complete a written response to the dean outlining concerns and offering any additional evidence. The dean will respond within 15 days to the faculty member. If agreement is still not reached, the faculty member may appeal in writing to the vice president of academic affairs. The vice president of academic affairs will make a decision within the following 15 days: the vice president of academic affairs may concur with the dean or override the dean’s evaluation based on the appeal documents supplied by the faculty member. All appeal documentation should be kept as a part of that year’s evaluation. The appeal to the vice president is the final recourse, and the vice president’s decision on the appeal is final.

Rating

Assessor should assign a rating to each section of the evaluation.  

Exemplary - Faculty has met or exceeded the goals outlined in the fall evaluation plan. In the assessor’s professional opinion, faculty exceeds the standards and requirements for professionalism in Teaching, Faculty Development, and Service/Outreach (as appropriate). Faculty has addressed the changing needs of current students through innovation or improvement of existing teaching practices, has specifically addressed stated objectives in the College Mission Statement, department mission statement, or JSCC Strategic Plan. Faculty has considered and taken advantage of above-average faculty development opportunities (for Section II). Faculty has been active in college and community service, going above and beyond required, professional activities (for Section III).

Professional - Faculty has met the goals outlined in the fall evaluation plan. In the assessor’s professional opinion, faculty meets the standards and requirements for professionalism in Teaching, Faculty Development, and Service/Outreach. Faculty has considered the needs of students and demonstrates sound teaching practices. Faculty has addressed development needs and has served the college appropriately (for Sections II and III).

Needs Improvement - Faculty has attempted to meet the goals outlined the fall evaluation plan. In the assessor’s professional opinion, faculty has fallen short of acceptable standards and requirements for professionalism in Teaching, Faculty Development, and/or Service/Outreach. Faculty should take steps to address assessor concerns through shared best practices, peer reviews, faculty development, and other appropriate remedial measures.

Unsatisfactory - Faculty has failed to meet the goals outlined the fall evaluation plan. In the assessor’s professional opinion, faculty has fallen well short of acceptable standards and requirements for professionalism in Teaching, Faculty Development, and/or Service/Outreach.