Evaluation (Faculty) Procedure - 63.05.01
College Policy Number/Title:
Faculty members at Howard Community College are evaluated based on teaching responsibilities, college responsibilities, teaching excellence, professional growth, and service to the division/college/community.
- Teaching responsibilities include class or laboratory load, and general teaching and laboratory responsibilities
- College responsibilities include office hours, completion of required professional development, and attendance at meetings and commencement
- Teaching excellence includes evidence of student success, engagement, innovation, etc.
- Professional growth includes participation in professional development, research, publication, reading circles, FPLC, conference presentations, etc.
- Service to the division/college/community includes committee work, assessment, participation in professional groups, relevant community service, etc.
Procedures and Timeline for Evaluation of Faculty Performance
- September 15th – faculty development plans are due to department chair
- February 1st – department chair’s interim (mid-year) assessment is due to faculty
- February 15th - written improvement plan (if applicable) is due to department chair
- April 15th – faculty submits completed year-end plan to department chair
- June 1st – deadline for department chair to issue final evaluation to faculty
Faculty Development Plans
Faculty members shall meet with their department chair by September 15th to devise a faculty development plan that will have a positive impact on their teaching excellence, professional growth, and the division/college. A brief summary of the agreed upon plan should be recorded on the faculty merit achievement plan (MAP). If the faculty member and department chair cannot reach agreement on the plan, the division dean will resolve the dispute. A faculty member may, with the approval of the department chair, alter the plan at any time during the year as circumstances change. The department chair may need to request changes in the plan if circumstances in the department change.
The deans provide the vice president of academic affairs (VPAA) with a brief list of plans for the next year using the dean/associate dean MAP.
Formal Evaluation Sessions
There will be two formal supervisor/faculty member evaluation sessions during the regular academic year. The first scheduled session will occur midyear between December 1 - February 1. The final evaluation will be conducted toward the end of the contract year at which time the MAP will be signed. Each faculty member submits a MAP to the department chair by April 15; faculty who are completing projects in courses during the spring semester may submit the MAP by May 15. The final version will be submitted to the dean by the department chair. The supervisor's overall assessment of the faculty member's performance for the year will be made in writing, including the recommended merit rating. A rating will be assigned in accordance with guidelines in the MAP and will be used to award merit and to determine the type of salary agreement issued to the faculty member.
Other Evaluation Tools
To collect data for use in the formal evaluation process, student evaluations of faculty will be conducted in all classes. Student evaluations may be used to inform the faculty development plan required each year. In addition, consistently negative student evaluations may, where supported by other sources of data, be used in rating the faculty member's performance.
Department chairs will also conduct classroom observations for every faculty member a minimum of once every three years. More frequent visits to the classroom may be conducted if the department chair needs additional information on the faculty member's performance. Department chairs will visit the classrooms of probationary faculty twice during the first year and at least once during the second and third year. Department chairs and associate deans will be observed by the dean or designee.
Faculty Performance Levels
The following faculty performance levels apply to probationary and non-probationary faculty. However, only non-probationary faculty are eligible for the two-year continuing contracts under the terms below. Probationary faculty contracts are one-year contracts during the probationary period. Probationary faculty who do not meet expectations during any year of the probationary period might not have their contract renewed in the following year.
Performance must far surpass expectations due to exceptionally high quality of work performed in all areas of responsibility, resulting in an overall quality of work that was superior; and either 1) included the completion of a major goal or project, or 2) made an exceptional or unique contribution in support of department or college objectives.
For this highest performance level, the faculty member must document significant accomplishments related to the college mission, vision, and values (INSPIRES), strategic goals, the academic affairs strategic plan, academic affairs vital signs, and/or their division’s core work. The focus will be on the scope and depth of the accomplishments.
Other considerations include:
- Supervisor observations and evaluations, student evaluations, peer input and feedback, and student evaluations;
- Learning outcomes assessment projects;
- Curriculum, program, and course design or development.
- Development and application of flexible, innovative learning options or delivery systems.
- Guidance and assistance of students in the completion of areas of study, certificates, or courses.
- Advancement of institutional strategic initiatives in areas outside of the classroom.
Scholarly, professional, research, or creative activity, as well as community service or development, could also be considered if the accomplishments reflect a high level of discipline-related expertise, break new ground, and have significance to or impact on the institution.
Faculty members who did not meet their teaching and college responsibilities are ineligible for an outstanding rating.
In preparation, each division dean reviews the faculty documentation as described above and assesses the performances of the faculty in their respective areas. Each division dean then creates specific proposals for any and each of those employees who have significantly surpassed performance expectations for their position in the given year, whose work has clearly and significantly advanced the college’s mission, vision, values, and/or strategic goals, or has made an extraordinarily positive impact upon student learning, and who model the highest standards of professional and ethical conduct in the workplace. These proposals are shared in a designated VPAA staff session and rigorously compared for validity and consistency by the entire staff according to the above criteria. The VPAA brings recommendations forward to the president’s team for approval.
To be considered for the excellent performance level, the faculty member must surpass expectations in at least two of the three evaluation areas (teaching excellence, professional growth, and service to the division/college/community). In addition, it is expected that teaching and college responsibilities have been met.
Performance consistently meets expectations in all evaluation areas (teaching excellence, professional growth, and service to the division/college/community), at times possibly surpassing expectations in at least 1 area. The quality of work overall was satisfactory. In addition, it is expected that teaching and college responsibilities have been met, with perhaps some minor exceptions.
This rating will be assigned when performance does not consistently meet expectations in one or more areas being evaluated (teaching excellence, professional growth, and service to the division/college/community) and/or teaching and college responsibilities have not been met. A plan to improve performance must be attached, including timelines, and monitored to measure progress during the following MAP year.
This rating will be assigned when the chair has documented serious problems in a faculty member's performance on the established faculty performance expectations, including not making reasonable progress on an established performance improvement plan.
Resulting Salary Agreements
Faculty on Continuing Salary Agreement
Two-year continuing salary agreement with outstanding level merit award
Two-year continuing salary agreement with excellent level merit award
Two-year continuing salary agreement with acceptable level merit award
Second year of two-year continuing salary agreement issued with no merit award
If a rating of “improvement needed” or “unsatisfactory” is assigned in the second year of a two-year continuing salary agreement, faculty will receive notification of non-renewal of salary agreement
Faculty on Probationary Salary Agreement: One-year probationary salary agreement with appropriate merit award for Outstanding, Excellent, and Meets Expectations ratings. A rating of Improvement Needed or Unsatisfactory will result in non-renewal of salary agreement.
Effective Date: 09/14/18
President's Office Use: VPAF/VPAA