Faculty Evaluation Task Force Minutes from Dec. 12, 2013
Present: Andrea Broomfield, Marsha Cousino, Csilla Duneczky, Brian Evans, Jeff Frost, Barry Herron, Toby Klinger, Judy Korb, Jason Kovac, Larry Reynolds
Recorder: Jeff Frost
The meeting was called to order at 1:05 p.m.
The group began by reading the committee charge, which was contained in the 11/14/12 email from Dr. Rhinehart to Jeff Frost (see attached). Larry asked if the committee could clarify what Expected Outcomes #1 and #2 meant. Judy spoke to the statutory requirement of faculty evaluation as written by KBOR and the Kansas Department of Education. For non-tenured (probationary faculty), those requirements include: 1) having students provide feedback on all classes being taught by the instructor and; 2) having the supervisor visit the class each semester. Other institutional requirements for non-tenured faculty include 3) going through the formative and summative peer review process. Once faculty have completed all requirements for non-tenured faculty (usually at the end of the third year of full-time employment), a different evaluation process kicks in. The process for continuing contract faculty (tenured) includes periodic classroom visits by the supervisor, having at least one class provide student feedback, and a full evaluation by the supervisor every three years. Judy explained that the statutory language covering the evaluation process does not specify whether faculty members are considered full-time or part-time.
Judy also explained that there are no specific institutional guidelines for adjunct faculty evaluation. She cautioned that whatever process is established should not give the impression that any adjunct faculty member would ever be considered as having a continuing contract status.
Currently, the language states that faculty members who are in their fourth year of full-time employment have similar requirements to non-tenured faculty: having a classroom visit by the supervisor and requiring all classes to provide student feedback.
The new portfolio process modifies the requirements for continuing contract faculty somewhat. First, by having a yearly summative performance form, the college is able to extend the three-year evaluation timeline to a five-year timeline. Second, it may be possible for fourth year faculty to begin the portfolio process, provided that their first year in the portfolio process counts as an evaluation.
Andrea expressed concerns about the inconsistent way that adjunct evaluation is occurring on campus. She asked what role the adjunct facilitator or chair should play. She also wondered if there is common list of duties that adjunct facilitators perform. And she asked whether there is any kind of institutional training for adjunct facilitators.
Barry expressed concerns about the new portfolio process. He is aware of stress among some faculty. He wants more clarification about the portfolio: what is it? What should each faculty member be doing? What will the portfolio be used for? Several faculty members expressed concern about the lack of training in preparing a portfolio. They also were confused about the purpose of the portfolio.
Marsha was concerned that the number of tasks combined with the short timeline (work completed by March 15) is an unrealistic goal. It was suggested that we provide guidelines for areas of concern and allow a committee to continue the work begun by this taskforce, suggesting that a similar model being used by Peer Review (i.e., a peer review council) be implemented.
Task force members agreed that having more clarification on the seven Expected Outcomes would be helpful. Andrea volunteered to interview Jim McWard and Jason volunteered to interview Kelly Gernhart in hopes of getting more information on the seven outcomes.
Andrea explained that Vince Miller has been working to put together resources that will provide direction for those entering the portfolio process. However, she is concerned that care needs to be taken so that portfolios will be used consistently across campus.
Marsha explained that she has been doing research on faculty portfolios. A portfolio process like ours at a peer institution awards professional development money at the end of the process. The faculty member can use the money any way they want.
Toby explained that she is comfortable with a faculty portfolio and has been creating one every year. She stated that the task force needs to increase the buy-in for faculty who are not comfortable creating portfolios and find ways to make the process fun.
Barry asked about the additional requirement of completing an IDP, for those faculty who wish to use Staff and Organizational Development (SOD) travel funds or who apply for an award or sabbatical. Jeff explained that, according to Karen Martley, the faculty member who is in the portfolio process just needs to have their dean/assistant dean send that information to her and the IDP requirement will be satisfied in the SOD office.
Sheryl asked who should be helping faculty who are currently in the portfolio process. Should it be the chair? Should it be the dean? Others wondered about the process of assessing the final portfolio. Who would make the determination as to whether the work done in the portfolio was sufficient? Sheryl also wondered about those who are still several years away from beginning the portfolio process. How should those faculty members be evaluated?
Andrea was concerned about the amount of time it would take for a dean or chair to work with all faculty members in the portfolio process, especially in large departments such as English or math.
Several faculty members expressed concern about the way this new portfolio process was announced to the campus. They thought it would be a good idea to schedule a session during the January in-service, letting faculty who are in the first year of the process know what they should be doing. Barry suggested that faculty be given some samples so that they would have a good idea of the first-year requirements.
Toby talked about the importance of collaboration and wondered how we encourage that collaborative process. Sheryl wondered how we document some of the informal collaboration that is already taking place. What kind of supporting material would be used to substantiate those less formal activities?
Toby suggested that being involved in the creation and development of implementation of the portfolio process could be liberating. Right now, we do not have strict rules we have to follow and we will be able to help guide the development of the process.
Larry asked if the group also wanted to look at classroom observation form, in hopes that we might be able to recommend a consistent form that would be used across campus. The taskforce members agreed that this would be a good idea. Larry will send out the latest proposed classroom observation form.
The group discussed the importance of meeting regularly in order to meet the short deadline. It was suggested that we not try to meet during in-service and begin meetings once classes start. The plan is to meet at 11:00 a.m. on Fridays during January and February.
The meeting was concluded at 2:40 p.m.