Monday, April 3, 2017

Faculty Evaluation System Review Update

The Faculty Evaluation System Review Task Force, co-chaired by MVC President Bobby Garza and CVC Faculty Association President Tommy Thompson, was formed to review and update the DCCCD Faculty Evaluation System. This System includes: the Faculty Job Description, the IAP form, the Student Survey of Instruction, the Instructional Visitation Appraisal forms (face to face and online), the Faculty Appraisal Summary Report form, the Contractual Recommendation form, and the overall timeline. The System was supposed to be reviewed every five years, beginning in 2006; it was last reviewed and updated in 2002, although the Job Description was updated in 2005.

The members of the Task Force are listed in this document 
The charges to the group are in this “Guiding Principles”document
The Faculty Evaluation System packet is in this PDF file

The Task Force had its initial meeting on Feb. 22, 2017, and a second meeting on March 29, 2017. At the first meeting, the group reviewed its charges, shared thoughts and concerns about elements of the Faculty Evaluation System, and then conducted a Plus/Delta evaluation of it. At the March 29 meeting, there was some disagreement over the scope of the charges to the Task Force and, as a consequence, over how much of the System could or should be modified. In response, three subcommittees were created to conduct further research and make specific recommendations in these three areas:
  •          The Faculty Job Description
  •          Academic Forms (Instructional Visitation and SSI)
  •          Contractual Forms (IAP, Appraisal Summary, and Contractual Recommendation)

A final subcommittee will work to coordinate the compilation of recommendations and the overall revision and editing of the Faculty Evaluation System packet.

It was decided that there would be two more meetings in the Spring 2017 semester. Specific dates have yet to be determined. In the meantime, the subcommittee members should be communicating with one another and conducting their work.

Concerns about the differing perspectives of the Task Force members were discussed at the last Faculty Council meeting on Friday, March 31. In response, the Faculty Council has crafted the following statement:

The Faculty Council affirms that the Faculty Evaluation Process is designed flexibly to encourage excellence in teaching, ongoing professional development, and institutional service, and for ongoing conversations to take place between individual faculty and deans about those areas.

“One size fits all” approaches do not promote excellence in teaching and learning, as each faculty member brings unique experiences to his/her teaching environment, necessitating unique ongoing professional development for each faculty member.

The Council recognizes that some lack of clarity within the documents, and more importantly lack of consistent training in how to implement the Faculty Evaluation Process, has led to confusion and inequitable application of the process.

In addition, some believe – again, due to lack of uniform training – that the Faculty Evaluation Process document is to be used for disciplinary misconduct issues. Rather, DCCCD Board Policies DMAA (LEGAL) and DMAA (LOCAL) specify that a separate process must be followed to discipline or dismiss any contracted faculty member for misconduct.

Therefore, the Council recommends:
1.       That the Faculty Evaluation system document be reviewed and revised for clarity;
2.       That the forms be digitized into electronic documents that easily can be updated throughout the evaluation cycle;
3.       That video training modules on how to implement the Faculty Evaluation system, be written and developed by faculty and experienced instructional administrators, filmed at the LeCroy Center, and uploaded to an eCampus organization and be required training for all new instructional deans, academic vice presidents, and faculty.

Adopted via 7-0 vote by the DCCFA Faculty Council on March 31, 2017


  1. Good start FC (I think--though it probably should not have even come to the need for such a statement in the first place). Do not be the Council the presided over the dissolution of our evaluation system. The IAP needs tweaking, not wholesale revision. Failure of consistent application is an implementation problem, not a structural problem.

  2. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.