VIII. Evaluation Of Faculty

Evaluation of tenured, tenure-track, and continuing track full-time faculty members’ performance will be conducted on a yearly basis, and will include annual faculty evaluation of all faculty members registered on the Faculty Development Report (FDR).  Criteria used for consideration include (1) teaching effectiveness, (2) College service, and (3) professional development and community service.

1. Responsibility for Annual Evaluation

Primary responsibility for evaluation of faculty members’ performance rests with respective department chairs and the Chief Academic Officer. Department chairs, using the Faculty  Development Report as a basis, will write an annual evaluation of each faculty member.  (In the case of department chairs, the Chief Academic Officer will write the evaluation, the department chair has the opportunity to respond, and the completed FDR is maintained in the Office of the Chief Academic Officer.)   Evaluations should be narrative interpretations of  submitted information that will be helpful to faculty members and other evaluators.  Department chairs will rate the performance of each faculty member with respect to certain stipulated  criteria as follows:

• Above average
• Average
• Needs improvement
• Needs significant improvement

2. Annual Faculty Development Report (FDR)

All full-time tenured, tenure-track and continuing track faculty members must complete an annual Faculty Development Report.  This report will detail evidence in support of the faculty member’s (1) teaching effectiveness, (2) College service, (3) professional development and/or public service.  Contents for the reports should be determined and organized as follows:

a.  “Teaching Effectiveness” section will include:

1. A description of the nature and quality of the faculty member’s teaching, to include but not be limited to information relating to course load, course presentations, innovative techniques used in the classroom, use of technology, record of help offered students outside of class time, grading of papers, testing procedures, choice of textbooks, and any additional demonstrations of professional growth deemed relevant by the faculty member;
2. Self-evaluative passage of reflection on student achievement of course learning outcomes listed on the syllabus for each course; and
3. Student course evaluation data from all courses.

b.  “College service” section will include information relating to

1. Student advising or mentoring;
2. Fulfillment of discipline and department responsibilities;
3. Committee participation:  Faculty members who have maintained a record of active involvement with committees of which they are not official members may also request a statement about their contributions to the relevant committee from committee chairs, and
4. College-wide activities.

c.  Professional development section will include information relating to:

1. Membership in professional organizations;
2. Attendance at, and if relevant, participation in professional meetings and conferences;
3. Research and/or publications; and
4. Graduate credits earned during the relevant period of time.

d.  Evidence of public service may be included in the section with professional development, and may include evidence of participation in civic and social-services activities, memberships in relevant organizations, and/or talks given which are of public benefit, but not professional in nature.

Ratings of “inadequate” will be accompanied by comments aimed at suggesting particular strategies for improvement, as well as the request for a meeting to discuss relevant sections.

Final decisions regarding salary increases for the next contracted period of employment will include a joint review of faculty members’ Faculty Development Reports by the Chief Academic Officer and the President.

If this process of annual faculty evaluations identifies a pattern of deficient performance over time, the Chief Academic Officer will conduct a thorough assessment and consult with the faculty member, the appropriate department chair, and the President.

Otherwise, if a need for significant improvement does not initiate the sequence of events just described, the faculty member will see his/her department chair’s evaluation and have the opportunity to provide a written response, to be appended to the FDR and maintained with it.  The document will next travel to the Chief Academic Officer for review, and s/he will add his/her response. The faculty member in question will then have the opportunity to see the Chief Academic Officer’s written comments, appended to the FDR, and have a chance to respond to these in writing. This FDR, now bearing the signatures of the faculty member submitting the document, the individual’s department chair, and the Chief Academic Officer, along with up to two responses to evaluators’ comments provided by the faculty member, is to be maintained by the Chief Academic Officer’s office.

An in-depth evaluation of tenure-eligible and continuing track faculty will be conducted during their sixth semester at Richard Bland College. and tenured faculty at least every five (5) years following immediately upon award of tenure, will be conducted.

1. Tenured Faculty

a.  Promotion Review

In addition to the annual Faculty Development Report, a portfolio review will be conducted for tenured faculty eligible for promotion.  (See                    information on “portfolios” promotion.”)

b.  Post-Tenure Review

Every five (5) years a post-tenure portfolio review will be conducted for tenured faculty. The portfolio will cover the previous five (5) years. It will         include Faculty Development Reports and department chair evaluations from those years, as well as student evaluations from the previous two            (2) years. The portfolio will be evaluated by the Peer Review Committee.

2. Tenure-Eligible Faculty

a.  Promotion Review

In addition to the annual Faculty Development Report, a portfolio review will be conducted for tenured faculty eligible for promotion.  (See              information on “portfolios” promotion.”)

b.  Pre-Tenure Review

Submission of Pre-Tenure Portfolio

Non-tenured, tenure-eligible faculty will have the opportunity to submit to the Peer Review Committee for evaluation a pre-tenure portfolio at        the beginning of their sixth semester of teaching at Richard Bland College.  The purpose of the portfolio is to provide evidence for the                          evaluation of teaching effectiveness, College service, and professional development and community service in a consolidated format.  The                  portfolio will cover the first four (4) semesters and will be organized to make a case on behalf of the faculty member indicating progress is                  being made toward tenure and promotion. The pre-tenure portfolio will include:

1. A copy of the faculty member’s curriculum vitae, and a reflective essay elaborating on his/her teaching philosophy and proposal for professional development;
2. The first two (2) Faculty Development Reports,
3. A sampling of instructor-provided materials used in at least two (2) courses taught during the relevant interval. Materials should be representative of course overviews and syllabi, assignment lists, research paper assignments, reading lists, study guides, handouts, problem sets, laboratory exercises, tests, final examinations, or other course material deemed of interest to evaluators;
4. Student course evaluations for four semesters;
5. Other evidence the candidate believes may be relevant and helpful to his/her evaluation for promotion.

c.  Submission of Tenure Portfolio

Non-tenured, tenure-eligible faculty will submit for evaluation a tenure portfolio to the Peer Review Committee at the beginning of their sixth           year of teaching at Richard Bland College.  The purpose of the portfolio is to provide, in a consolidated format, evidence for the evaluation of             teaching effectiveness, College service, and professional development, and community service.  The portfolio will cover the first five (5) years,           and will be the basis for consideration of a granting of tenure to the faculty member. The portfolio will include:

1.  A copy of the faculty member’s curriculum vitae, and a reflective essay elaborating on his/her teaching philosophy;
2. The first five (5) Faculty Development Reports;
3. A sampling of instructor-provided materials used in each course taught during the relevant interval. Materials should be representative of course overviews and syllabi, assignment lists, research paper assignments, reading lists, study guides, handouts, problem sets, laboratory exercises, tests, final examinations, or other course material deemed of interest to evaluators;
4. Student course evaluations for the relevant interval;
5. Update and progress report of professional development pan and
6. Other evidence the candidate believes may be relevant and helpful to his/her evaluation for promotion.

3. Continuing Track Full-Time Faculty

a.  Promotion Review

Continuing Faculty applying for promotion will submit a portfolio to the Peer Review Committee for evaluation. (See information on                          “portfolios” promotion.”)

b.  Preliminary Peer Review

Continuing track faculty will submit a portfolio to the Peer Review Committee for evaluation at the beginning of their sixth semester of teaching       at Richard Bland College.  The purpose of the portfolio is to provide evidence for the evaluation of teaching effectiveness, College service, and           professional development and community service in a consolidated format.  The portfolio will cover the first four (4) semesters and will be              organized to make a case on behalf of the faculty member indicating progress is being made toward professional development and promotion.          The preliminary review portfolio will include:

1. A copy of the faculty member’s curriculum vitae, and a reflective essay elaborating on his/her teaching philosophy;
2. The first two (2) Faculty Development Reports
3. A sampling of instructor-provided materials used in two (2) courses taught during the relevant interval. Materials should be representative of course overviews and syllabi, assignment lists, research paper assignments, reading lists, study guides, handouts, problem sets, laboratory exercises, tests, final examinations, or other course material deemed of interest to evaluators;
4. Student course evaluations for four semesters;
5. Outline of a proposed professional development strategy;
6. Other evidence the candidate believes may be relevant and helpful to his/her evaluation for promotion.

c.  Continuing Track Faculty Contract Review

In addition to the preliminary Non-tenured faculty with continuing appointments will be evaluated by their department Chair and the Chief            Academic Officer prior to each contract renewal.

d.  Five-Year Review

Every fifth year after obtaining the rank of associate or full   professor, continuing track faculty will submit a five year review portfolio to the              Peer Review Committee. If the faculty member is up for promotion the same year the portfolio will follow the guidelines for promotion. If the            faculty member is not under consideration for promotion, the portfolio will contain.

1. Five  years of faculty development reports
2. Four semesters of student evaluations
3. An update and progress report of their faculty development plan.

4. Specified-Term, Full-Time and Part-Time Faculty (Adjunct)

Specified term faculty members, including those teaching dual-enrollment and online/distance classes for College credit, will have a classroom observation conducted their first semester and subsequently every other year by their respective department chairs, or the designees of those chairs. The written evaluation that results from this observation and the results of their student evaluation will be discussed with each adjunct faculty member, and will form the basis for consideration in awarding future teaching contracts to the relevant faculty members. Specified term faculty are not eligible for promotion or tenure.

5. Process Subsequent to Portfolio Submission

The Peer Review Committee will be responsible for all pre-tenure review, preliminary continuing track faculty review, post-tenure review, five year review, and promotion review. The committee will write its evaluation based on the submitted materials, consisting of an assessment of those materials, with the additions of data gathered during their classroom observations and suggestions for continued professional growth.  In all cases other than pre-tenure and preliminary continuing contract faculty review, the evaluation will be forwarded to the appropriate department chair, and the department chair will write an evaluation and forward all materials to the Chief Academic Officer. In the cases of pre-tenure and preliminary continuing contract faculty review, the committee will submit its evaluation with suggestions for continued professional development directly to the individual faculty member, report that this task has been completed to the appropriate department chair, and forward the evaluation to the next chair of the peer committee for consideration at the faculty member’s next review.

The Chief Academic Officer will write an in-depth review of the faculty member seeking tenure and/or promotion. This review will focus on teaching performance, productivity, and potential to excel.  The review is intended to give the faculty member an indication of perceptions of his/her effectiveness, and to make suggestions for continued professional growth.

a.  The Chief Academic Officer will meet with the faculty member and set goals needing to be met for potential granting of tenure, or promotion. Other criteria for evaluation of the faculty member by the committee will include, in addition to those factors already mentioned:

1. The faculty member’s teaching load;
2. The perceived quality of the instructional materials used by the faculty member in each course;
3. Development of each course, including use of assessment to allow for continuous improvement;
4. Appropriateness of the intellectual tasks set his/her classes by the faculty member;
5. The quality of the testing conducted in each course, with student learning outcomes as a consideration;
6. The distribution of grades, if requested by the committee;
7. Quality of committee service, if capable of determination;
8. Quality of discipline, division, and College-wide service, if capable of determination. This would include advising;
9. Demonstrated commitment to professional growth; and
10. Representation of Richard Bland College in the community.

b.  If the Peer Review Committee identifies a pattern of deficient performance, the Chief Academic Officer will conduct a thorough assessment, to include:

1. The faculty member’s expected long-term contribution to Richard Bland College;
2. Areas where improvement is needed;
3. A plan for ways to deal with problem areas; and
4. A timetable addressing a strategy for measuring progress toward improvement over the next three (3) semesters.

c.  Annual evaluations in succeeding years will specifically address progress toward improvement as established in the timetable.

d.  A faculty member who does not meet the requirements for satisfactory performance (as specified in the plan and measured by the agreed-upon        timetable) may be subject to disciplinary actions consistent with College policy on such matters.