Revised 06/07
The annual evaluation of faculty holding faculty
rank is consistent with policies and procedures of the Virginia Community
College System. Each academic division
of the college conducts an annual evaluation of full-time faculty. Deans conduct the evaluations and discuss the
results with each faculty member on a confidential basis. The faculty member and dean shall discuss the
evaluation results in the interest of improving faculty performance.
The primary purposes for evaluation of faculty:
(1) To provide evaluation
results and documentation for improvement of faculty performance and
educational programs.
(2) To
serve as the basis for merit recognition.
MERIT RECOGNITION
Merit Recognition at Virginia Western consists of
three components:
(1) Granting
of a multi-year appointment (where applicable)
(2) Granting
of a promotion
(3) Granting
of a merit pay award
(a) Merit Salary Award - this
component becomes a part of the faculty member's base salary and allows a
faculty member's salary to progress to the maximum for the rank held. A merit salary award shall not cause the total
base salary to exceed the maximum of the rank.
Merit salary award is provided only to those faculty who receive
"Excellent", "Very Good" or “Good” performance evaluations.
(b) Non-Cumulative Merit
Salary Bonus - this component allows the total salary to exceed the maximum for
the rank for the year that the non-cumulative merit salary bonus is given, but
the non-cumulative merit salary bonus amount does not become a part of the
individual's base salary. Non-cumulative
merit salary bonus is provided only to those faculty who receive an "Excellent"
performance evaluation.
FACULTY EVALUATION PLAN AND MERIT RECOGNITION
Faculty evaluation, as expressed by performance
evaluations, is essential to the merit components of multi-year appointment,
promotion and merit pay award.
Recommendations for faculty to receive merit components follow a
sequence of several steps:
Multi-Year Appointment
Recommendation of a one-year or multiple-year
appointment is initiated by the dean to the vice president of academic and
student affairs for those faculty who receive a merit performance evaluation
rating of "Excellent," "Very Good" or
"Good."
Recommendation by the vice president is provided to
a standing committee of the college: the
Ad Hoc Committee for Appointments and
Hearings (see Appendix II). The
recommendation of this committee is made to the president for final action.
Promotion
Consistent with "Normal Minimum Criteria for
Each Faculty Rank" approved by the Virginia Community College System, a
recommendation of promotion for a faculty member is initiated by the dean to
the vice president of academic and student affairs. The dean in turn provides a second
recommendation to the president for his action, which is final.
Merit Pay Awards
As with promotion, the president responds directly
to the recommendations of the deans and the vice president regarding merit pay
awards for each eligible faculty member.
The action of the president is final.
The amount of merit pay award for each faculty member is determined by
that faculty member's performance evaluation rating. To receive a merit salary award, a faculty
member must receive an evaluation result of "Excellent," "Very
Good" or "Good."
Merit salary increases are distributed to academic
divisions by a “3-5-6” distribution plan.
Under this plan, faculty who receive a “Very Good” evaluation will be
awarded a merit salary percentage increase equivalent to five-sixths (5/6) of
the percentage increase that is awarded faculty with “Excellent”
evaluations. Faculty with “Good”
evaluations will be awarded a percentage pay increase equivalent to
three-sixths (3/6) of the percentage increase that is awarded faculty with
“Excellent” evaluations. A faculty
member with an “Excellent” evaluation may not be able to receive all of the
prescribed merit award increase because the increase would cause the person’s salary to exceed the maximum allowed
for the person’s rank. In this case, the
portion of merit pay increase that exceeds the maximum salary limitation will
be awarded as a one-time, non-cumulative merit bonus. The college may provide salary increases or
non-cumulative merit bonuses to redress salary inequities, to provide extra
compensation for faculty who are assigned temporary, extraordinary duties that
are above and beyond the normal expectations for their positions, and to award
extraordinary accomplishments. No salary
increases will be given for cost of living.
Faculty who do not have a performance evaluation
for the preceding year because they are returning from a one-year leave of
absence will return in August at the same salary they had when they took
leave. Their last evaluation will be
used to determine their salary for the following calendar year.
New faculty will be given an interim evaluation in
October and a mid-year evaluation after the end of the fall semester. The mid-year evaluation will be used to
determine their salary for the following calendar year.
FREQUENCY
The college plan shall require evaluation no less
often than the following: (a) at least
two times during the first year of employment and (b) at least one time during
the second and each subsequent year of employment.
APPEAL
Teaching faculty, counselors, and librarians may
appeal the results of their evaluation through the Faculty Grievance Procedure,
and administrative faculty members may appeal the results of their evaluation
through administrative channels, unless the college plan provides an
alternative procedure.
REVIEW
The college plan of evaluation shall be reviewed
periodically. The review process shall
provide for the involvement of all college personnel holding faculty rank. Recommendations for change shall be approved
by a majority of the college personnel holding faculty rank and submitted to the
president of the college for final approval and implementation. If the recommended changes are not approved,
the president must submit recommended modifications to the proposed plan back
to the college personnel holding faculty rank for further consideration and
resubmission. In the meantime, the
existing plan would remain in effect.
ACADEMIC FREEDOM
Evaluation shall not be used to restrain faculty
members in their exercise of constitutional rights or academic freedom as set
forth in the Statement of Academic Freedom and Responsibility adopted by the
State Board on January 29, 1969.
CALENDAR FOR EVALUATION OF FACULTY AND MERIT RECOGNITION
Nov. 1-Jan. 20 Evaluation
of faculty completed by deans and supervisors, performance evaluation rating
for each faculty member forwarded to the vice president of academic and student
affairs.
Jan. 20-Feb. 1 The
vice president reviews dean’s recommendation for each faculty member. The vice president forwards his
recommendations for promotion and merit award directly to the president. The vice president’s recommendation of
one-year or multiple-year appointment is forwarded to the Ad Hoc Committee for
Appointments and Hearings.
Feb. 1-Feb. 15 The
Ad Hoc Committee for Appointments and
Hearings meets to consider the vice president’s recommendations with subsequent
committee recommendations to the president.
Feb. 15-March 1 The
president concludes his actions for promotions, merit awards, and multiple-year
appointments.
March 1-April 1 The
appeal process for any faculty member shall be concluded in March.
EVALUATION PROCEDURAL GUIDELINES
- The same criteria will be used by all deans in arriving at an
overall evaluation rating of full-time teaching faculty. Additional evaluation criteria may be
used by a given division or department for improving a faculty member's
performance; however, information derived from the use of those criteria
will not be a part of determining the final evaluation rating.
The "Student
Evaluation of Instructor" form (Appendix I) will be administered in all
classes during the thirteenth or fourteenth week of either the fall or the
spring semester each year. Each faculty
member will make the choice of semester, unless the dean feels that circumstances
require a different choice. Faculty should
encourage students not to respond to criterion #10 (Conducts laboratories
effectively) if the class has no laboratory sessions.
- Faculty salary increases will be awarded on a college-wide basis
rather than on a divisional basis.
In other words, all faculty at the college who receive a given
overall evaluation rating will receive the same percentage of
increase.
- Faculty who have as many as six credits of released time for
performing administrative responsibilities will have their teaching and
administrative responsibilities evaluated on a proportional basis.
- These procedures became college policy beginning with the 1996-97
evaluation period.
PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS AND DEFINITIONS
Teaching Performance-Student Evaluations
Excellent = An overall average of 3.50-4.00 on 17
criteria of Student Evaluation of Instructor form = 9 points
Very good = An overall average of 3.00-3.49 on 17
criteria of Student Evaluation of Instructor form = 7 points
Good = An overall average of 2.00-2.99 on 17 criteria
of Student Evaluation of Instructor form = 5 points
Fair = An
overall average of 1.00-1.99 on 17 criteria of Student Evaluation of Instructor
form = 3 points
Unsatisfactory = An overall average of .99 and below on 17
criteria of Student Evaluation of Instructor form = 1 point
Teaching Performance-Dean
Excellent = Consistently and substantially excels with
respect to performance in the classroom; continuous updating, improvement,
and innovation in teaching materials, methods, and assignments; maintenance of
office hours; and advisement of students = 3 points
Very good = Frequently
and clearly excels with respect to performance in the classroom;
continuous updating, improvement, and innovation in teaching materials,
methods, and assignments; maintenance of office hours; and advisement of
students = 2 points
Good = Performs satisfactorily with respect to
performance in the classroom; continuous updating, improvement, and
innovation in teaching materials, methods, and assignments; maintenance of
office hours; and advisement of students = 1 point
Fair = Needs
improvement with respect to performance in the classroom; continuous
updating, improvement, and innovation
in teaching materials, methods, and assignments; maintenance of office hours;
and advisement of students = 0 points
Unsatisfactory = Needs substantial improvement with respect to
performance in the classroom; continuous updating, improvement, and
innovation in teaching materials, methods, and assignments; maintenance of
office hours; and advisement of
students = -1 point
Participation in Professional Activities
Extensive participation = 2 points
Examples of extensive participation (completes a
course in one's program of study; delivers a paper at a professional
convention; serves in a significant position of leadership in a professional
organization; completes all professional certification requirements that are
relevant to a particular business or technical discipline)
Moderate participation = 1 point
Examples of moderate participation (subscribes to a
professional journal; attends a professional conference; attends 2 lectures or
seminars in one’s field or a related field; reads 2 books about one’s field or
a related field)
Needs improvement
= 0 points
Example of needs improvement (participates to a
lesser extent than that described in the examples listed under moderate
participation)
Participation in College Activities
Extensive participation = 2 points
Examples of extensive participation (has
responsibility for a major college or department activity, such as program
head, for which excellent results are attained; speaks to a minimum of four
high school classes about a Virginia Western curricular program; serves as
chair of Virginia Western’s Open House Committee; is sponsor of a student
club/organization that engages in extensive extracurricular activity)
Moderate participation = 1 point
Examples of moderate participation (is a member of
a standing or an ad hoc college committee; assists with College Day program;
assists with Virginia Western’s Open House activities; participates in
evaluations of curricular programs; participates in program or college
accreditation studies; advises students)
Needs improvement
= 0 points
Example of needs improvement (participates to a
lesser extent than that described in the examples listed under moderate
participation)
Establishment and Maintenance of Positive
Professional Relationships with Colleagues, Supervisors, Students, and
Community
Satisfactory = 1 point
Definition of satisfactory (maintains a
professional attitude in dealing with colleagues, supervisors, students, and
members of the community)
Needs improvement
= 0 points
Example of needs improvement (has had difficulty in
two or more instances
in establishing and maintaining positive
professional relationships)
Adherence to Policies, Procedures, and Regulations
of the College and the VCCS
Satisfactory = 1 point
Definition of satisfactory (adheres to policies,
procedures, and regulations of the college and the VCCS)
Needs improvement
= 0 points
Example of needs improvement (has violated a
policy, procedure, or regulation of the college or the VCCS)
Excellent = consistently delivers outstanding performance,
exceeding minimum of 16 points
Very good = clearly exceeds performance standards; 13 – 15
points
Good = performs satisfactorily, meeting performance
standards; 10 – 12 points
Fair = marginally
meets performance standards; improvement required; 7 – 9 points
Unsatisfactory = fails to meet performance standards; below 7 points
|
|
|
|
Appendix II
AD HOC COMMITTEE FOR APPOINTMENTS AND HEARINGS
2006-2007
PURPOSE
The Ad Hoc Committee for Appointments and Hearings has a twofold purpose. The committee will serve as the body to review the eligibility of faculty recommended for multi-year appointments. This committee will also serve as the prospective committee list for the purpose of appointments to ad hoc committees to hear appeals under the Faculty Grievance Procedure.
The committee will be elected proportionately and consist of the following members:
8 Instructional Faculty elected by academic divisions as follows:
2 Business
1 Engineering & Industrial Technology
1 Health Technology
2 Humanities
1 Science and Mathematics
1 Social Science
1 Counselor (nominated by Dean of Student Services)
1 Librarian (appointed by Library)
2 Administrative Faculty (appointed by the Vice President of Academic and Student Affairs)
2006-2007 MEMBERSHIP
|
Ms. Linda Davis |
Instructional Faculty |
(2005-07) |
|
Dr. Jennifer Mulligan |
Instructional Faculty |
(2005-07) |
|
Mr. Bill Taylor |
Instructional Faculty |
(2006-08) |
|
Ms. Margaret Mullins |
Instructional Faculty |
(2005-07) |
|
Ms. Maggie McDaniel |
Instructional Faculty |
(2006-08) |
|
Dr. Betty Shepherd |
Instructional Faculty |
(2005-07) |
|
Mr. Tom Olsen |
Instructional Faculty |
(2006-08) |
|
Dr. Annemarie Carroll |
Instructional Faculty |
(2005-07) |
|
Mr. Gary Adkins |
Counselor |
(2006-08) |
|
Ms. Lynn Hurt |
Librarian |
(2006-08) |
|
Mr. Jim Poythress, Chair |
Administrative Faculty |
(2006-08) |
|
Ms. Anne Kornegay |
Administrative Faculty |
(2005-07) |