Committee Meetings and Minutes

Administrative Login

Faculty and Staff Evaluation

Meeting Minutes

Current Status of Minutes: Final
Date	March 5, 2010
Time	1:00 PM - 3:00 PM
Location	HBC 407.0

Members Present
No member attendance has been recorded.
Guests Present
No guest attendance has been recorded.

Item # 1:	Updates
Presenter	Dr. Martha Perez
Discussion	Faculty evaluation report Dr. P�rez reported that the mail out of first 8 weeks for Spring 2010 went out this week and expect returns before Spring Break; the majority of the Spring Semester will be mailed out the first week of April 2010. Dr. P�rez updated the EC as to the progress on shifting all Distance Learning evaluation to Class Climate system. If training happens in the summer, she reported a good possibility this project can be accomplished for Fall 2010. Dr. P�rez reported that FSEO is archiving everything digitally. FSEO will only keep online the current year 2009 so that when we process Fall 2010 we have efficient processing. She also mentioned that budget requests to upgrade Class Climate have been set in motion. The committee agreed to add a ranking report for faculty like it used to be done in the past and is still done for Distance Learning. The EC requested a report that will specifically address the issues with HB 2504 with a minimum size (PDFs take too much digital space) such as a text file like IT currently provides. Action Item: Dr. P�rez will make the request for the HB 2504 report to be added to the budget for requests for Class Climate streamlining. Staff evaluation Dr. P�rez reported that PEP form automation will not take place this year. Dr. P�rez reported upward evaluation will begin in late April. It is probable that the new Department Chair PEP will not be ready by then. Staff evaluation Dr. P�rez reported that PEP form automation will not take place this year. Dr. P�rez reported upward evaluation will begin in late April. It is probable that the new Department Chair PEP will not be ready by then. Staff evaluation Dr. P�rez reported that PEP form automation will not take place this year. Dr. P�rez reported upward evaluation will begin in late April. It is probable that the new Department Chair PEP will not be ready by then.

Item # 2:	Open Issues
Presenter	Dr. Martha Perez
Discussion	Open Issues/ Forum On the open forum, a request from faculty to change the grade distribution reports was approved by the committee. Request to change the Grade Distribution Reports; current set of variables in report are all reported in counts by professor and by department. The EC discussion concurred on adding percent of grades and a summary total for the department. The EC rejected the proposal to aggregate by professor. Action Item: Dr. P�rez will make the request to IT to modify the current Grade distribution report.

Item # 3:	Open Forum
Presenter	Dr. Martha Perez
Discussion	A request to change definitions in Evaluation Manual so that it is clear that the ranking of "unacceptable" implies a probationary status was discussed. The discussion revolved around the issue that the EC wants to remain a guiding structure and leave many of these decisions to departmental policy (such as the definition of Summary form terms or the probation status for the "fair" designation). The EC committee decided to not include the definitions in the Procedures Manual, because the procedures manual is part of administrative rule AR# 6.07.001and thus the EC decided that it suffices to post it on the website as guidance rather than as a prescriptive rule. The EC approved to include in the website (www.austincc.edu/hr/eval/documents/2009Definitions FacultySummaryEvaluationFormACAC1.pdf )wording to clarify that the ranking of unacceptable implies that the professor is automatically on a probationary status whereas the ranking of fair is equivalent to a status of meeting requirements, and open to the discretion of the department chair as to the actions needed to improve performance. Action Item: Dr. P�rez will modify the website to clarify that unacceptable indeed is equated to a probationary status.

Item # 4:	Open Forum-continued
Presenter	Dr. Martha Perez
Discussion	A request brought forth by Sue Bloodsworth was discussed. Points and responses are summarized below. a.Evaluators confused by wording change from Good to Fair and there not being consistence among the forms. (Student Evaluations vs. Summary Form) The EC concurred that these definitions belong to the departmental policy realm. The EC abides by the definitions in the website as these were approved by Faculty Senate and the Academic Campus and Affairs Council (see www.austincc.edu/acac/fy09/ index.php FY-2008-2009 meetings, March 6, 2009 Minutes AR 3.03.011, Faculty Evaluation forms a, b, c). Action Item: Dr. P�rez will ask that the "good" ranking in class climate be re-programmed to say "fair." In the meantime this has been acknowledged and announced in the website www.austincc.edu/hr/ eval/documents/09rankingformula_001.pdf . b.Need for better explanations of each item on the summary form and what information is being graded. As noted in previous email David Lydic want a workshop on how to do evaluations. See a above. The EC discussed that a workshop online to orient department chairs should be created. Action Item: Dr. P�rez will create an online workshop that department chairs can access at all times. c.Missing files from disks. Folders with nothing in them. Dr. P�rez explained that Department Chairs have been made aware that empty folders are a flag so that FSEO double checks on the status of these cases. She explained that these folders are created from a data set cut at the end of August prior. In December and January, FSEO re-processes this original data base information and many courses have changed professors or were simply not taught. An empty folder is a flag to contact FSEO so that we investigate. The department chair CDs are made first. Department chairs receive CDs and if any questions arise, these requests will be integrated into FSEO's reconciling process. This is a way to check for FSEO to provide the most accurate no response files after we finished reconciling our inventory. d.PCM classes coming late and in different format. Dr. P�rez explained that Distance Learning classes are processed through IT. FSEO merges the data reports and provides PDFs. The EC was made aware that IT was unable to provide the reports in December and that FSEO received them in late January. FSEO worked as fast as was possible to provide reports first week in February. Action Item: Dr. P�rez will continue to research bringing DL to Class Climate as discussed above. e.ECS faculty not receiving Student Evaluation packets and/or then not knowing what to do with them once they had them. Dr. P�rez explained that the ECS office is in charge of their mail out. The EC concurred that a memo to help professors be better acquainted with the Evaluation process and package returning protocols will be created for the next evaluation period. Action Item: Dr. P�rez will create memo for ECS faculty to be included in the mail out.

Item # 5:	HB 2504
Presenter	Dr. Martha Perez
Discussion	The EC studied the Texas Administrative Code and looked at particularly at rules �4.227 Definitions and �4.228 Internet Access to Course Information of the TITLE 19 EDUCATION PART 1 TEXAS HIGHER EDUCATION COORDINATING BOARD CHAPTER 4 RULES APPLYING TO ALL PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN TEXAS SUBCHAPTER N PUBLIC ACCESS TO COURSE INFORMATION [info.sos.state.tx.us/pls/pub/readtac$ext.ViewTAC?tac_view=5&ti=19&pt=1&ch=4&sch=N&rl=Y] The first question the EC discussed was concerning the time period in which evaluations were to be posted and kept online. The EC believes that this needs to be updated online every 2 years, the odd number years. On the question of what to present in the website, the EC concurred that no student comments should be made available because these are hand written. The EC also did not want to include rankings on what is going to be posted online. The EC concurred on providing the data per course: just a summary of answers. The EC discussed concerns of ACC's web capacity, so there was agreement to create files that are minimal digital size, like text files. The EC then further discussed the language of the code regarding "end-of-course student evaluations of faculty for each undergraduate classroom course." �4.228 (e) says: "Institutions shall conduct end-of-course student evaluations of faculty for each undergraduate classroom course as defined in �4.227(10) of this title, and develop a plan to make evaluations publicly available on the institution's website." info.sos.state.tx.us/pls/pub/readtac$ext.TacPage?sl=R&app=9&p_dir=&p_rloc=&p_tloc=&p_ploc=&pg=1&p_tac=&ti=19&pt=1&ch=4&rl=228 �4.227 (10) defines "Undergraduate Classroom Course--Any lower- or upper-division credit course offered to five or more students. This includes on-campus, off-campus, distance education, and dual-credit courses (including those taught on high school campuses). It excludes courses with highly variable subject content that are tailored specifically to individual students, such as Independent Study and Directed Reading courses. It excludes laboratory, practicum, or discussion sections that are intrinsic and required parts of larger lecture courses and are directly supervised by the same instructor(s) of record for those large courses." The EC discussed that the rule implies that ACC must offer evaluations for all courses for all semesters. If this is the case, the EC proposed to do Spring and Summer online given the magnitude of investment this would imply. The committee needs to further research this. Action Items: Dr. P�rez will send out a vote to all members of the EC via e-mail on this regard. Dr. P�rez will create with Scantron a program to have reports that can go online with minimal use of space. Dr. P�rez will ask higher ranks about changing the evaluation process to be done year round.

Austin Community College
5930 Middle Fiskville Rd.
Austin, Texas 78752-4390
512.223.4ACC (4222)