Revised October, 2013

This document is an agreement between the College and the Faculty and Staff Federation regarding faculty evaluation for the purposes of self-improvement, retention, and promotion. It supersedes the 1972 document entitled "Information Concerning Promotion and Retention."

General Procedures for Implementing the Evaluation Process for Self-Improvement and Retention

Faculty evaluations are to follow the provisions of the Full-time Faculty contract, specifically in section V.B., and the Adjunct/Visiting Lecturer contract, specifically in Article X.

Timeline

Each Fall, the Vice President for Academic Affairs will publish a "Timeline for Evaluation of Untenured Tenure-Track Faculty, Visiting Lecturers and Adjunct Faculty." This timeline will include dates for notices and actions consistent with the Collective Bargaining Agreements.

Each Fall and Spring semester, faculty teaching credit and non-credit courses will participate in the Student Evaluation of Teaching. Questionnaires for this evaluation will be consistent with the College-wide criteria for teaching. One section may be excluded each semester, in advance, from the student evaluation process at the faculty member's discretion, unless the faculty member is teaching only one section. Reports produced as a result of student evaluation will not include data that includes comparison of individuals to individuals.

Review of evaluation results

After the results of the Student Evaluation of Teaching are compiled, the faculty member and the Department Head may meet to review the results. Departmental criteria and other critical areas of performance and ability such as fulfillment of contractual obligations and competency in subject matter are likewise reviewed by the Department Head and the faculty member in this meeting. The Department Head should make specific recommendations for improvement, as appropriate.

If a faculty member has had one or more overall unsatisfactory sets of student evaluations and/or departmental evaluations as defined by the Department, he or she must be notified in writing by the Department Head. The Department Head may make a written report summarizing a faculty member's evaluation and specific suggestions for self-improvement. This report may include the Department Head's proposed remediation plan, if in the judgment of the Department Head such a plan is warranted.

The faculty member shall have the right to respond in writing to the Department Head's summary report and the response shall be appended to the report. Departments may develop official forms for summary evaluation reports that are consistent with Departmental evaluation plans.

Renewal and non-renewal

The Department Head's recommendation on renewal or non-renewal must be based on the
following specific data:

• results of evaluative instruments;
• evidence as to whether the faculty member meets departmental criteria;
• evidence of competence or incompetence in the subject matter;
• evidence as to whether the faculty member meets contractual obligations.

Results of student evaluations will not be the only criterion for retention.

If the Department Head's evaluation for purposes of retention is positive, then student evaluation data will be stored in the Departmental offices for future use in the evaluation process. It is understood that such information may be used for non-retention purposes as may other pertinent information stored on the Department level as long as the faculty member has received copies of the material and has had the right to respond.

In cases of a recommendation of non-retention, the burden of proof rests with the College administration. There must be documented evidence of continuing deficiency.

If, in the event the evaluation for purposes of retention is negative, the supporting information will be forwarded for appropriate review and action at higher levels.

Library Faculty, Counseling Faculty, and Learning Lab Faculty

The college-wide criteria for evaluation apply to Library faculty, Counselors, and Learning Lab faculty. These Departments shall develop departmental evaluation criteria appropriate to their disciplines.

Ranks A and B

Instructional Aides A and B shall be evaluated for retention on the basis of criteria in the approved Departmental evaluation plan.

Evaluation for Promotion

The following criteria and procedures apply to evaluations for promotion to Associate Professor or Professor, as distinct from evaluations for renewal and non-renewal:

Any faculty member who fulfills the minimum requirements outlined in the contract may initiate consideration for promotion to the rank of Associate Professor or Professor.

Candidates for promotion should verify that they meet the minimum qualifications for each rank described in Exhibit "A" of the Full-time Faculty Collective Bargaining Agreement and that they have met the requirements for service in rank at Community College of Philadelphia. Upon establishment of eligibility and before September 15, the faculty member may be required to notify the Department Head in writing of his or her intention to apply for promotion. Upon notice of a candidate's intention, the application process is initiated.

The candidate for promotion will produce a portfolio containing all the documents which are to be used in support of the candidate's application for promotion.

The candidate's portfolio includes items required in the document "Administrative Criteria for Promotion," including:

• evidence that the candidate has contributed to the College;
• a current curriculum vitae;
• results of peer observation;
• results of the College-wide Student Evaluation of Teaching questionnaire for faculty who teach courses;
• results of evaluations based on Departmental criteria;
• other information that supports the candidate's application.

Departmental Evaluations may be in a standardized form, if the Department so chooses. The form for "peer evaluation," if it is not specified in the Departmental evaluation plan, can be in whatever form the candidate desires and can be performed by any person whose position is roughly equivalent to that of the candidate. It must involve classroom visitation for teaching faculty and may involve evaluation of any other aspect of the candidate's overall effectiveness.

After reviewing the portfolio, the Department Head will make a recommendation whether to support or reject the application for promotion.

If the application is supported, the Department Head will then forward a recommendation for promotion, including the candidate's promotion portfolio, to the Dean and higher authorities, consistent with V.B. (3) of the Full-time Faculty contract.

If the Department Head does not support the promotion application, and the candidate is willing to accept the decision, the portfolio is returned to the candidate and the application process is ended.

If the candidate does not accept the decision of a Department Head regarding an application for promotion, the candidate may submit his or her portfolio to the Dean for consideration.

No material can be included in a candidate's application portfolio without the knowledge of the candidate. After submission, no changes to the portfolio may be made. Once officially submitted to the Vice President for Academic Affairs, all portfolios will be maintained in a secure location in the office of the Vice President for Academic Affairs. After decisions have been made by the Board of Trustees or its representatives about an application for promotion, all portfolios will be returned intact to the candidates.

1 "Sets" are defined as all those evaluations completed within a specific semester. (As stated above, one section of student evaluations may be excluded at the faculty member's discretion.)