A simplified set of ratings for faculty evaluation criteria are intended to provide clear distinctions between ratings and provide more meaningful feedback to faculty for a more formative approach to evaluation. It is important that written feedback be supplied for each rating and that ratings are based upon rubrics clearly posted in advance of evaluation deadlines.

The three basic ratings are:

• • ACC Exemplary Teaching and Faculty Expectations Have Been Met – Overall, the faculty member has met the teaching standards set forth in the Statement on Exemplary Teaching, as well as other non-instructional duties required of faculty. Formative feedback on potential areas for improvement as well as areas of particular merit will be provided in comments.
  • Approaching ACC Exemplary Teaching and Faculty Expectations – The faculty member has met many of the above standards, but there are one or more areas that do not satisfy that standard. The rating may focus on one significant issue or multiple lesser issues.
    • • Required: In addition to providing formative feedback on areas that need improvement, the Summary Evaluation Form should contain a list of specific improvements necessary to attain ACC Exemplary Teaching and Faculty Expectations Have Been Met. These necessary improvements must be clearly communicated and faculty are expected to work on improving those items within the provided timeline. Documentation of any changes/improvements should be submitted in the following year’s evaluation.
      • Failure to make significant progress towards addressing these issues could result in a rating of Does Not Meet ACC Faculty Expectations in the following year.
  • Does Not Meet ACC Faculty Expectations – The faculty member has not met the expected teaching and/or non-instructional standards of the college in a significant manner.
    • • Required: If this rating is received in any individual areas of the Summary Evaluation Form, a list of specific improvements needed and timeline must be provided.
      • If the Overall Rating is Does Not Meet Faculty Expectations, a meeting with the Department Chair is required to develop a Performance Improvement Plan with clearly specified outcomes and timeline. The Department will provide assistance in obtaining professional development for skills required to make these improvements.
      • Failure to make significant progress on these issues within the time specified in the Performance Improvement Plan will result in further action being taken.
      • Except when immediate corrective action is required, faculty who receive this rating will be given reasonable time and support to address these problems and should progress to a higher rating in the following year if they follow their improvement plan. Faculty who receive this rating may be required to repeat a year in the evaluation cycle in order to resubmit specific evaluation materials the following year for review, especially if course materials are at issue. Department Chairs may require changes on a faster timeline if appropriate.