Each of the criteria below in bold will receive a rating and supporting comments based upon the posted departmental or college rubric. All instructional formats/modalities are evaluated using this set of criteria. Comments can be made in any section to address different modalities; if the Department Chair feels that different modalities should be rated differently, that should be addressed in the comments and combined together to determine a single rating.

• • Instructional Performance (must be at least 40% of Overall Rating) – Each year’s rating should be based upon departmental and college-wide requirements, especially the Exemplary Teaching Statement. It should consider the following inputs (depending on the year of the evaluation cycle):
    • • Course Materials (each year for first 3 years teaching at the college, then year 3 of the cycle thereafter)
      • Faculty Reflection Form (Each year – departments may review additional years when needed)
      • Feedback from Peer Reviewers and/or Evaluation Committee, if applicable
      • Values Framework (year 1, full-time faculty only)
      • Purposeful Change (year 2, everyone with the exception of adjuncts teaching less than 6 LEH per year)
      • Grade Distributions – Departmental expectations for grade distributions, if any, should be communicated to all faculty. Since these expectations can reasonably vary not only between departments but also between courses, there is no college-wide standard for this, but it is strongly recommended that expectations take into account that grades in a single class might vary from expectations due to the specific makeup of that class.
      • Student Complaints/Faculty Discipline Issues that have been investigated and substantiated – Note that student complaints/faculty discipline might be addressed under either Instructional Performance or Student Feedback and Faculty Reflection, depending on which is most appropriate.
      • Class Observation Report(s) (where applicable – required during first semester teaching with the college, some departments may choose to require for all faculty, and individual observations may also be requested as part of a Performance Improvement Plan).

• • Student Feedback and Faculty Reflection (must be between 20%-30% of Overall Rating) – This rating should be based upon departmental and college-wide requirements, especially the Exemplary Teaching Statement. It should consider the following inputs (depending on the year of the evaluation cycle):
    • • Student Course Evaluations (each year – departments may review additional years when needed to more fully understand the performance of the faculty member)
      • Faculty Reflection Form (each year – departments may review additional years when needed to more fully understand the performance of the faculty member)
      • Student Complaints/Faculty Discipline issues that have been investigated and substantiated – Note that student complaints/faculty discipline might be addressed under either Instructional Performance or Student Feedback and Faculty Reflection, depending on which is most appropriate.

• • Administrative Performance (must be at least 5% of Overall Rating) – Administrative duties in the ACC faculty contract must be met in addition to the timely completion of the following:
    • • Holding the required number of office hours and being available to students during those times
      • Certifying attendance and submitting grades by the deadline at the end of each session
      • Maintaining required information in Lighthouse according to the departmental/college deadlines
      • Submitting textbook order/information by the appropriate deadlines (where applicable)
      • Maintaining departmentally required information in Blackboard for each course (where applicable)
      • Submitting syllabi and other departmentally required documents by the required deadlines
      • Appropriate and timely submission of all required faculty evaluation materials
      • Responding to student, departmental, and college communications in a timely manner
      • Fulfilling other required departmental duties (where applicable)
  • Professional Development and Growth (must be at least 5% of Overall Rating) – This rating should reflect both professional growth and the completion of Professional Development, according to departmental and college requirements. It should also consider stated professional development goals and updates over time, including the following information:
    Goals for Professional Development and Growth (year 3, full-time faculty only)
    • • Goals for Professional Development and Growth (year 3, full-time faculty only)
      • Faculty Reflection Form (each year)
      • Completion of college and department required training, including compliance training.
      • Recorded faculty development hours and how they relate to college requirements and professional growth
  • Professional Service (required for full-time faculty, optional for adjunct faculty; must be at least 15% of the Overall Rating for full-time faculty) – This rating should reflect work outside of the classroom and normal preparation to teach assigned classes (Board policy on full-time faculty service here). This can include service for the department, for the college, or for a professional or industry group. While this is not a required criteria for adjunct faculty, recognition should be awarded to those who contribute service to the department or college, even if paid a stipend. This should consider the following inputs:
    • • Faculty Reflection Form (each year)
      • Values Framework (year 1, full-time faculty only) or, for faculty in their first 3 years of teaching at the college (if approved by their department), a Statement of Teaching Philosophy
      • Other documented information regarding service

The Overall Rating on the Annual Summary Evaluation Form is determined by combining the above ratings together using a weighted average (see Weighting of Annual Summary Evaluation Form Criteria and Computing the Overall Rating for details of this computation) with standards for the weightings defined at a college-wide level. When computing the overall rating, if the total score falls within one of the in-between “Zones” in the score range (see Computing the Overall Rating), the Overall Rating could reasonably be either the rating above that range or the rating below that range, depending on the individual circumstances. The Department Chair will use professional judgment to determine which of those ratings apply, based upon guidance in the section on Computing the Overall Rating and departmental guidance developed through shared governance. A clear explanation of this choice must be included in the Summary Statement section of the Annual Summary Evaluation Form. If the Overall Rating is Approaching ACC Exemplary Teaching and Faculty Expectations or Does Not Meet ACC Faculty Expectations, there are additional required components in the Summary Statement (See below).

This area may be used to make any general comments beyond those given in the individual criteria, especially if the department chair wishes to add to the comments of the designated reviewers.

If the Overall Rating is Approaching ACC Exemplary Teaching and Faculty Expectations, the faculty member must be provided with a list of specific improvements designed to lead to a higher rating in a future evaluation. These necessary improvements must be clearly communicated and faculty are expected to work on improving those items by the next evaluation period.

If the Overall Rating is Does Not Meet ACC Faculty Expectations, a meeting with the Department Chair is required to develop a Performance Improvement Plan with clearly specified outcomes and timeline designed to lead to a higher rating in the following year. The Department will provide assistance in obtaining professional development for skills required to make these improvements. 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 and address the issues in the 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. Failure to make significant progress on these issues within the time specified in the Performance Improvement Plan will result in further action being taken.

• • Designated Reviewer (where applicable; Assistant Department Chair or Evaluation Committee Chair, for example)
  • Department Chair

• • Dated Faculty Acceptance of Receipt – Note that this does not indicate agreement with the conclusions on the form
  • Faculty Response (optional) – Faculty may optionally respond in writing to their summary evaluation
  • Request a Conference with Department Chair (optional) – If the faculty member has any questions or concerns, they may request a conference with the Department Chair

• • Dates Dean’s Approval
  • Dean’s Comments (optional)
  • Approved Next Contract Length – Note that approval for anything less than 3 years constitutes Probationary Status and requires a Performance Improvement Plan, except for faculty in their first three years of teaching at the college.