The college provides a spreadsheet that may be used to automatically compute the Overall Rating here. (It is important that the percentages in the columns on the left be set to correspond to the department’s chosen weightings before use.) Details of this computation are below if you wish to check the computation manually.

Faculty receive a rating for each of the 5 separate criteria (4 criteria for adjuncts) on the Summary Evaluation Form: 1) Instructional Performance, 2) Student Feedback and Faculty Reflection, 3) Administrative Performance, 4) Professional Development and Growth, and, for full-time faculty, 5) Professional Service.

Before scoring, Departments will determine how to convert performance on the departmental rubric on each of the criteria on the Summary Evaluation Form into one of the 3 possible ratings:

ACC Exemplary Teaching and Faculty Expectations Have Been Met

Approaching ACC Exemplary Teaching and Faculty Expectations

Does Not Meet ACC Faculty Expectations

 

Each criterion will contribute a number of points to the Overall Rating by multiplying the weighting for that criterion times the number of points for that rating:

Points:	Rating:
4	ACC Exemplary Teaching and Faculty Expectations Have Been Met
3	Approaching ACC Exemplary Teaching and Faculty Expectations
1	Does Not Meet ACC Faculty Expectations

 

Note that these points are not evenly distributed because it is intended that Approaching ACC Exemplary Teaching and Faculty Expectations is closer to ACC Exemplary Teaching and Faculty Expectations Have Been Met than it is to Does Not Meet ACC Faculty Expectations.

To determine the Overall Rating:

1. 1. For each criterion, multiply the number of points for the rating (see Points chart above) times the percent for that criterion from the weighting chart determined by the department in the appropriate column (full-time or adjunct) to determine the total number of points for that criterion.
   2. Add all those points together.
   3. This gives you the weighted score between 0 and 400.
   4. Look this score up in the following Score table to determine the rating:

Score	Rating
370 – 400	ACC exemplary teaching and faculty expectations have been met
335 – 369	Zone 1 (round up or down depending on context and departmental protocols)
265 – 334	Approaching ACC exemplary teaching and faculty expectations
235 – 264	Zone 2 (round up or down depending on context and departmental protocols)
0 – 234	Does not meet ACC faculty expectations

 

Scores that fall in Zone 1 or Zone 2 could reasonably be either the rating above it or the rating below it, depending on the particular types of improvements that are needed. An explanation for why it was rounded in that direction must be included in the Summary Evaluation Form. (See below for more information.)

The idea behind these “Zones” is that there are multiple ways to arrive at a score, with only 3 ratings available for each criterion. It seems unfair to automatically “round down” if someone is a few points beneath a half-way point without giving serious consideration to the specific circumstances involved. The evaluator must therefore use their departmental goals and professional judgment to decide which of the two ratings is more appropriate. When the decision about whether the rating should be the one above the Zone or the rating below is made, there must be a clear reason given for this choice. Consistent guidelines should be used across the Department in making these decisions.

The following elements should be considered in making this decision:

For purposes of discussion, consider a faculty member whose score falls into Zone 1, between ACC Exemplary Teaching and Faculty Expectations Have Been Met and Approaching ACC Exemplary Teaching and Faculty Expectations.

• • The seriousness of the problems that led to the overall rating (depending on clearly communicated departmental expectations):
    • • If, for example, this rating was due to a failure to cover everything in the departmental course guidelines, then this might result in an Overall Rating of Approaching ACC Exemplary Teaching and Faculty Expectations.
      • If this rating was a result of very limited responses in the Faculty Reflection Forms (questions 1 and 2), then it might result in an Overall Rating of ACC Exemplary Teaching and Faculty Expectations Have Been Met (with a comment under Instructional Performance noting that more care should be taken next year with the Faculty Reflection Form).
  • The extent or frequency of the problem:
    • • For example, consistently failing to cover all of the required topics in a course might result in an overall rating of Approaching ACC Exemplary Teaching and Faculty Expectations.
      • Failing to cover some topics once in a single course might result in ACC Exemplary Teaching and Faculty Expectations have been met (along with a warning for future evaluations).
      • If this is the first time the problem has been noted, then it might result in ACC Exemplary Teaching and Faculty Expectations have been met (along with a warning for future evaluations).
      • If a problem has been mentioned before in a previous year’s evaluation (with a rating of ACC Exemplary Teaching and Faculty Expectations Have Been Met), but the issue continues to persist, that might result in a rating of Approaching ACC Exemplary Teaching and Faculty Expectations.
  • Recognition of the problem by the faculty member with a plan to address it in their Faculty Reflection Form(s). This is exactly the type of self-reflection and planning that the evaluation process seeks to support, so it would be appropriate to assign ACC Exemplary Teaching and Faculty Expectations Have Been Met (with a note about the problem and positive notice taken of their recognition of the problem and plans to address it).
  • While it is possible to consider which overall rating the score is closer to and choose that rating, this is not the recommended method, since it assumes more rigor in the scores than is really justified. It is suggested that this method only be used if other methods seem unclear or if there is no evidence to support otherwise.

Note: The cutoff scores for Zone 1 and Zone 2 were intentionally determined to reflect the presence of lower ratings on elements of the evaluation and to require a closer look in those cases before assigning the overall rating. They are deliberately “wide” to begin with since this methodology is new. Departments may find that certain category ratings landing faculty in one of the Zones are always treated as a “round up” or “round down” for their department, and can therefore adjust the width of that Zone in the future. Any narrower score cutoffs are best decided after using these more flexible cutoffs for at least one evaluation cycle. After that, Departments may choose to narrow the score ranges for Zone 1 and Zone 2 based upon their experience to suit their departmental protocols, as long as they post their revised Score table along with their rubrics and weightings on the college website.