Facebook Richard Bland College
Apply Now

VIII. Evaluation Of Faculty

Evaluation of faculty members’ performance will be conducted on a periodic basis, and will include annual faculty evaluation of all full-time faculty members registered on the Faculty Development Report (FDR). Criteria used for consideration include (1) teaching effectiveness, (2) College service, and (3) professional development and community service. An in-depth evaluation of tenure-eligible and specified-term faculty before the fourth week of their fourth semester at Richard Bland College, and tenured faculty at least every five (5) years following immediately upon award of tenure, will be conducted.

Primary responsibility for evaluation of faculty members’ performance rests with respective department chairs and the Chief Academic Officer. Department chairs, using the Faculty Development Report as a basis, will write an annual evaluation of each faculty member. (In the case of department chairs, the Chief Academic Officer will write the evaluation, the department chair has the opportunity to respond, and the completed FDR is maintained in the Office of the Chief Academic Officer.) Evaluations should be narrative interpretations of submitted information that will be helpful to faculty members and other evaluators. Department chairs will rate the performance of each faculty member with respect to certain stipulated criteria as follows:

  • Excellent
  • Above average
  • Average
  • Needs improvement
  • Needs significant improvement

Ratings of “Needs improvement” or “Needs significant improvement” will be accompanied by comments aimed at suggesting particular strategies for improvement, as well as the request for a meeting to discuss relevant sections.

Final decisions regarding salary increases for the next contracted period of employment will include a joint review of faculty members’ Faculty Development Reports by the Chief Academic Officer and the President.

If this process of annual faculty evaluations identifies a pattern of deficient performance over time, the Chief Academic Officer will conduct a thorough assessment and consult with the faculty member, the appropriate department chair, and the President.

Otherwise, if a need for significant improvement does not initiate the sequence of events just described, the faculty member will see his/her department chair’s evaluation and have the opportunity to provide a written response, to be appended to the FDR and maintained with it. The document will next travel to the Chief Academic Officer for review, and s/he will add his/her response. The faculty member in question will then have the opportunity to see the Chief Academic Officer’s written comments, appended to the FDR, and have a chance to respond to these in writing. This FDR, now bearing the signatures of the faculty member submitting the document, the individual’s department chair, and the Chief Academic Officer, along with up to two responses to evaluators’ comments provided by the faculty member, is to be maintained by the Chief Academic Officer’s office.

A. Tenured Faculty

  1. Annual Faculty Development Report (FDR), required contents:
    All full-time faculty members must complete an annual Faculty Development Report. This report will detail evidence in support of the faculty member’s (1) teaching effectiveness, weighted at 70% of overall performance, (2) College service, weighted at 20% of overall performance, and (3) professional development and/or public service, weighted at 10% of overall performance. Contents for the reports should be determined and organized as follows:

    1. “Teaching Effectiveness” section will include:
      1. A description of the nature and quality of the faculty member’s teaching, to include but not be limited to information relating to course load, course presentations, innovative techniques used in the classroom, use of technology, record of help offered students outside of class time, grading of papers, testing procedures, choice of textbooks, and any additional demonstrations of professional growth deemed relevant by the faculty member;
      2. Self-evaluative passage of reflection on student achievement of course objectives listed on the syllabus for each course; and
      3. Student course evaluation data from all courses.
    2. “College service” section will include information relating to
      1. Student advising;
      2. Fulfillment of discipline and department responsibilities;
      3. Committee participation:
        Committee chairs will submit evaluations of their participation to faculty members on all standing committees, self-study committees, and major ad hoc committees in time to allow faculty to forward these to their department chairs together with the Faculty Development Report. Faculty members who have maintained a record of active involvement with committees of which they are not official members may also request a statement about their contributions to the relevant committee from committee chairs, and
      4. College-wide activities.
    3. Professional development section will include information relating to:
      1. Membership in professional organizations;
      2. Attendance at, and if relevant, participation in professional meetings and conferences;
      3. Research and/or publications; and
      4. Graduate credits earned during the relevant period of time.
    4. Evidence of public service may be included in the section with professional development, and may include evidence of participation in civic and social-services activities, memberships in relevant organizations, and/or talks given which are of public benefit, but not professional in nature.
  2. Promotion Review
    In addition to the annual Faculty Development Report, a portfolio review will be conducted for tenured faculty eligible for promotion. (See information on “portfolios” below, under “tenure-eligible faculty seeking tenure and/or promotion.”)
  3. Post-Tenure Review
    In addition to the annual Faculty Development Report, every five (5) years a post-tenure portfolio review will be conducted for tenured faculty. The portfolio will cover the previous five (5) years. It will include Faculty Development Reports and department chair evaluations from those years, as well as student evaluations from the previous two (2) years. The portfolio will be evaluated by the Peer Review Committee. For faculty members engaged in the five (5)-year review process, the relevant department chair will write a review covering the faculty member’s record for the relevant interval. If the Peer Review Committee identifies a pattern of deficient performance, the Chief Academic Officer will conduct a thorough assessment, to include:

    1. The faculty member’s expected long-term contribution to Richard Bland College;
    2. Areas where improvement is needed;
    3. A plan for ways to deal with problem areas; and
    4. A timetable addressing a strategy for measuring progress toward improvement over the next three (3) semesters.Annual evaluations in succeeding years will specifically address progress toward improvement as established in the timetable.
      A faculty member who does not meet the requirements for satisfactory performance (as specified in the plan and measured by the agreed-upon timetable) may be subject to disciplinary actions consistent with College policy on such matters.

B. Tenure-Eligible Faculty Seeking Tenure and/or Promotion

1. See #1, “annual Faculty Development Report,” under “Tenured Faculty”

2. Tenure and Promotion Review:

  1. Portfolios
    1. Submission of Pre-Tenure Portfolio
      Non-tenured, tenure-eligible faculty will have the opportunity to submit for evaluation a pre-tenure portfolio at the beginning of their fourth semester of teaching at Richard Bland College. The purpose of the portfolio is to provide evidence for the evaluation of teaching effectiveness, College service, and professional development and community service in a consolidated format. The portfolio will cover the first three (3) semesters and will be organized to make a case on behalf of the faculty member indicating progress is being made toward tenure and promotion.
    2. Submission of Tenure Portfolio
      Non-tenured, tenure-eligible faculty will submit for evaluation a tenure portfolio at the beginning of their sixth year of teaching at Richard Bland College. The purpose of the portfolio is to provide, in a consolidated format, evidence for the evaluation of teaching effectiveness, College service, and professional development, and community service. The portfolio will cover the first five (5) years, and will be the basis for consideration of a granting of tenure to the faculty member.

    Promotion portfolios provide a ready means for helping committees assess the teaching effectiveness, College service, and professional development and community service of faculty members coming up for promotion. The portfolio will cover various lengths of service (depending on promotion level) in the profession and/or at the College, and will be the basis for consideration of faculty members’ promotion in rank. Promotion portfolios will include:

    1. A copy of the faculty member’s curriculum vitae, and a reflective essay elaborating on his/her teaching philosophy and professional development;
    2. The first two (2) Faculty Development Reports (pre-tenure review), first five (5) Faculty Development Reports (tenure review), or all Faculty Development Reports since the last promotion (promotion review);
    3. A sampling of instructor-provided materials used in each course taught during the relevant Materials should be representative of course overviews and syllabi, assignment lists, research paper assignments, reading lists, study guides, handouts, problem sets, laboratory exercises, tests, final examinations, or other course material deemed of interest to evaluators;
    4. Grade distributions and student course evaluations for the relevant interval;
    5. A list detailing the faculty member’s committee service, along with committee chair evaluations
    6. A summary of activities pertaining to advising, discipline, department, and college-wide activities, and professional development and community service involvement;
    7. A summary of academic assessment activity pertaining to student learning or engagement, if not already reflected in the faculty member’s Faculty Development Reports; and
    8. Other evidence the candidate believes may be relevant and helpful to his/her evaluation for promotion.

    The portfolio will be evaluated by the Peer Review Committee:

  2. Process Subsequent to Portfolio SubmissionThe Peer Review Committee will be responsible for all pre-tenure review, initial specified-term review, post-tenure review, promotion review up to the rank of full professor, and multi-year contract recommendations. The committee will write its evaluation based on the submitted materials, consisting of an assessment of those materials, with the additions of data gathered during their classroom observations and suggestions for continued professional growth. The evaluation will be forwarded to the appropriate department chair. The department chair will write an evaluation and forward all materials to the Dean of Faculty. The Chief Academic Officer will write an in-depth review of the faculty member seeking tenure and/or promotion. This review will focus on teaching performance, productivity, and potential to excel. The review is intended to give the faculty member an indication of perceptions of his/her effectiveness, and to make suggestions for continued professional growth. The Chief Academic Officer will meet with the faculty member and set goals needing to be met for potential granting of tenure, promotion, or the award of a multi-year contract.Other criteria for evaluation of the faculty member by the committee will include, in addition to those factors already mentioned:
    1. The faculty member’s teaching load;
    2. The perceived quality of the instructional materials used by the faculty member in each course;
    3. Development of each course, including use of assessment to allow for continuous improvement;
    4. Appropriateness of the intellectual tasks set his/her classes by the faculty member;
    5. The quality of the testing conducted in each course, with student learning outcomes as a consideration;
    6. The distribution of grades, if appropriate;
    7. Quality of committee service, if capable of determination;
    8. Quality of discipline, division, and College-wide service, if capable of This would include advising;
    9. Demonstrated commitment to professional growth; and
    10. Representation of Richard Bland College in the community.

C. Specified –Term, Full-Time Faculty

1. See #1, “annual Faculty Development Report,” under “Tenured Faculty” above

2. Promotion and Continuing Appointment Reviews

Non-tenured faculty with specified-term contracts will submit a portfolio for evaluation at the beginning of their fourth semester of teaching at Richard Bland College, and every successive three (3) or five (5) years thereafter (depending on contractual arrangement). The portfolio will cover the first three (3) semesters or previous three (3)/five (5) years, and will be the basis for considerations of multi-year contracts and promotion. (See information on “portfolios” above, under “tenure-eligible faculty seeking tenure and/or promotion.”)

D. Specified-Term, Part-Time Faculty (Adjunct)

Specified term part-time (adjunct) faculty members, including those teaching dual-enrollment and online/distance classes for College credit, will have a classroom observation conducted during their first semester and subsequently once per academic year by their respective department chairs, or the designees of those chairs.   The written evaluation that results from this will be discussed with each faculty member, and will form the basis for consideration in awarding future teaching contracts to the relevant faculty members.

Faculty Handbook

Ready to Create Your Journey?

Deciding where to go to college is a big step, and we're here to help you every step of the way. Connect with us to find out more about Richard Bland College.