MARCH 10, 1998
An executive session convened at 5:30 p.m., pursuant to A.R.S. ¤38-431.02, notice having duly given.
A citizens interim and work session of the Maricopa County Community College District Governing Board was scheduled to be held at 6:30 p.m. at the District Support Services Center, 2411 West 14th Street, Tempe, Arizona.
Ed Contreras, President
Linda B. Rosenthal, Secretary
Gene Eastin, Member
Donald R. Campbell, Member
Nancy Stein, Member
Paul A. Elsner
Alfredo G. de los Santos Jr.
Tessa Martinez Pollack
Call to Order
The meeting was called to order at 5:30 p.m. by President Ed Contreras.
President Stein called for a motion convening an executive session, notice having been previously given.
Linda Rosenthal moved that an executive session be convened. Motion carried 5-0.
The meeting recessed at 5:31 p.m.
The meeting reconvened at 6:50 p.m.
Mr. Contreras announced that the Citizens Interim was held an opportunity for those who wished to speak regarding proposed tuition and fees for fiscal year 1998-99. The following citizens came forward.
Jamey Taylor read from a letter that he had written to Governor Hull inquiring why the Maricopa Community College District is not receiving its fair share of State funds, which he indicates results in tuition increases for students.
Tyrone Hanks, a Mesa Community College student, expressed his opposition to the tuition increase. One of his concerns is the longer length of time it may take for him to get into a pre-med program due to higher tuition costs. He asked that other options to raise the funding be explored rather than raise tuition.
Kim Zuchowsky, a member of the Mesa Community College Student Government, expressed her opposition to the proposed tuition increase and asked that other avenues be explored to raise needed funding. Ms. Zuchowsky identified herself as a returning student and noted the financial difference between attending community colleges and universities is decreasing.
Gerard Langkilde, Mesa Community College Student Government President, expressed his opposition to the proposed tuition increase. He noted that though there may be financial aid available to students, as a white male he is excluded from availability for most scholarships. If the tuition were to increase much more, he may have to skip a semester of school due to lack of funds. Mr. Langkilde also noted that the financial gap between the community colleges and the universities is lessening and asked for a close look to be taken at the proposed increase.
Cindy Martin, a member of the Mesa Community College Student Government, stated that the a strong education and personal growth she acquired at Mesa Community College will help her to be ready to go on to the university. Ms. Martin expressed opposition to the tuition increase and asked that a way be found to find funding that would not put students at risk.
Mr. Contreras asked that Rufus Glasper, Vice Chancellor for Business Services, to come forward to provide information regarding the proposed tuition and fees for 1998-99. Dr. Glasper explained that many options had been explored prior to recommending the tuition increase and provided an overview of the factors which led to the tuition and fees as proposed. Dr. Glasper asked for any questions. There were none.
(II.A.1) Post Termination Process
Mr. Contreras requested the item be pulled from the agenda and brought back to the Governing Board for consideration at the next meeting. There being no questions or discussion, the item was pulled.
Work Session Proposed Faculty Evaluation Plan (FEP)
Pat Case welcomed the group and explained that the purpose for the session was to provide an understanding of the proposed new faculty evaluation plan (hereinafter referred to as "FEP"). She introduced the presenters for the session - Abbie Hemingway, Jack Peterson, Jim Daugherty, and Ken Roberts.
Ken Roberts provided an overview of the old or existing faculty evaluation process and the evaluation instrument, which was provided in the agenda materials.
Jack Peterson provided a history of the development of the FEP. In 1989 a committee of faculty and department chairs from Mesa Community College was started to look at the faculty evaluation system. In 1993, Jack was invited to appear before the Governing Board to report on the progress and activities of the committee. Faculty evaluations plans of several other colleges districts from throughout the country were examined and a number of workshops and conferences. One of the proposals that arose from that work was a request for release time to pilot test some of the processes. A districtwide committee, which reflected the diversity of the district, was formed that eventually led to the development of the FEP as presented at this meeting.
Abbie Hemingway provided a slide presentation of an overview of the FEP, including the basic assumptions of the plan and the responsibilities involved. In the plan, the faculty members design their own evaluations, assess their delivery and programs, decide the focus of their FEP, and choose their mentors to assist in the process. Linda Rosenthal inquired what would occur in the event a faculty member, using the FEP, decided that he or she had nothing to improve upon. Abbie indicated that the faculty member must still confer with their mentor/colleagues for evaluation to justify there is no improvement necessary. It was suggested that perhaps a neutral party needs to administer the written evaluation to the students. The only written requirement of the FEP is the summary, although the evaluee may wish to embellish on any point and include documentation. The summary and endorsement sheet are the only pieces that become a part of the permanent file. Abbie discussed a plan of action that involves at least one representative from each college meeting together for a training session on the FEP and take that training program learn back to their campuses. Proper training will be a key component for success for the FEP process.
Ken Roberts provided examples of FEP portfolios that had been completed one performed by a librarian and one performed by academic faculty. The FEP's were performed over the course of a year with various forms of feedback and evaluation. Ken noted that both faculty members drove their own process. Abbie indicated that FEP's do not have to be in a portfolio format. An example of another format is a group of English teachers who worked out common criteria and developed their own template they could all use. Pat Case indicated that the old evaluation plan can still be incorporated in the proposed FEP. Jack provided an example of an FEP by a faculty member with provisional status. His summary sheet for his first year set his goals and objectives. His evaluation of his second and third years would relate back to his original first year document.
Jack Peterson went through the key ideas of the FEP, which included:
- Focuses on improvement of performance rather than just gathering data
- It broadens the focus of faculty evaluation to include other professional roles, such as advising, mentoring, professional growth opportunities, etc.
- It provides more flexibility than present system
- Important to recognize the different ways in which people teach
- Current system does not apply to methods of teaching
- Expansion of evaluation team
- Can use classroom visit as part of evaluation, but not required
- Critical to have student input and mandate it as part of the system
- The old evaluation system can used along with the FEP
- Simplified summary and evaluation sheets
Jack Peterson discussed some of the concerns raised by Mesa Community College department chairs regarding the FEP, which included:
- Loss of control by the chair over the process, as they could be bypassed as a team member.
- Concern that the value of increased flexibility in the process could be offset by some faculty using it to avoid evaluation by traditional authority figures.
- Questions arose how teachers who are performing up to expectations would be dealt with under the FEP. Jack noted that this issue is already dealt with in the RFP.
- Lack of structure for administering student questionnaires. There should be standardized way of gathering data.
Ken Roberts discussed some of the comments and concerns raised by the deans of instruction. These included:
- Strengths of FEP
- Faculty driven
- Deans or department chair could be bypassed by provisional faculty.
- The dates for the FEP do not correspond with dates in the non-renewal process provided in the RFP.
Jim Daugherty, faculty chair for meet and confer, presented an overview of the proposed implementation for the FEP.
First two years:
Years three through five:
- Mandatory classroom visitation will occur for probationary faculty, as in the current "legacy" plan, by dean, department chair and a person selected by the faculty member. An FEP would not be required, but may be conducted.
- FEP as designed by the faculty member, including the possibility of classroom visitations as they current exist or some modification thereof. A classroom visit may also be performed by dean or department chair if there is a signed student complaint.
- Not a part of the FEP, but as part of the probationary faculty reform package, at the end the four year period, the dean and department chair will meet with the probationary faculty to determine the strengths and opportunities for improvement. The faculty member may want their FEP to be an instrument included in this process.
- Regarding appointive faculty, the implementation would be to design and implement an FEP every three years. It could be the current plan or some variation thereof and would be implemented on the same schedule as the current plan.
Mrs. Rosenthal inquired as to the comments received from those who piloted the FEP process. Bob Galloway, Art Faculty from Mesa Community College, responded that he had performed a pilot program. The first year was difficult for him as it was a new process, but he now uses information from that year as a master to base and build upon subsequent evaluations. It should last as long as he is teaching that discipline. In response to an inquiry to the committee members by Gene Eastin as to their opinion of the two year legacy plan for the provisional faculty, Ken Roberts indicated that the proposed implementation plan does meet the concerns of the deans. Mr. Eastin inquired if there had been any faculty opposition to the FEP document as written. It was indicated that the all faculty have seen the document and have had the opportunity to vote on it. Any concerns are being addressed within the association. In response to an inquiry from Mr. Eastin, Pat Case indicated that faculty observation in the classroom is optional after the first two years. Pat also indicate that her experience with her own FEP was very beneficial. Regarding the three year appointive status, Arnette Ward inquired what part of the process provided for knowing that the faculty member will improve. Saundra Minckley responded that there is nothing now in the current process that guarantees improvement. Jack responded that the cycle is being expanded from a one year to a three year cycle. Ken Roberts indicated that with the FEP, he has some benchmark data that he look at and use as a standard to measure performance. Mr. Eastin asked if the process could be abused and how. Response was given that it could be abused if a faculty member could do so by the choices made for evaluation committee members, but if that would occur the administrative review process would most likely be used because problems become apparent at some point.
Pat Case thanked the group for attending.
The meeting adjourned at 8:25 p.m.