Accreditation - Hartnell College!!

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Institutional Self Evaluation – 12-05-12 III.A.1.b The institution assures the effectiveness of its human resources by evaluating all personnel systematically and at stated intervals. The institution establishes written criteria for evaluating all personnel, including performance of assigned duties and participation in institutional responsibilities and other activities appropriate to their expertise. Evaluation processes seek to assess effectiveness of personnel and encourage improvement. Actions taken following evaluations are formal, timely, and documented. Descriptive Summary As an institution of higher education, Hartnell College embodies a culture of seeking improvement through assessment and learning. One way that this culture is expressed is through the collective bargaining agreements, working conditions, and administrative procedures that provide for regular, comprehensive evaluation of employees. All collective bargaining agreements contain a statement of the purposes of evaluations. The following statement of purpose, from the article on the evaluation of regular (tenured) faculty, is representative: 1. Improve the educational programs of the District; 2. Recognize outstanding performance; 3. Improve satisfactory performance and further the growth of employees who are performing satisfactorily; 4. Identify weak performance and assist employees in achieving required improvement; 5. Document unsatisfactory performance. Every full-time or part-time employee is evaluated according to formal, clearly written processes, outlined in their respective collective bargaining agreements, working conditions, or associated administrative procedures. These procedures set forth the criteria for evaluations, the timelines for completing evaluations, and the instruments to complete the processes, appended to the collective bargaining agreements, and posted to the District‘s website. EVALUATION OF FACULTY All full-time faculty are evaluated according to the criteria, procedures, and timelines contained in articles 13 (regular) or 14 (probationary) of the collective bargaining agreement between the District and the Hartnell College Faculty Association (HCFA). (III.A.11) The evaluation criteria include an assessment of the faculty member‘s professional competence—demonstrated knowledge and currency in field of expertise, demonstrated effective preparation and planning; knowledge of appropriate educational methods and Page 194
Institutional Self Evaluation – 12-05-12 techniques; clarity of communication, direction, and advice, creation of an educational environment that respects the dignity and individuality of each student—and professional conduct, including participation in professional activities and college committees, and cooperative behavior and willingness to help students with their academic growth. The evaluation also may assess enumerated professional competence, professional growth, and professional activities. The process includes several classroom or service observations by peers and a supervisor, evaluations by students, and a self evaluation. Both the peer and the supervisor prepare work site observation reports and together prepare a summary evaluation. Probationary faculty are evaluated at least once during each year of probation. More frequent evaluations are conducted at the discretion of the District. Regular academic faculty are evaluated at least once every six regular semesters. The timelines for evaluation are specific and extensive. At the end of each review process, probationary faculty are provided with a summary of the evaluations, and recommendations for continued improvement. Hartnell College‘s written tenure review process has remained substantially unchanged for at least a decade. The Academic Senate has been interested to change the process to include more faculty participation, particularly in the composition of the Tenure Review Committee. Currently, while each probationary faculty member has an individualized evaluation team containing his or her peer and supervisor, there is one Tenure Review Committee that reviews the evaluations of all probationary faculty each year. The Committee is composed of two administrators (the vice presidents of Academic Affairs and Student Services, or their designees) and two faculty (the Academic Senate president and vice president, or their designees). For the last several years, a partner in the law firm of Liebert Cassidy and Whitmore has presented a tenure review rules and responsibilities workshop to the Board of Trustees at its March meeting, just before it hears tenure recommendations and makes its determination on the award of continuing contracts or tenure. That attorney has advised the Board that the Hartnell Tenure Review process is a very good one. Part-time faculty are evaluated for their teaching ability and other areas of professional competence. The District and the faculty union have agreed to negotiate a process for the evaluation of part-time faculty, but this has not yet been accomplished. This process will be sunshined for the successor agreement in the faculty-District CBA negotiations in the spring. Considering that the District, like so many community colleges, relies heavily on the contributions of part-time faculty, this is an area of critical importance. Hartnell has been further challenged in this respect by the uncertain and changing staffing of the academic areas. For instance, in 2007 and 2008, a transformation committee recommended that the college reorganize in several ways, including the assignment of academic chairs to departments. The scope of responsibilities for these faculty roles was left to be negotiated. In the meantime, no deans were hired, as much of that work was to be accomplished by the new academic chairs, and faculty who accepted release time to perform the administrative duties of a chair role (called ―pod leaders‖) saw their role as excluding evaluative duties. Despite diligent and congenial negotiations over the next two years, the Page 195
Page 1 and 2:
H A R T N E L L C O M M U N I T Y C
Page 3 and 4:
Institutional Self Evaluation - 12-
Page 5 and 6:
Page 7 and 8:
Page 9 and 10:
Page 11 and 12:
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45 and 46:
Page 47 and 48:
Page 49 and 50:
Page 51 and 52:
Page 53 and 54:
Page 55 and 56:
Page 57 and 58:
Page 59 and 60:
Page 61 and 62:
Page 63 and 64:
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68:
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
BSI Improvement (%) Institutional S
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146: Institutional Self Evaluation - 12-
Page 195: Institutional Self Evaluation - 12-
Page 247 and 248:
Page 249 and 250:
Page 251 and 252:
Approximately $9.7 million or 21% o
Page 253 and 254:
The college meets this standard. Pl
Page 255 and 256:
levels that support the college’s
Page 257 and 258:
III.D.1.b Institutional planning re
Page 259 and 260:
Assumptions are reviewed during the
Page 261 and 262:
The institutional planning and asse
Page 263 and 264:
The audit report includes a managem
Page 265 and 266:
financial decision making process i
Page 267 and 268:
III.D.3.a The institution has suffi
Page 269 and 270:
and restricted funds; and to demons
Page 271 and 272:
Planning Agenda None. III.D.3.d The
Page 273 and 274:
III.D.3.g Contractual agreements wi
Page 275 and 276:
III.D.4 Financial resource planning
Page 277 and 278:
Standard III D: Evidence III.D.1 Ha
Page 279 and 280:
Page 281 and 282:
Page 283 and 284:
Page 285 and 286:
Page 287 and 288:
Page 289 and 290:
Page 291 and 292:
Page 293 and 294:
Page 295 and 296:
Page 297 and 298:
Page 299 and 300:
Page 301 and 302:
Page 303 and 304:
Page 305 and 306:
Page 307 and 308:
Page 309 and 310:
Page 311 and 312:
Page 313 and 314:
Page 315 and 316:
Page 317 and 318:
Page 319 and 320:
Page 321 and 322:
Page 323 and 324:
Page 325 and 326:
Page 327 and 328:
Page 329 and 330:
Page 331:
show all

Accreditation - Hartnell College!!

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?