Greg Morris: How will the committee determine if the change in policy provided a better assessment? Johnson: That is up for the committee to determine. Sarraille: There is a linkage between the consideration to do more IDEA and what we mean by doing more evaluations. We are not evaluating teaching effectiveness, IDEA is not appropriate for judging people for retention; a thorough evaluation is a high climb for people who work in this institution. He does not have a solution. We need to consider the linkages, when we consider how many IDEA evaluations to do. Ghuman is concerned about the word Will the committee publicize their definition of “better”. can the senate discuss what Speaker Carroll said that maybe a “better”; “better” means? synonym for will be suggested. “better” Regalado expressed a concern about coming up with an evaluation system for their own department; departments cannot get rid of IDEA. In the spirit of getting a better evaluation, his department has a better system, but cannot dump IDEA. The process is worse than the Catholic Church as far as getting anything changed. Johnson: this review is required because of a resolution that was passed two years ago to review whether or not the 50% is appropriate. Thompson agreed with Regalado, there needs to be a movement to produce a path towards getting an alternate evaluation system. Committee would be asking the department RPT committees if the change provided a level of assessment. “better” Filling evaluating 50% of courses provides more data; does it reframed Thompson’s question: also provide more information? Nagel moved an amendment, seconded by Strahm to strike the first line of the charge to read as follows: did the change in policy affect assessment of faculty teaching effectiveness for “How periodic evaluation of faculty to the removal of Moving members?” Morris objected “better”. from 2 evaluations to 50% provides more data; does the 50% show the same results as the 2 evaluations? Ghuman also asked: does the data provide more valuable information? Johnson moved to offer an amendment to the amendment, seconded by the change Filling. “Did in policy increase the ability to assess faculty teaching for periodic evaluation of effectiveness” faculty members. Carroll suggested the change in policy provide a more useful basis to assess faculty teaching “did effectiveness?”
Greg Morris: How will the committee determine if the change in policy provided a better assessment? Johnson: That is up for the committee to determine. Sarraille: There is a linkage between the consideration to do more IDEA and what we mean by doing more evaluations. We are not evaluating teaching effectiveness, IDEA is not appropriate for judging people for retention; a thorough evaluation is a high climb for people who work in this institution. He does not have a solution. We need to consider the linkages, when we consider how many IDEA evaluations to do. Ghuman is concerned about the word “better”. Will the committee publicize their definition of “better”; can the senate discuss what “better” means? Speaker Carroll said that maybe a synonym for “better” will be suggested. Regalado expressed a concern about coming up with an evaluation system for their own department; departments cannot get rid of IDEA. In the spirit of getting a better evaluation, his department has a better system, but cannot dump IDEA. The process is worse than the Catholic Church as far as getting anything changed. Johnson: this review is required because of a resolution that was passed two years ago to review whether or not the 50% is appropriate. Thompson agreed with Regalado, there needs to be a movement to produce a path towards getting an alternate evaluation system. Committee would be asking the department RPT committees if the change provided a “better” level of assessment. Filling reframed Thompson’s question: evaluating 50% of courses provides more data; does it also provide more information? Nagel moved an amendment, seconded by Strahm to strike the first line of the charge to read as follows: “How did the change in policy affect assessment of faculty teaching effectiveness for periodic evaluation of faculty members?” Morris objected to the removal of “better”. Moving from 2 evaluations to 50% provides more data; does the 50% show the same results as the 2 evaluations? Ghuman also asked: does the data provide more valuable information? Johnson moved to offer an amendment to the amendment, seconded by Filling. “Did the change in policy increase the ability to assess faculty teaching effectiveness” for periodic evaluation of faculty members. Carroll suggested “did the change in policy provide a more useful basis to assess faculty teaching effectiveness?”
academic_senate_minutes_march_10_2015.docx