- College Leadership
- ACC Vision - Strategic Plan
- Employment at ACC
- Faculty & Staff Directory
- Institutional Research
Policies & Procedures
- AP 0-01 ACC Procedure Process
- AP 1-40 Academic Freedom
- AP 3-10 Employment Selection Procedure
- AP 3-10a Employment Standards Faculty Instructors
- AP 3-10b Faculty And Instructor Qualifications
- AP 3-20 Due Process Faculty
- AP 3-31 Evaluation Faculty Job Performance
- AP 3-31a Evaluation Administrative Professional And Technical Staff
- AP 3-44 Faculty Professional Development Award
- AP 3-45 Administrative, Professional and Technical Salary Plan
- AP 3-55 Faculty Salary Plan
- AP 3-60 Transitional Retirement Program
- AP 3-80 Faculty Rights Responsibilities And Workload
- AP 3-81 Chairs Rights And Responsibilities
- AP 3-110 Records Management And Colorado Open Records Act Requests
- AP 3-125g Web It Accessibility Plan
- AP 3-150 Employee Code Conduct
- AP 3-160 Travel and Relocation Assistance for Finalists and New Hires
- AP 4-25 Tuition Classification Appeal
- AP 9-09 Requirements for Certificates and Degrees
- AP 9-30 Curriculum Development
- AP 9-47 Instructional Program Review
- AP 16-60a Protocol for Non-Commercial Expressive Activity on Campus by the General Public
- AP 16-60b Protocol for Vending and Solicitation on Campus
- AP 16-60c Protocol for Posting and Bulletin Boards on Campus
- AP 19-30a Tobacco and Smoke Free Campus
- Classified Leave Sharing Program
- Visit ACC
AP 3-31 Evaluation Faculty Job Performance
Arapahoe Community College
Series 3 - College Personnel
AP 3-31 - Evaluation of Faculty Job Performance
Originated: June 1996
Revised: April 2002; August 2004, March 2005; January 2006; April 2010; April 2011; April 2013; January 2015; July 2016; August 2021
Effective: June 1996; April 2002; August 2004; retroactive September 1, 2004; July 1, 2006; April 2010; April 2011; April 2013; March 1, 2015; July 2016; August 2021
Stephanie J. Fujii, Ph.D.
President, Arapahoe Community College
The goal of faculty evaluation is to assess faculty performance and reward contribution to the success of students and improvement of the College.
This Procedure contains pertinent information affecting faculty members, current through the date of its issuance. To the extent that any provision of this Procedure is inconsistent with State or Federal law, State Board for Community Colleges and Occupational Education Policies (BPs) or Colorado Community College System President’s Procedures (SPs), the law, BPs and SPs shall supersede and control. BPs and SPs are subject to change throughout the year and are effective immediately upon adoption by the Board or System President, respectively. Faculty members are expected to be familiar with and adhere to the BPs, SPs as well as College directives, including but not limited to this Procedure.
Nothing in this Procedure is intended to create (nor shall be construed as creating) an express or implied contract or to guarantee employment for any term. The College reserves the right to modify, change, delete or add to this Procedure as it deems appropriate.
This evaluation procedure shall apply to all faculties, as defined in Board Policy BP 3-20. Faculty shall be evaluated by their supervisors following the guidelines set forth in these procedures. Nothing in this procedure shall be construed to limit academic freedom as defined by AP 1-40 or limit due process rights as defined in BP 3-20 and AP 3-20.
Faculty - Refer to BP 3-10 (Administration of Personnel)
Supervisor - The employee who faculty member directly reports to. This individual has requisite training for the performance evaluation process.
Second level supervisor - The employee who the supervisor directly reports to. This individual has requisite training for the performance evaluation process.
Performance Plan - Documented agreement between faculty and supervisor on projected activities or improvements for the evaluation period. It should be based on workload and assignments unique to the individual.
Performance Plan Evaluation - Documented result of the performance plan.
- Procedure for Faculty Evaluation
- Factors in Evaluation of Job Performance
Faculty will be evaluated equitably and holistically according to their documented responsibilities, job description, and efforts to complete goals that they have set in conjunction with their supervisor. Faculty goals should be based on Board, College, and department/program priorities. These documented responsibilities and goals will determine the specific focus of the faculty member’s evaluation. The evaluation must include goals in both instruction and service, which may contain goals related to professional development and service to community. A faculty member is expected to devote effort and attention to instruction and service to the College. Most faculty members will devote more time to instruction, but may focus more on service in such circumstances including but not limited to: provisional status; reduced teaching loads for department chair or other leadership duties; special assignments or projects, such as accreditation; work on a grant or innovation project; or where performance concerns have been identified.
A faculty member’s focus in instruction shall be on teaching excellence, which can include learning and applying culturally responsive education and inclusive learning environments into classroom instruction and curriculum; demonstrating equity and inclusion skills that are measurable, student-focused, and support equity in achieving learning outcomes; active student engagement that empowers learners to think critically and achieve academic, professional, and personal goals; robust instructional content that is thought-provoking, current and relevant; meaningful assessment and timely feedback related to student progress in achieving learning outcomes; continuous improvement of teaching and learning through evidence-based practices, reflection, innovation, and collaboration; and other College priorities.
A faculty member’s focus on service includes fulfilling the mission and goals of the College outside of the classroom. Components of service to be considered in the evaluation should be based on the faculty member’s job description, role, goals, and documented responsibilities. Faculty should be expected to participate in activities that encompass both College-needed service and other chosen service activities annually that include clear evidence of engagement and participation. These may include, but are not limited to, departmental service, including curriculum coordination and development; advising and outreach; administrative assignments; and committee work at a campus- level, college, or System-wide; sponsoring and participating in student activities; or community service events related to the College and tied to that particular faculty member’s goals and job responsibilities. Additional activities may include serving as the College representative on a local board or commission, making community or professional presentations, serving as a liaison to local schools, or serving as an elected or appointed member of local boards as a representative of the College.
Professional development activities may also be a part of service on the evaluation. Activities should focus on either continuous improvement in teaching or best practices in higher education as related to College initiatives, maintaining expertise in the field, or personal enrichment in higher education structure or leadership.
In addition, as performance goals are only one aspect of evaluation, evaluators should consider the entirety of a faculty member’s job. Such holistic items might include the position description; trends and patterns in student comments and course evaluations; professional and courteous interaction with students, staff, and colleagues (this interaction shall not diminish professional critical debate, which is both necessary and appropriate in an academic institution); and active engagement, collaboration, and constructive cooperation in department and College activities.
Compliance with Board Policies (BPs) and System Procedures (SPs) is a requirement of all CCCS employees; noncompliance will be an overall negative factor in a faculty member’s evaluation.
- Definitions of Performance Ratings
There shall be three performance ratings: Exemplary, Commendable, Needs Improvement. Faculty must receive a performance rating of Exemplary or Commendable to be eligible for salary increases.
To receive a rating of “exemplary,” a faculty member must exhibit clearly superior performance contributions and consistently surpass position requirements in all areas and goals. Examples of qualities or activities an “exemplary” faculty member might demonstrate in instruction include, but are not limited to: exceptional proficiencies in both instructional delivery and course design and planning; engaging students at a high level; learning and applying culturally responsive education and inclusive learning environments into classroom instruction and curriculum; demonstrating a strong commitment to using assessment data to guide revision of their teaching methods to improve student outcomes; leading the integration of new technology into the classroom; or developing new courses or curriculum either in the classroom or online that are of impressive quality.
When considering service, exemplary faculty consistently perform their department and discipline responsibilities at a high level and take active leadership or make specific contributions on specific initiatives that meet significant College or department goals. For example, if charged with managing a career/technical program, they might demonstrate very strong relationships with industry partners that lead to high levels of program support, internships, and high placement rates for students. For general education faculty, it could be similar, but the partnership might be with a transfer institution.
Other examples that might characterize exemplary service include: effective leadership roles in College or System committees; developing significant relationships in the community that meet College goals (with institutions like K-12 districts, other colleges, or key business partners); making a contribution to their field of study, either in published work, presentations, or service in a professional organization; leadership in broader College initiatives that improve teaching and learning like Learning Communities, Service Learning, Writing Across the Curriculum, or similar initiatives.
To receive a rating of “commendable,” a faculty member must abide by all College guidelines, CCCS policies and procedures, and meet department/program, College, and Board goals related to their area of responsibility, including performance goals defined in their Performance Plan. While they may occasionally or periodically demonstrate superior performance, commendable faculty members consistently meet basic instructional requirements, including following curriculum guidelines, College and department/program syllabus policies, assessment requirements, and deadlines for schedules and grades.
Examples of qualities or activities a “commendable” faculty member might demonstrate in instruction include, but are not limited to: demonstrating currency in the field and in teaching methodology; demonstrating equity and inclusion skills that support equity in achieving learning outcomes; demonstrating proficiency in both instructional delivery and course design and planning; striving toward innovation in teaching methods and a commitment to continuous improvement of student learning outcomes, including meeting College guidelines for assessment of student learning.
Commendable faculty members engage actively in service such as serving on department and College committees, engaging in department and College functions and activities, advising students as appropriate and demonstrating professional and courteous behavior. They also meet the critical duties of their assigned roles. For example, if charged with managing a program, they meet all basic program requirements, including holding productive advisory committee meetings and appropriately advising students. Or, if charged with hiring and mentoring part-time instructors, they provide appropriate screening, orientation, and supervision, including classroom observations.
A faculty member “Needs Improvement” when they do not meet the criteria of a “commendable” performance rating; they fail to competently meet the teaching or program management standards outlined above or in College guidelines, fail to provide significant service to the College or department, or violate the expectation of professional and collegial behavior. Any disregard for or violation of established CCCS policy or procedures or College guidelines may also result in this rating.
- Performance Plan
Faculty members develop and submit for supervisor approval an annual performance plan incorporating teaching and service. The supervisor schedules a collaborative meeting with faculty to discuss and agree to the performance plan.
See Appendix A for the evaluation process timeline. See Appendix B for the plan location.
The performance plan may be reviewed and revised during the evaluation period, as agreed upon by faculty and supervisor.
Faculty members shall receive annual performance evaluations from trained supervisors. The delegated faculty supervisor has discretion to require more frequent evaluations.
Faculty members will develop and submit for supervisor approval an annual performance plan that must include goals related to instruction and service. Individual performance goals are based on the faculty members’ documented responsibilities and their department and College goals. See Appendix A for timeline and Appendix B for evaluation form location.
Goals may be changed during the evaluation cycle in the event of a change in faculty role. At the discretion of the supervisor, and in consultation with the faculty member, goals may also be changed by the mid-year review to reflect new responsibilities or a change that makes an original goal unachievable. Faculty who have goals with timelines that extend across multiple evaluation cycles should submit updates each year until the goal is completed.
Faculty members will prepare a reflective summary of their activities for the year and the contribution and outcome of those activities to teaching, service and their performance goals.
Supervisor meets with faculty to review the evaluation narrative and discuss performance.
Supervisor prepares a written performance evaluation narrative including summary feedback, and performance rating, with rationale for the rating.
Supervisor obtains second level concurrence. Responsibilities of the second level supervisor include: reading the performance evaluation, confirming inclusion of all necessary components and accuracy of all relevant information, thus validating the performance rating. This concurrence ensures awareness and performance rating consistency across the evaluation process. The second level supervisor provides his / her signature as concurrence with the performance evaluation narrative and rating. In addition, Exemplary evaluations are reviewed by the ACC President.
Once the performance evaluation narrative, performance rating, and second level review are completed, supervisor emails faculty member, offering three options to review the narrative and rating to complete the evaluation process: 1) meet face-to-face with supervisor, 2) meet via phone call with supervisor, or 3) receive the evaluation and rating via email. Faculty chooses an option, reviews the evaluation narrative and rating, and signs the evaluation document. See Appendix A for timeline.
Faculty, supervisor, and secondary supervisor signatures are required. Signing the document does not indicate that a faculty member agrees with the rating. Faculty shall have the opportunity to respond to the performance evaluation and performance rating for the record.
- Performance Plan
- Factors in Evaluation of Job Performance
- Appeal of Ratings
In the event faculty disagrees with the performance plan evaluation or performance rating, faculty is encouraged to discuss the discrepancy with the supervisor or second level supervisor to come to a resolution if possible.
Faculty may respond to the performance plan evaluation and / or performance rating in writing on the form and / or include an attachment, making it part of the personnel record.
Faculty may formally request appeal and review of the performance rating using the following steps:
Faculty shall have 10 working days from receipt of signed performance rating to request review by the President.
The President shall make a determination within 10 working days of receipt of request. All parties will be made aware of the final determination.
- Evaluation Committee
- Composition of the Committee
The Faculty Evaluation Committee is a College standing committee with no fewer than six (6) members elected by the faculty to serve two-year, staggered terms. The Committee members are selected by September 15th of each year. The Committee elects its own chairperson. The Committee will be composed of:
A faculty member from each School. At least one of which will represent a Career and Technical Education program;
If the committee members deem it necessary, they may request a non-voting member to assist with data compilation, research, etc.
If the committee members deem is necessary, they will consult with Human Resources.
One instructional administrative staff member appointed by the Vice President for Instruction; and
- Duties and Responsibilities of the Committee
As charged by the College President, the Vice President for Instruction, or the Faculty Senate President, the Committee periodically reviews AP 3-31 Evaluation of Faculty and makes recommendations for modifications. Committee recommendations are forwarded to the Faculty Senate President and the Faculty Senate Executive Committee for approval. The Faculty Senate President engages the entire Faculty Senate in discussion and approval. Once approved by a majority of the faculty, the Faculty Senate President forwards the recommendations to the College President and Vice President for Instruction. The College President has final approval authority on ACC procedural changes. If charged by the College President or Vice President for Instruction, the approval steps will begin at that level, followed by Faculty Senate.
In the spirit of shared governance and open communication, the Committee may elicit feedback from Administration during the review and recommendation process.
- Composition of the Committee
Appendix A: The Evaluation Process Timeline
|Faculty member develops annual performance plan.||Prior to meeting with supervisor.|
|Faculty member agrees on annual performance plan with supervisor.||No later than six weeks after first faculty fall semester contract date.|
|Provisional faculty member meets with Supervisor for midyear review of Performance Plan.
(Optional for non-provisional faculty)
|No later than three weeks after first faculty spring semester contract date.|
|Faculty member writes performance evaluation narrative.||Performance narratives are due two working days prior to performance evaluation meeting with supervisor. Meeting with supervisor is to take place between the day after spring break and the last day in April.|
|Faculty member and Supervisor complete evaluation.||No later than the final faculty spring semester contract date.|
Appendix B - Performance Plan and Evaluation Form
Performance Plan and Evaluation Form: Fillable form is located on myACC in both the Employee and Faculty tabs.
Classroom Observation Forms: Fillable form is located on myACC in both the Employee and Faculty tabs.