Principles for Performance Evaluation at
The following nine principles are the guiding values upon which the Performance Evaluation process of tenured faculty at Valencia College is based. The listed principles are the core standards related to the evaluation of professional educators within academia and are not meant to be an exhaustive list of values related to tenured faculty. 1) Value of Tenure – Tenure is seen by Valencia College as a valued and needed element crucial to the protection and maintenance of academic rigor, diversity of educational approaches and viewpoints, and indicative of individuals that have obtained mastery within a given field of expertise. Valencia College adheres to the highest standards and has selected the most qualified individuals for tenure based upon a vetted system individualized to teaching, librarian, and counseling faculty. Those who have received tenure demonstrated commitment to maintaining a high standard of performance. The additional layer of due process afforded tenured faculty is accompanied by a higher standard of review and accountability to ensure the maintenance of excellence previously established. 2) Burden of Proof – As tenured faculty have previous established their excellence through a validated tenure process, the burden of clearly identifying an ‘at-risk’ faculty member is with the college through a transparent process inclusive of multiple and varied data points. 3) Supplementary – The Performance Evaluation and potential Performance Improvement Plan, although considered of equal importance to the primary responsibilities, shall not significantly divert the faculty member from the primary mandate of furthering and enhancing the educational process as outlined by the duties within her / his job description. 4) Cost – The expenditures required to facilitate the implementation of a Performance Evaluation plan, and any Performance Improvement Plan goals, shall come solely from monies budgeted for administrative costs of the college. The process shall not require the creation of new positions, but rather utilize existing personnel. Faculty’s contribution shall be through service to the college hours by participation in committees, mentorship, reviewer role, etc. The process shall not impinge upon monies designated for the vast majority of faculty that will not require a Performance Improvement Plan. 5) Representational – Upon identification of an ‘at risk’ tenured faculty member, the faculty member shall be provided an advocate to act as an advocate for the faculty member in all matters related to the Performance Evaluation process. 6) Initial Indicator – Consistent with the efficiency and cost principle, the initial evaluative procedure will utilize the mandated Annual Evaluation by the Dean or Division Head. 7) Progression of Concerns – The furthering of the evaluative process beyond the Annual Evaluation will be based upon a significant pattern of difficulties related to performance. It is recognized, as professionals, tenured faculty members are capable of rectifying acute difficulties without input from others, though they may require assistance when chronic difficulties manifest. 8) Rehabilitative – The Performance Improvement portion of the evaluative process is centered upon the notion of restoring a faculty member to his / her own previously established pattern of excellence. 9) Evaluation Review – Since the new process may require the development of more accurate Annual Evaluation tools, when change is needed a committee shall be formed by the Faculty Council and include a 1/3 membership of administration (Human Resources, Dean, Campus President, etc). The committee shall review the efficacy of the tools described within the Performance Evaluation process. If suggestions emerge from the committee to change any procedure or tools utilized in the evaluative process, a separate committee composed solely of faculty with the power to include nonvoting key stakeholders shall address all concerns.