April 17, 2023 - FHDA District Academic Senate

Attendance

Minutes

FHDA District Academic Senate

Welcome and Introductions

Kathryn Maurer, District Academic President, welcomed the FHDA District Academic Senate (DAS), which is the joint Foothill and DeAnza Academic Senates.  This DAS meeting was called to discuss and reach a consensus on the new Faculty Evaluation Tools (J1’s), specifically the new four vs. three-tiered ranking, that FA may bring into the next contract negotiations.

New Faculty Evaluation Tools (J1’s)

Kathy Perino, FA Chief Negotiator, provided some background on the recommendation for new J1 evaluation tools. A workgroup with representatives from both college Academic Senates, FA, and the Staff Development Offices has been working on the J1 documents for over a year. They discussed the issues, surveyed other districts and came up with a 4-ratings system to replace the current 3-ratings system. The current system has 1 for “Satisfactory,” 2 for “Needs Improvement, and 3 for “Unsatisfactory.” The work group recommended a 4-ratings system with 2 on the positive side and 2 on needs to change.  The 4 ratings are: EX “Exceeds Expectations.” MX “Meets Expectations.” ND “Need Development.” UN “Unsatisfactory.”

Everyone at the FHDA negotiations table agreed that “Meets Expectations” is the standard. They introduced “Exceeds Expectations” because both faculty and administration want a way to recognize those going above and beyond.  FA has added the language to the draft documents stating that “Meets Expectation” is the standard in each criterion for the tenure process, PAA, and REP. The EX rating is not required for tenure, PAA, or REP. EX is available as a rating to recognize areas of uncommon excellence.

FA would like to get feedback and guidance from the DAS on these evaluation tools.  The Foothill Academic Senate had concerns that the new “Exceeds Expectations” will raise the bar and become the standard for evaluation. The acknowledgement for people for going above and beyond should be as a comment in a narrative.  The De Anza Academic Senate has discussed how the 4 point scale splits the rating into 2 for doing well, 2 for doing better.

Kathy shared that the Staff Development offices, Academic Senate reps, and administration should plan more training for evaluators to use these new documents.

Mary Pape pointed out that under the current 3-ratings system, each department and division, have come up with their ways of recognizing faculty that has gone above and beyond. People may feel hurt, slighted and interpret their evaluation as less than good if they don’t get EX.

Rosa Nguyen said fewer options equal more consistency and less variation between observers. Less categories lead to less opportunities for bias in the ratings. If there are no consequences for selecting “Exceeds Expectations” compared to “Meeting Expectations, then the option should be eliminated.

Shagun Kaur disagreed. She did not see any room for confusion or doubt in the new proposed rating system. It is very clearly laid out and explained in the statement. Getting rid of EX, goes back to the 1,2,3 rating system. 2 and 3 ratings require narratives for follow-ups and suggestions for improvements.

There was expressed concern over how the evaluation would be used as a compliance measure that could adversely affect people in borderline cases for tenure, PAA, and REP.  Some people shared bad experiences with the tenure process.

Cheryl Jaeger Balm said the evaluation process should be a growth process. They have discussed ways to make it less punitive, and not a consequence and compliance tool, and recommended ways for improvement. The goal is to keep a balance between praise and compliance.

Carolyn Holcroft said she strongly believes in the need to acknowledge excellence. However, that should not be connected to an evaluation where no one outside of that small group will see it. Take it out of the evaluation and put it somewhere else.

Alicia Mullens said some students believe that A is the only acceptable grade. She feared that in a few years EX will become the default rating. People will be frustrated with not getting EX in their evaluation 

Dawn Lee pointed out the need to address the trauma around the tenure process in specific ways. She suggested having a place in the form where excellence is celebrated as narrative comments.

Kathy will put some language in the narrative comment section to encourage positive feedback. Kathy reminded everybody that this document is not just used for tenure evaluations.This is used for the evaluation of part-time faculty, full time faculty after tenure. Those are evaluations done by individuals, not entire committees for tenure.

Mary Pape moved to remove “Exceeds Expectation” and instead add language in the narrative to recognize exceptional and excellent teaching styles and pedagogy. Carolyn Holcroft seconded

Result of the joint Senates votes, by roll call: Yes 31, No 4, Abstain 3 - Motioned passed

ASCCC Spring 2023 Plenary Resolutions - tabled permanentely due to lack of time

Adjournment

Dawn Lee moved to adjourn, Rosa Nguyen seconded.  No objection

De Anza College Academic Senate

Approval of Agenda 

Felisa Vilaubi moved, Ravjeet Singh seconded to approve the agenda. No objection. Agenda approved by unanimous consent.

Measure G Megaproject Task Force faculty reps

The College Council has created the Measure G Mega Project Taskforce to reset and start over with the mega project. They agreed upon 3 representatives from each constituent group.

Marco Marquez volunteered to represent Creative Arts and serve as tri-chair. Hyon Chu Yi-Baker volunteered to represent Student Services. These are the two groups most impacted by the project. There was a call for a volunteer to represent the Academic Senate.

The committee work will continue at least through the summer. Representatives must be available to meet via zoom during the summer. The responsibility of the Academic Senate representative will be to uphold the spirit of the Academic Senate Resolution Regarding the Measure G Megaproject and the Creative Arts Division  in these meetings and report back to the Academic Senate. 

Shagun Kaur suggested to expand the spirit of the last "resolved" so that all departments, faculty, staff, and students are guaranteed spaces and resources.

There were two volunteers for the Academic Senate rep position: Shagun Kaur and Vernon Gallegos. There was a vote by raising hands in the room and by typing in chat for voting members attending remotely.  Shagun Kaur received the majority vote.

Felisa Vilaubi moved to aprove the following faculty members for the taskforce:

• Marco Marquez, Creative Arts (tri-chair)
• Hyon Chu Yi-Baker, Student Services
• Shagun Kaur, Academic Senate

Glynn Wallis seconded the confirmation of the above representatives.  No objections. Representative members approved.

Adjournment 

Glynn Wallis motioned, Ravjeet Singh seconded, to adjourn, no objection.