ࡱ> .0-] bjbj .x-\x-\   $vTК/ 0(,//T/T4/> V: Evaluation Sub-Committee Meeting Minutes Friday, Sept. 19, 10:30 11:50 In attendance: Heather Steel, Cindy Hyslop, Clint Kelly, John Rice, Laurie Walsh, Steven Garcia, Janie Moore, Pete Bagley, Mary Doucette, Tami Mette, Steve Theriault, Stephanie Davis Absent: Lynette MacFarlan Purpose of sub-committee is to formulate a direction for the new teaching evaluation and to work with the evaluation committee to implement the new evaluation. Laurie Walsh briefly discussed the history of the evaluation, and how it has evolved over the last 8 years or so. Steve Theriault noted that in the future he wont sit on the sub-committee. He reminded us that moving back to a qualitative evaluation puts more power back into supervisors hands, and suggested a mixture of qualitative and qualitative measures on the revised evaluation. The teaching faculty evaluation and administrative faculty evaluation should be parallel since both will gain merit from the same merit pool. The administrative evaluation was revised because the one that existed at the time was poor. Merit was a secondary consideration. The evaluation was modeled after the current teaching faculty evaluation. Tami M. was in favor of revising the existing system. Mary D. was in favor of moving the existing system to Excel then revising it. Pete B. was in favor of using the administrative evaluation as a starting point, as the numbers that come out of the existing evaluation arent always valid. Janie M. pointed out that the final product needs to be simplified, and that the existing evaluation requires quite a bit of training. Steve G. said the existing evaluation did not work for CTE. The revised form needs to better reflect CTE areas. Laurie W. was in favor of continuing the evolution of the existing evaluation by simplifying it to be more in line with the existing administrative evaluation. We also need a policy to go with the new evaluation. John R. was in favor of simplifying the current system, and liked the idea of mixing qualitative and quantitative. Clint K. pointed out that the role of Program Coordinator needs to be changed to Program Management per Mikes suggestion. Cindy H. was in favor of keeping the same roles and simplifying. She liked how the current evaluation allows her to show the variety of things she does. Heather S. pointed out that the administrative evaluation works because each person has a solid job description. Perhaps we need the same? Stephanie D. was in favor of modeling the evaluation after the administrative evaluation. John R. said he will look at working with the workload policy document to help create a teaching job description. This could be used as the baseline for a satisfactory rating. Department Chairs need to be included in this process. Heather will send a blank template of the administrative evaluation and Mary and Cindy will work on transferring the existing evaluation into it. Next meeting: October 17, 10:30? )I  ļhWhWCJaJh CJaJhWCJaJh >CJaJh|CJaJhwnUCJaJhwnU5CJaJhF5CJ aJ hwnU5CJ aJ )I  . @ G~~gdW & Fgd| & FgdwnUgdwnU$a$gdwnU,1h/ =!"#$%  s666666666vvvvvvvvv666666>6666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666hH66666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666p62&6FVfv2(&6FVfv&6FVfv&6FVfv&6FVfv&6FVfv&6FVfv8XV~ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ OJPJQJ_HmH nH sH tH J`J Normal dCJ_HaJmH sH tH DA D Default Paragraph FontRiR 0 Table Normal4 l4a (k ( 0No List @@@ wnU List Paragraph ^m$RR O0 Balloon Text dCJOJQJ^JaJN/N O0Balloon Text CharCJOJQJ^JaJPK![Content_Types].xmlN0EH-J@%ǎǢ|ș$زULTB l,3;rØJB+$G]7O٭VvnB`2ǃ,!"E3p#9GQd; H xuv 0F[,F᚜K sO'3w #vfSVbsؠyX p5veuw 1z@ l,i!b I jZ2|9L$Z15xl.(zm${d:\@'23œln$^-@^i?D&|#td!6lġB"&63yy@t!HjpU*yeXry3~{s:FXI O5Y[Y!}S˪.7bd|n]671. tn/w/+[t6}PsںsL. J;̊iN $AI)t2 Lmx:(}\-i*xQCJuWl'QyI@ھ m2DBAR4 w¢naQ`ԲɁ W=0#xBdT/.3-F>bYL%׭˓KK 6HhfPQ=h)GBms]_Ԡ'CZѨys v@c])h7Jهic?FS.NP$ e&\Ӏ+I "'%QÕ@c![paAV.9Hd<ӮHVX*%A{Yr Aբ pxSL9":3U5U NC(p%u@;[d`4)]t#9M4W=P5*f̰lk<_X-C wT%Ժ}B% Y,] A̠&oʰŨ; \lc`|,bUvPK! ѐ'theme/theme/_rels/themeManager.xml.relsM 0wooӺ&݈Э5 6?$Q ,.aic21h:qm@RN;d`o7gK(M&$R(.1r'JЊT8V"AȻHu}|$b{P8g/]QAsم(#L[PK-![Content_Types].xmlPK-!֧6 0_rels/.relsPK-!kytheme/theme/themeManager.xmlPK-!R%theme/theme/theme1.xmlPK-! ѐ' theme/theme/_rels/themeManager.xml.relsPK]   L# @0(  B S  ?  CZ<'(~+ ^`OJQJo(^`OJQJ^Jo(o p^p`OJQJo( @ ^@ `OJQJo(^`OJQJ^Jo(o ^`OJQJo( ^`OJQJo(^`OJQJ^Jo(o P^P`OJQJo(CZ<'         wnU|F OW > @ @UnknownG*Ax Times New Roman5Symbol3. *Cx Arial7.@Calibri9. ")Segoe UI?= *Cx Courier New;WingdingsACambria Math"qh0S*0S*0S*  !r0 KHP  $PwnU2!xx Great Basin CollegeGreat Basin College Oh+'0 ( H T ` lx鶹ӰԺ Normal.dotm鶹ӰԺ2Microsoft Office Word@@@@ ՜.+,0 hp  鶹ӰԺ   Title  !"#$&'()*+,/Root Entry F /11Table ?WordDocumentxSummaryInformation(DocumentSummaryInformation8%CompObjr  F Microsoft Word 97-2003 Document MSWordDocWord.Document.89q