Continuing Education Advisory Subcommittee meeting on Jan. 18 2005 at 2 PM

Meeting Minutes

Attendance: Deb Conklin, David Wood, Gail Hickey, Margit Codispoti, Leslie Ragmer, Wilson Liang, Richard Weiner

Richard Weiner was elected secretary for the meeting.

The meeting was called because several faculty had contacted Gail Hickey with concerns about Continuing Studies Dec. 7 2004 Memorandum, which was sent to Continuing Studies faculty. This memorandum sent to faculty expressed decisions made in the VCAA Memorandum 03-08, July 2004.

Gail reported that faculty members were concerned about changes in evaluation procedures in the new memorandum. Previously, for tenure-track and tenured faculty, submitting evaluations was voluntary. However, according to the new memorandum, that will no longer be the case. The memorandum instructs Departments to send a copy of teaching evaluations to continuing studies. Gail reported that faculty members who complained to her stated that they did not like this turn-around in policy.

Gail opened the issue for discussion in the subcommittee.

Deb Conklin and David Wood explained the perspective of continuing studies. They explained that evaluations were important to gain feedback on courses, especially since many Continuing Education classes are taught at distant sites and there is little or no contact with instructors. Deb also explained that generally the information in evaluations was not used to reprimand faculty. Further, Deb’s discussion suggested that Continuing Ed. Evaluations did not seem to be released to other parties.

A number of opinions were expressed about the changes reflected in the memorandum by subcommittee members. One concern was about the process of creating the memorandum. The concern was that it had not been brought before the Continuing Education Subcommittee or the faculty senate. Thus faculty members did not play a significant role in the process. Another concern was that, for the case of tenure-track and tenured faculty (and perhaps in some cases for associate/part-time faculty), the memorandum violated faculty members’ contract, which states that sharing evaluations is voluntary. On the other hand, the memorandum was praised from the perspective of the consumer, that is, the student who has the ability to voice his/her opinion about the consumed product, namely, the teacher.

Some solutions were offered (such as creating separate requirements for permanent and part-time faculty, in which the former is not required to submit evaluations but the latter is) but nothing was resolved. The committee agreed to continue discussing the matter.

The meeting adjourned at 3 PM.