Math Task Force Committee on
Certification of Adjunct Faculty
October 24
November 7
Related documents:
At our October 24 meeting, after discussing the
general topic of certification (sharing what everyone had heard
it might mean) we spent most of the meeting discussing how we
might do evaluations. There were a number of ideas suggested.
Some seemed like good ideas, but unrealistic in terms of the number
of people who must be evaluated. When we learn more about what
the new system will require/support in the way of evaluation,
we will be better prepared to make plans. Nothing was voted on,
and most ideas were considered to have some drawbacks as well
as some strengths. Some ideas suggested were
- Peer evaluations. (In general, it seems a good idea for people
to be willing to participate in this, in order to learn about
how others do things as well as to get feedback. However, the
logistics seem overwhelming and it isn't clear how any written
results from this can be incorporated into the overall evaluations.)
- All evaluations include input from more than one evaluator.
(Mostly people were positive about this, although the number of
people to be evaluated is rather overwhelming, and using more
than one evaluator makes it even more overwhelming.)
- Evaluations include classroom visits. (Definitely there are
mixed feelings about this. We aren't clear about how we could
achieve consistency without getting into the kind of "nonsense"
that the checklists in public schools have led to.)
- Evaluating courses as much as teachers. (There was a lot of
positive feeling about this. Maybe doing something like this would
help us produce even more useful information for the Math Manual.)
- Reviewing first-day handouts and tests. (Should we do this
in some more thorough manner?)
- Using info about retention and students' success in later
courses. (Should some info from this be relevant? Most people
feel that we shouldn't hold people to some strict standard because
individual classes vary)
At our November 7 meeting, we discussed the memo
from Dr. Fonte that had just come out in the past day or so. There
are still a number of questions about how this will work. Some
had thought that we would have to start by asking the adjunct
faculty members which courses they want to be "certified"
for, but it was pointed out that the preference form they are
sending to Dr. Glass, they list the courses they want, so we don't
need to ask for those again.
It is also clear that we will need a database to keep track of
all of this. It seems reasonable that the secretary for the Director
of Academic Support will need this too, so perhaps that office
will do it. Ferne will inquire.
One suggestion was, for the summer, that we just prepare a schedule
as usual, by figuring out what faculty members to assign to which
sections, and make the list of eligible adjunct faculty for each
course from that. We could either give the Director of Academic
Support just the list or the list and the suggested assignments.
No other suggestions were made about how to do lists for the summer.
(The comment was made that this is not a good long-term solution,
since we won't have people who are former dept heads next year
to do this and it is a lot of work.) These lists need to be in
by sometime in February, apparently before the evaluation process
from this fall is complete. Our suggestion is that the former
dept heads will give Ferne lists for each course this summer and
she will compile them to submit to Dr. Glass. To begin the process,
Ferne will get copies of the forms that the adjunct faculty members
are sending to Dr. Glass and give copies to the former dept heads.
It was also noted that it is up to each Task Force whether to
use the "highest priority to hire" category. We decided
to bring this up at the Nov. 21 Task Force meeting to see what
the TF wants to do. There seemed to be clear agreement that we
can't possibly implement that part until fall at the earliest.
Since, apparently, the "Senior adjunct faculty" designation
won't be in place for scheduling for the summer (it is supposed
to be based on some evaluations that aren't yet begun), our not
using it for summer is completely reasonable. Our committee recommends
that this topic be fully discussed by the TF and that all adjunct
faculty members have an opportunity to offer their input before
the decision.
mparker@austin.cc.tx.us
Last updated Nov. 20, 1997.