Common use of MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT ON ASSESSMENT ‌ Clause in Contracts

MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT ON ASSESSMENT ‌. The KSCEA and KSC agree that programmatic assessment is fundamental to the quality and integrity of our curricula. Assessment of programmatic learning outcomes is a community activity designed to support student learning in a formative manner. This statement provides clarification specific to the individual faculty member’s responsibilities and how data collected can, and cannot, be used. This statement will not supersede the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) between the University System and the KSCEA and will not impinge upon faculty’s rights and protections regarding academic freedom in the classroom as guaranteed by the CBA. We also agree that assessment is expected to be a routine activity, embedded in the curricula development and revision processes. As such, faculty are a core component of the ongoing assessment program at the college. The information collected through assessment should be used by the faculty to engage in reflective curricular improvement. It is expected that each member of the bargaining unit will participate in programmatic assessment. This includes participating in departmental assessment activities, including development of programmatic learning outcomes, collection of data and subsequent discussions about the data and, ultimately, ways to improve student learning. Assessment techniques should be as unobtrusive as possible and the method of data collection should be generally accepted as appropriate for assessing student learning. As stated above individual faculty members are expected to participate in course based and programmatic assessment, however, each faculty member will have the right to approve the method of program assessment that occurs in their courses, teaching, or content areas, based on department discussions. Results of programmatic assessment activities conducted in individual courses will not identify specific faculty or be used punitively in formal peer evaluation processes, course assignments, committee work and in any other facet of a faculty member’s worklife at KSC. However, recognizing the critical role of assessment in supporting the curricular transformation necessary to support effective teaching and learning at KSC, a faculty member’s participation or decision not to participate in assessment activities can be considered. Faculty are also encouraged to participate in course-based assessment for all courses they teach, evaluating whether the student learning outcomes for the course were met. Individual faculty members can choose the method of assessment to be used in their courses. Course-based assessment activities are for the benefit of the faculty member, the results for personal use, self- improvement, and to support departmental curricular revisions, where appropriate. By its very nature, assessment addresses the dual dynamic of teaching and learning on both the part of the student and the teacher. Since participation in programmatic and course-based assessment is expected of all faculty members, the degree of participation can be considered during faculty evaluations for promotion and tenure. A faculty member’s participation will be considered with other teaching and service responsibilities. However as stated above the results from both forms of assessment may not be used in this evaluation. If a faculty member chooses to engage in the scholarship of academic assessment, these activities will also be considered during promotion and tenure evaluations. In fact, it is conceivable that a faculty member’s work in assessment might be used to demonstrate effectiveness in teaching, service and/or scholarship. (A decision not to participate in the scholarship of assessment may not be used as a criterion for promotion and tenure evaluations.) Departments and the College will take measures to insure that the results of specific programmatic assessment, or a cycle of programmatic assessment activities, will not be available by individual course or faculty member in any form. Given that circumstances don’t always allow anonymity, if this information is obtained it will not be introduced into promotion and tenure considerations. The results of programmatic and course-specific assessment activities are expected to support reflective curricular transformation and active and ongoing professional development for the faculty member. Specifically, if the administration, department chair or other faculty obtain assessment results associated with an individual course or faculty member, these results will not be used to justify reassignment of courses, reassignment of other faculty duties, or participation a specific program. Further: • The College will continue to maintain an Assessment Development Pool (a practice that began July 1, 2012), setting aside $30,000 on July 1. $20,000 of this pool will be set aside for stipends for the compiling and writing of Annual Assessment Reports. The Xxxxxxx’x Office will provide guidelines to department chairs for the Annual Assessment Reports by the Monday two weeks before the beginning of the Spring semester. Annual Assessment Reports will be due on the last day of the Faculty Contract for each year. The pool of $20,000 will be equally shared among the writers of the reports and paid out before the end of the College’s fiscal year (June 30) on the year the report was submitted. • In the event that the assessment report for a department is written by a department member other than the Department chair, that chair designee will receive the stipend for writing the assessment report. The chair’s designee for this purpose must be elected by the department. • In addition, $10,000 of this pool with be set aside to allow faculty members and departments/programs to apply for money to fund programmatic and course-based assessment efforts as required by NECHE. These funds are not to replace existing funds provided by the Xxxxxxx’x office for CAEP, Integrative Studies and other continuing forms of programmatic accreditation or any other college activity or program for which funds are presently allocated. • Money from this pool is available only to KSCEA bargaining unit members. • These funds will be allocated by the Assessment Steering Committee, two elected faculty and one appointed representative of the Xxxxxxx Office (three members total). • Specific guidelines for the committee will be developed by the steering committee by October 1 of each year. These guidelines will be subject to ratification by both the KSCEA Executive Board and the Xxxxxxx. In general, these monies are designed to assist departments/programs with course-based and programmatic assessment activities. • These funds are intended, but not limited to, such things as: conference costs, assessment instruments, consultants, summer stipends, and buying a one course reduction so faculty members can focus on their department or program’s assessment. • As of May of each year unspent Assessment Grant funds will roll into the Annual Assessment Report pool to be equally distributed with the $20,000 to the writers of the Annual Assessment Reports.

MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT ON ASSESSMENT ‌. The KSCEA and KSC agree that programmatic assessment is fundamental to the quality and integrity of our curricula. Assessment of programmatic learning outcomes is a community activity designed to support student learning in a formative manner. This statement provides clarification specific to the individual faculty member’s responsibilities and how data collected can, and cannot, be used. This statement will not supersede the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) between the University System and the KSCEA and will not impinge upon faculty’s rights and protections regarding academic freedom in the classroom as guaranteed by the CBA. We also agree that assessment is expected to be a routine activity, embedded in the curricula development and revision processes. As such, faculty are a core component of the ongoing assessment program at the college. The information collected through assessment should be used by the faculty to engage in reflective curricular improvement. It is expected that each member of the bargaining unit will participate in programmatic assessment. This includes participating in departmental assessment activities, including development of programmatic learning outcomes, collection of data and subsequent discussions about the data and, ultimately, ways to improve student learning. Assessment techniques should be as unobtrusive as possible and the method of data collection should be generally accepted as appropriate for assessing student learning. As stated above individual faculty members are expected to participate in course based and programmatic assessment, however, each faculty member will have the right to approve the method of program assessment that occurs in their courses, teaching, or content areas, based on department discussions. Results of programmatic assessment activities conducted in individual courses will not identify specific faculty or be used punitively in formal peer evaluation processes, course assignments, committee work and in any other facet of a faculty member’s worklife at KSC. However, recognizing the critical role of assessment in supporting the curricular transformation necessary to support effective teaching and learning at KSC, a faculty member’s participation or decision not to participate in assessment activities can be considered. Faculty are also encouraged to participate in course-based assessment for all courses they teach, evaluating whether the student learning outcomes for the course were met. Individual faculty members can choose the method of assessment to be used in their courses. Course-based assessment activities are for the benefit of the faculty member, the results for personal use, self- improvement, and to support departmental curricular revisions, where appropriate. By its very nature, assessment addresses the dual dynamic of teaching and learning on both the part of the student and the teacher. Since participation in programmatic and course-based assessment is expected of all faculty members, the degree of participation can be considered during faculty evaluations for promotion and tenure. A faculty member’s participation will be considered with other teaching and service responsibilities. However as stated above the results from both forms of assessment may not be used in this evaluation. If a faculty member chooses to engage in the scholarship of academic assessment, these activities will also be considered during promotion and tenure evaluations. In fact, it is conceivable that a faculty member’s work in assessment might be used to demonstrate effectiveness in teaching, service and/or scholarship. (A decision not to participate in the scholarship of assessment may not be used as a criterion for promotion and tenure evaluations.) Departments and the College will take measures to insure that the results of specific programmatic assessment, or a cycle of programmatic assessment activities, will not be available by individual course or faculty member in any form. Given that circumstances don’t always allow anonymity, if this information is obtained it will not be introduced into promotion and tenure considerations. The results of programmatic and course-specific assessment activities are expected to support reflective curricular transformation and active and ongoing professional development for the faculty member. Specifically, if the administration, department chair or other faculty obtain assessment results associated with an individual course or faculty member, these results will not be used to justify reassignment of courses, reassignment of other faculty duties, or participation a specific program. Further: • Faculty members are entitled and encouraged, but not required, to use assessment work as appropriate in their portfolio to document teaching effectiveness, scholarship and/or service. • Departments are responsible for curricular revisions resulting from assessment discussions. • The College will continue work with departments to maintain provide appropriate resources and professional development experiences for faculty engaged in assessment activities. • Since programmatic learning outcomes assessment is about self-improvement, administrative intervention and involvement will be limited to collecting information from departments that 1) ensures that programmatic assessment is ongoing and 2) allows the College to meet federal, state or other accreditation requirements. • The College will establish an Assessment Development Pool (a practice that began setting aside $30,000 each year starting July 1, 2012), setting aside $30,000 on July 1. $20,000 of this pool These monies will be set aside for stipends for the compiling and writing of Annual Assessment Reports. The Xxxxxxx’x Office will provide guidelines to department chairs for the Annual Assessment Reports by the Monday two weeks before the beginning of the Spring semester. Annual Assessment Reports will be due on the last day of the Faculty Contract for each year. The pool of $20,000 will be equally shared among the writers of the reports and paid out before the end of the College’s fiscal year (June 30) on the year the report was submitted. • In the event that the assessment report for a department is written by a department member other than the Department chair, that chair designee will receive the stipend for writing the assessment report. The chair’s designee for this purpose must be elected by the department. • In addition, $10,000 of this pool with be set aside to allow faculty members and departments/programs to apply for money to fund programmatic and course-based assessment efforts as required by NECHENEASC. These funds are not to replace existing funds provided by the Xxxxxxx’x office for CAEPNCATE, VSA, Integrative Studies and other continuing forms of programmatic accreditation or any other college activity or program for which funds are presently allocated. • Money from this pool is available only to KSCEA bargaining unit members. • These funds will be allocated by the Assessment Steering Committee, two three elected faculty faculty, one from each School, and one three appointed representative representatives of the Xxxxxxx Office and one representative from the KSCEA (three Seven members total). • Specific guidelines for the committee will be developed by the steering committee by October 1 of each year31, 2009. These guidelines will be subject to ratification by both the KSCEA Executive Board and the Xxxxxxx. In general, general these monies are designed to assist departments/programs with course-based and programmatic assessment activities. • These funds are intended, but not limited to, such things as: conference costs, assessment instruments, consultants, summer stipends, and buying a one course reduction so faculty members can focus on their department or program’s assessment. • As of May of each year unspent Assessment Grant funds will roll into the Annual Assessment Report pool to be equally distributed with the $20,000 to the writers of the Annual Assessment Reports.

MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT ON ASSESSMENT ‌. The KSCEA and KSC agree that programmatic assessment is fundamental to the quality and integrity of our curricula. Assessment of programmatic learning outcomes is a community activity designed to support student learning in a formative manner. This statement provides clarification specific to the individual faculty member’s responsibilities and how data collected can, and cannot, be used. This statement will not supersede supercede the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) between the University System and the KSCEA and will not impinge upon faculty’s rights and protections regarding academic freedom in the classroom as guaranteed by the CBA. We also agree that assessment is expected to be a routine activity, embedded in the curricula development and revision processes. As such, faculty are a core component of the ongoing assessment program at the college. The information collected through assessment should be used by the faculty to engage in reflective curricular improvement. It is expected that each member of the bargaining unit will participate in programmatic assessment. This includes participating in departmental assessment activities, including development of programmatic learning outcomes, collection of data and subsequent discussions about the data and, ultimately, ways to improve student learning. Assessment techniques should be as unobtrusive as possible and the method of data collection should be generally accepted as appropriate for assessing student learning. As stated above individual faculty members are expected to participate in course based and programmatic assessment, however, each faculty member will have the right to approve the method of program assessment that occurs in their courses, teaching, or content areas, based on department discussions. Results of programmatic assessment activities conducted in individual courses will not identify specific faculty or be used punitively in formal peer evaluation processes, course assignments, committee work and in any other facet of a faculty member’s worklife at KSC. However, recognizing the critical role of assessment in supporting the curricular transformation necessary to support effective teaching and learning at KSC, a faculty member’s participation or decision not to participate in assessment activities can be considered. Faculty are also encouraged to participate in course-based assessment for all courses they teach, evaluating whether the student learning outcomes for the course were met. Individual faculty members can choose the method of assessment to be used in their courses. Course-based assessment activities are for the benefit of the faculty member, the results for personal use, self- self-improvement, and to support departmental curricular revisions, where appropriate. By its very nature, assessment addresses the dual dynamic of teaching and learning on both the part of the student and the teacher. Since participation in programmatic and course-based assessment is expected of all faculty members, the degree of participation can be considered during faculty evaluations for promotion and tenure. A faculty member’s participation will be considered with other teaching and service responsibilities. However as stated above the results from both forms of assessment may not be used in this evaluation. If a faculty member chooses to engage in the scholarship of academic assessment, these activities will also be considered during promotion and tenure evaluations. In fact, it is conceivable that a faculty member’s work in assessment might be used to demonstrate effectiveness in teaching, service and/or scholarship. (A decision not to participate in the scholarship of assessment may not be used as a criterion for promotion and tenure evaluations.) Departments and the College will take measures to insure that the results of specific programmatic assessment, or a cycle of programmatic assessment activities, will not be available by individual course or faculty member in any form. Given that circumstances don’t always allow anonymity, if this information is obtained it will not be introduced into promotion and tenure considerations. The results of programmatic and course-specific assessment activities are expected to support reflective curricular transformation and active and ongoing professional development for the faculty member. Specifically, if the administration, department chair or other faculty obtain assessment results associated with an individual course or faculty member, these results will not be used to justify reassignment of courses, reassignment of other faculty duties, or participation a specific program. Further: • ● Faculty members are entitled and encouraged, but not required, to use assessment work as appropriate in their portfolio to document teaching effectiveness, scholarship and/or service. ● Departments are responsible for curricular revisions resulting from assessment discussions. ● The College will continue work with departments to maintain provide appropriate resources and professional development experiences for faculty engaged in assessment activities. ● Since programmatic learning outcomes assessment is about self-improvement, administrative intervention and involvement will be limited to collecting information from departments that 1) ensures that programmatic assessment is ongoing and 2) allows the College to meet federal, state or other accreditation requirements. ● The College will establish an Assessment Development Pool (a practice that began setting aside specified funds each year starting July 1, 2012), setting aside $30,000 on July 12009. $20,000 of this pool These monies will be set aside for stipends for the compiling and writing of Annual Assessment Reports. The Xxxxxxx’x Office will provide guidelines to department chairs for the Annual Assessment Reports by the Monday two weeks before the beginning of the Spring semester. Annual Assessment Reports will be due on the last day of the Faculty Contract for each year. The pool of $20,000 will be equally shared among the writers of the reports and paid out before the end of the College’s fiscal year (June 30) on the year the report was submitted. • In the event that the assessment report for a department is written by a department member other than the Department chair, that chair designee will receive the stipend for writing the assessment report. The chair’s designee for this purpose must be elected by the department. • In addition, $10,000 of this pool with be set aside to allow faculty members and departments/programs to apply for money to fund programmatic and course-based assessment efforts as required by NECHENEASC. These funds are not to replace existing funds provided by the Xxxxxxx’x office for CAEPNCATE, VSA, Integrative Studies and other continuing forms of programmatic accreditation or any other college activity or program for which funds are presently allocated. • Money from this pool is available only to KSCEA bargaining unit members. • ○ These funds will be allocated by the Assessment Steering Committee, two three elected faculty faculty, one from each School, and one three appointed representative representatives of the Xxxxxxx Office and one representative from the KSCEA (three Seven members total). • ○ Specific guidelines for the committee will be developed by the steering committee by October 1 of each year31, 2009. These guidelines will be subject to ratification by both the KSCEA Executive Board and the Xxxxxxx. In general, general these monies are designed to assist departments/programs with course-course- based and programmatic assessment activities. • ○ These funds are intended, but not limited to, such things as: conference costs, assessment instruments, consultants, summer stipends, and buying a one course reduction so faculty members can focus on their department or program’s assessment. • As of May of each year unspent Assessment Grant funds will roll into the Annual Assessment Report pool to be equally distributed with the $20,000 to the writers of the Annual Assessment Reports.