March 24, 2013
Revised August 22, 2013
Revised October 24, 2013
Revised December 12, 2013
Revised December 19, 2013
Revised October 5, 2015
Revised April 28, 2022
Revised September 2025
Background and Purpose
In 2013, a new Full-time Teaching Faculty Development and Evaluation Plan was implemented across the Virginia Community College System (VCCS). At that time, this model plan was developed at the system level, and colleges were given the option to adopt the model plan as written or implement a modified version with approval from a majority of their teaching faculty and the VCCS. This guided faculty development and evaluation efforts for many years.
In Fall 2023, then-Senior Vice Chancellor for Academic and Workforce Programs, Dr. Sharon Morrissey, asked a group of academic leaders to address one of the key objectives in the VCCS Strategic Plan, Opportunity 2027:
“Review and revise the faculty evaluation process so that it incorporates measurable SMART goals, encourages faculty ownership and accountability, inspires high performance, and includes feedback that supports faculty development and growth.”
In response to this charge, a workgroup convened in January 2024 to revisit and revise the system. (See Appendix A for membership.) Two subgroups were formed to focus specifically on: (1) clarifying the faculty performance domains and (2) enhancing reward and recognition mechanisms.
The workgroup did not recommend major structural changes to the foundational components of the original model plan. Instead, the revisions focused on clarifying expectations, strengthening alignment with current strategic priorities, and improving consistency across the system. These refinements are reflected in this revised system Faculty Development, Evaluation, and Recognition Plan.
One significant change deserves particular attention: while the prior plan permitted individual colleges to implement approved modifications to the model, the new system aligns with a “one VCCS” approach. In accordance with VCCS Policy 3.6.0: Teaching Faculty Development, Evaluation and Recognition Policy, this revised plan is now required for implementation at all colleges. This change promotes greater transparency, fairness, and consistency in faculty evaluation and recognition practices across the VCCS.
It is important to note that the guiding principles that shaped the original system remain firmly in place. As stated in the original plan:
“The spirit and intent of the Faculty Development and Evaluation System for Virginia’s Community Colleges is to provide a mechanism for investing in the professional growth, development, and performance of each faculty member. Faculty are expected to pursue high standards, challenging goals, and teaching excellence. They can expect that their dean/supervisor will provide them with guidance, support, encouragement, due recognition, and a fair assessment of their contributions to the college’s mission. As a community, we honor those who have chosen to serve others, who share their passion and commitment for learning with others, and who lead the way by demonstrating their beliefs through continuous learning and improvement.”
Guiding Principles
Several inherent principles guide the Faculty Development, Evaluation, and Recognition Plan.
- Virginia’s Community Colleges intend to foster a culture of high performance and a shared commitment to the mission of the VCCS and the individual colleges.
- A commitment to excellence with a focus on student success should be evident in all that we do.
- Faculty efforts should encompass effective performance in Teaching, Scholarly and Creative Engagement, Institutional Responsibility, and Service.
- Faculty should take ownership of their performance and professional development as both an ongoing job responsibility and a responsibility of being a member of the college community.
- Professional development, evaluation, and recognition should be purposefully designed to be mutually reinforcing.
- Evidence should inform evaluation and professional development decisions.
- Achievement should be recognized.
- Exemplary performance should be rewarded.
- Peer involvement and collaboration should be encouraged.
- Stakeholders involved in the Faculty Development and Evaluation process should be well-trained in its purpose and effective implementation.
Definitions
Annual Professional Development Objectives (APDO): Annual goals, aligned with evaluation domains, required of all teaching faculty, regardless of the length of their appointments.
Data Sources: Information used for evaluative purposes, typically gathered from students, self, supervisors, and peers, in accordance with college policy.
De Minimis: A small, non-monetary gift or token of appreciation. Such items are not taxable under IRS regulations due to their minimal value.
Development: Structured or formal learning experiences intended to enhance an individual’s performance or support the acquisition of new knowledge and skills.
Domains (or Performance Domains): The four key areas of faculty responsibility on which each faculty member is evaluated: Teaching, Service, Scholarly and Creative Engagement, and Institutional Responsibility.
Evaluation: The periodic assessment of a faculty member’s performance, facilitated by the dean or supervisor.
Evaluation Cycle: The annual performance review period for all teaching faculty within the VCCS, which runs from January through December.
Faculty/Faculty Member/Full-time Faculty/Teaching Faculty: For the purposes of the Faculty Development, Evaluation and Recognition Plan, these terms refer to full-time (nine-month, ten-month, and twelve-month) teaching faculty, excluding those in the associate instructor employment category.
Forms/Instruments/Devices: Documents or templates used to conduct evaluation sessions, set goals and objectives, nominate faculty for recognition or awards, or otherwise carry out the processes of the faculty development, evaluation, and recognition system.
Goals: See Annual Professional Development Objectives.
Institutional Responsibility: Fulfilling assigned and expected responsibilities in accordance with applicable laws, policies, and institutional procedures. This includes, but is not limited to, adherence to college and VCCS policies, demonstrating collegiality, advising students, mentoring adjuncts, completing administrative tasks, engaging in required departmental or institutional leadership, serving on assigned internal committees, and carrying out other assigned duties. (See Evaluation section for additional details and examples.)
Policy: VCCS policies that provide the principles and guidelines for the faculty development, evaluation, and recognition system. This includes, but is not limited to, VCCS Policies 3.4, 3.6, and 3.12.
Probationary Faculty: Faculty members in their first year of appointment, typically serving during both the fall and spring semesters.
Recognition: A non-monetary or de minimis acknowledgment of faculty achievements. Recognition may include certificates of appreciation, letters of commendation, reserved parking privileges, mentions in newsletters or on websites, or other public accolades. These awards are intended to affirm faculty performance and foster motivation without involving significant financial value.
Reward: A significant, performance-based monetary award granted on a competitive basis to a limited number of faculty each year. Rewards may include bonuses or funding for professional development activities and are intended to recognize exceptional performance in teaching, service, or overall contributions.
Scholarly and Creative Engagement: Involvement in activities related to the faculty member’s recognized area of expertise or the broader field of higher education. These efforts demonstrate intellectual development, contribute to the faculty member’s discipline or educational practice, and support the academic mission of the institution. Activities may include research, publication, presentations, or creative works. (See Evaluation section for additional details and examples.)
Senior Faculty: Faculty members who have completed at least three consecutive one-year appointments and are currently serving under a three-year or five-year faculty appointment contract.
Service: Participation in activities that support students, the college, and/or the broader community, chosen by the faculty member based on personal interest, expertise, or other reasons, rather than being explicitly required by a supervisor. Service may include engagement in college governance, committee work, and community outreach. These contributions reflect the faculty member’s commitment to institutional citizenship, to representing the college in various capacities, or engaging with their local community. (See Evaluation section for additional details and examples.)
Teaching: Creating and maintaining a learning environment that supports students’ acquisition of knowledge and skills within a subject area. This includes instructional design, delivery, effectiveness, and subject-matter expertise. The teaching domain also encompasses activities that enhance the faculty member’s ability to facilitate student learning, engage diverse learners, and contribute meaningfully to the institution’s educational mission. (See Evaluation section for additional details and examples.)
Overview of the Full-Time Faculty Development, Evaluation and Recognition Plan
Purpose
To foster a culture of high performance, professional growth, and continuous improvement among teaching faculty, the Virginia Community College System (VCCS) has adopted a revised Full-Time Teaching Faculty Development, Evaluation, and Recognition Plan. This system is designed to support world-class instruction and enhance student success.
Faculty Development and Evaluation Plan Summary
The Full-time Teaching Faculty Development, Evaluation and Recognition Plan includes three integrated components:
- Annual Professional Development Objectives (APDOs): Each faculty member will develop three to five professional development objectives annually, each aligned with at least one of the four domains of faculty responsibility: Teaching, Scholarly and Creative Engagement, Institutional Responsibility, and Service. These objectives are created in consultation with and approved by the faculty member’s dean or supervisor and are intended to guide continuous professional improvement over the course of the evaluation cycle.
- Evaluation: Faculty performance is assessed using a two-level rating system: Meets Expectations or Does Not Meet Expectations. Evaluations focus on performance and growth across all four domains, with an emphasis on maintaining high standards and supporting professional development.
- Reward and Recognition: Each college shall establish a plan for recognizing and rewarding faculty whose performance exemplifies excellence in one or more of the four domains. Faculty who receive a rating of Meets Expectations are eligible to participate in their college’s Reward and Recognition program. Non-monetary, de minimis, or monetary recognition (as outlined in each college’s plan) is intended to celebrate outstanding contributions to teaching, scholarship, service, and institutional responsibility.
Introduction to the Plan
The VCCS Full-time Teaching Faculty Development, Evaluation and Recognition Plan reflects the highest aspirations of the Virginia Community College System in promoting teaching excellence and faculty growth. From its initial design through subsequent revisions, the plan has been informed by the expertise of award-winning VCCS faculty and input from internal and external experts in teaching and faculty evaluation.
This system-wide plan is organized around three integrated components:
- Recognition of Faculty Excellence – acknowledgement of outstanding contributions in teaching and service
- Faculty Development – through the creation of Annual Professional Development Objectives (APDOs)
- Faculty Evaluation – assessment of performance across key domains
Implementation
The VCCS Full-Time Teaching Faculty Development, Evaluation, and Recognition Plan will be implemented across all VCCS colleges beginning in Fall 2025.
Review Process
The VCCS System Office will facilitate a system-level review of the plan at least once within the first two years following implementation. Additional reviews will be conducted periodically in conjunction with relevant governance and advisory groups to ensure continued relevance, effectiveness, and alignment with institutional and system-wide goals.
Annual Professional Development Objectives
Purpose
The Annual Professional Development Objectives (APDOs) component of the Faculty Development, Evaluation, and Recognition Plan focuses on the professional growth and continuous improvement of full-time teaching faculty. It is designed to provide structure and institutional support that encourages faculty to set meaningful goals, engage in reflective practice, and enhance their performance over time.
Key elements of APDOs include setting objectives, consulting with the dean or supervisor, identifying resources, establishing timelines, and assessing progress. The process should be collaborative, growth-minded, and forward-looking. Faculty are encouraged to develop objectives that are ambitious, innovative, and occasionally long-term in nature. It is therefore understood that not all objectives may be fully achieved within a given evaluation cycle.
Setting Annual Professional Development Objectives
APDOs are aligned with the Academic Year (fall and spring semesters). Note: Previously, objectives were set on a calendar-year basis. For the first year of implementation (2025), continuing faculty will develop APDOs that span 18 months to accommodate the transition.
Near the end of the spring semester, each continuing full-time teaching faculty member will meet with their supervisor to:
- Develop 3-5 professional development objectives for the upcoming academic year;
- Identify supporting resources and establish timelines; and
- Agree on measures for evaluating success.
Objectives should align with one or more of the four domains of faculty activity as outlined in VCCS policy:
- Teaching
- Scholarly and Creative Engagement
- Institutional Responsibility
- Service
While it is not required to have an objective in every domain each year, objectives must address all four domains over the course of their evaluation cycle. The supervisor has final approval over the objectives.
Objectives must be documented on the Annual Professional Development Objectives – Faculty/Supervisor Agreement Form (Appendix B), signed by both the faculty member and supervisor. Objectives should align with the faculty member’s professional interests as well as the strategic goals of their department, division, college, and the VCCS. Faculty and supervisors should regularly include an objective related to evolving technologies, particularly when faculty are teaching across modalities
College Support for APDOs
The college affirms its commitment to faculty development by providing financial and strategic support to help faculty achieve their APDOs. Each year, through the budget planning process, colleges will allocate funds, within state and system budgetary guidelines, to support professional development. A specified dollar amount per faculty member will be designated, pooled, and made available through a formal request and approval process as outlined in college procedures.
Additional support may include:
- Free internal training opportunities
- Reassigned time
- Grant-writing assistance
- Sabbatical and educational leave
- Other faculty-endorsed resources that support institutional and student success
Resources needed to accomplish APDOs must be documented on the Faculty/Supervisor Agreement Form (Appendix B). By signing the form, both parties acknowledge the required resources and understand that if resources are unavailable, the faculty member may be unable to fulfill certain objectives.
Review and Revision of APDOs
A mid-year check-in will occur in December, during which the faculty member and supervisor will review progress. Additional check-ins may occur at the request of either party. APDOs may be modified at any point during the cycle due to evolving responsibilities, institutional priorities, or unforeseen circumstances. Revisions must be documented on an updated agreement form (Appendix B).
Assessment of APDOs
At the end of the academic year, the faculty member and supervisor will meet to assess progress. The assessment should note:
- Objectives met
- Objectives partially met
- Objectives not met
- Relevant context impacting progress
This final assessment will be recorded on the Faculty/Supervisor Agreement Form (Appendix B). Unmet objectives should be reviewed and considered when setting goals for the following academic year.
First-Year Probationary Faculty
For newly hired full-time teaching faculty, APDOs are pre-established for the first year (Appendix C). Early in the first semester, the faculty member and supervisor will meet to review these objectives and agree on any appropriate modifications. Faculty and supervisors are encouraged to include at least one objective related to emerging technologies.
At the end of the first semester, they will assess performance against the established objectives. Results are documented on the Agreement Form (Appendix B) and will inform the first of two required evaluations in the first year with support from their supervisor.
Before the third week of the second semester, the faculty member and supervisor will review second-semester objectives (Appendix C) and make any necessary modifications. By the end of the semester, they will meet again to assess and document achievement of those objectives. This assessment informs the second required evaluation during the first year.
If the faculty member receives a Meets Expectations rating after the second evaluation, they will proceed with the APDO process outlined for continuing faculty. All applicable policies and procedures in this section will then apply.
Evaluation System
Evaluation Schedule
The evaluation cycles for faculty differ based on their appointment status (first-year probationary, second-/third-year, and senior appointments). A detailed timeline of annual evaluation activities can be found in Appendix D.
To support the evaluation process and provide clarity for both faculty and supervisors, Human Resources will provide a list each June identifying faculty by appointment status. This list will be shared with supervisors, who will then notify faculty scheduled for evaluation by July 1 of that year.
Formal Evaluation
- First-Year Probationary Faculty:
Probationary faculty will be formally evaluated in both the fall and spring semesters of their first one-year appointment. A summative rating will be issued for each semester, with the spring semester evaluation and rating due before March 15 of the first year. - Second-/Third-Year Appointments:
Faculty on second- or third-year one-year appointments will receive a summative evaluation rating before March 15, based on performance during the previous calendar year (January-December). - Senior Faculty Appointments:
Faculty in senior status (those who have completed three consecutive one-year appointments and are serving under a one- or multi-year contract) will receive their summative rating by December 15 of the final year of the appointment cycle. The evaluation will reflect performance over each calendar year within the full term of the appointment.
In all appointment years, including the final year of a multi-year appointment, the faculty member will work with their dean/supervisor to establish individual Annual Professional Development Objectives (APDOs).
During the intervening years of a multi-year appointment, faculty members will be presumed to have met expectations if they received a “Meets Expectations” rating in their most recent evaluation, provided they continue to uphold institutional standards and make satisfactory progress on APDOs. Exceptions may occur if a faculty member fails to meet professional expectations (see Policy 3.12).
Mid-Year Check-In
All full-time faculty members who are not in an evaluation year will participate in a mid-year check-in, either in person or via video conferencing, with their dean or supervisor. This meeting serves as an opportunity to:
- Reflect on performance across the four evaluation domains
- Assess progress toward APDOs
- Celebrate achievements
- Identify and address any emerging concerns
- Explore opportunities for additional support
During the check-in, the supervisor will document progress on the Annual Professional Development Objectives – Faculty/Supervisor Agreement Form (Appendix B) and complete the Mid-Year Domain Check-In Form (Appendix E) to note progress in each of the four domains. In most cases, faculty will not be asked to submit a self-evaluation for these mid-year check-in meetings; however, self-evaluations can be requested by the supervisor as part of the process of addressing performance concerns. Supervisors will address and document performance concerns as they arise (VCCS Policy 3.12).
Timing of Check-Ins for Faculty in their second/third year or senior faculty:
Note: The timing is slightly different for probationary faculty(See Appendix D).
- Faculty scheduled for evaluation will have a mid-year check-in near the end of the fall semester.
- Faculty not scheduled for a formal evaluation (i.e., senior faculty in non-evaluation years) will meet with their dean/supervisor for a check-in at the beginning of the spring semester.
Summary of Required Meetings
All faculty will meet with their dean/supervisor at least twice annually, as follows:
For faculty not in an evaluation year: (i.e., senior faculty in non-evaluation years):
- December/January – Mid-year check-in on APDOs and the four domains
- April/May – Review and assess current APDOs and set APDOs for the next academic year (Summer, Fall and Spring)
For faculty in an evaluation year:
- April/May – Review and assess current APDOs and set APDOs for the next academic year
- November/December (for multi-year appointments) or March (for one-year appointments) – Formal evaluation of performance across the four domains
Evaluation Ratings
The summative rating is based on performance in all four domains, as appropriate to the faculty member’s appointment and documented responsibilities. At the conclusion of each evaluation cycle, teaching faculty will receive a rating of either:
- Does Not Meet Expectations
- Meets Expectations
Evaluation Domains and Weights
The four evaluation domains are:
- Teaching
- Scholarly and Creative Engagement
- Institutional Responsibility
- Service
To earn a summative rating of Meets Expectations, faculty must demonstrate:
- Mastery of a significant majority of the criteria within each of the four domains, and
- Satisfactory progress toward mastery in areas identified for improvement.
The evaluation covers all job responsibilities in the faculty member’s job description and appointment contract, including any assigned administrative or professional duties – even when release time has been granted.
While faculty are expected to contribute meaningfully across all four domains over the course of their evaluation cycle, the Teaching domain must remain the primary focus of both the faculty role and the evaluation process. Recognizing that priorities may shift over time, deans and faculty are encouraged to work collaboratively to ensure that all domains are addressed, even if emphasis varies from year to year.
Table 1 – Domain definitions used for establishing college standard criteria
| Domain | Definition |
|---|---|
| Teaching | This domain is characterized by creating and maintaining a learning environment that supports students’ acquisition of knowledge and skills within a subject area. This includes instructional design, delivery, effectiveness, and subject-matter expertise. The teaching domain also encompasses activities that enhance the faculty member’s ability to facilitate student learning, engage diverse learners, and contribute meaningfully to the institution’s educational mission. |
| Scholarly and Creative Engagement | This domain is characterized by involvement in activities related to the faculty member’s recognized area of expertise or the broader field of higher education. These efforts demonstrate intellectual development, contribute to the faculty member’s discipline or educational practice, and support the academic mission of the institution. The Scholarly and Creative Engagement Domain recognizes the importance of continuous intellectual growth, innovation, and the creation and dissemination of new knowledge or artistic works. Activities can focus on applied, practical, and innovative contributions and may include research, publication, presentations, or creative works. Examples of scholarly and creative engagement can include any professional development offered through the college and state-wide that are not mandatory, or attending and participating in workshops, seminars, or professional conferences in one’s field, publishing peer-reviewed articles, books, or book chapters, presenting findings at academic conferences or symposia, creating artistic works (e.g., visual art, music compositions, literary works), performing or exhibiting creative works, receiving recognition for artistic or academic contributions, securing external funding for research or creative projects, developing and submitting grant proposals, , engaging in continuing education or skill development, obtaining relevant certifications or credentials, and participating in cross-disciplinary research or creative project, keeping current regarding developments in education and one’s field, engaging in classroom-based research to improve teaching or discipline-based research that may lead to publication |
| Service | The service domain can be characterized by participation in activities that support students, the college, and/or the broader community, chosen by the faculty member based on personal interest, expertise, or other reasons, rather than being explicitly required by a supervisor. Service may include but is not limited to engagement in college governance, committee work, and community outreach. These contributions reflect the faculty member’s commitment to institutional citizenship and to representing the college in various capacities. It is important to note that faculty are not expected to satisfy every type of service in any given year. However, across the evaluation cycle faculty are required to have some level of service in either college citizenship or college representation. Service activities are divided into three categories: 1) College Citizenship: Service activities that are in support of college or VCCS Initiatives and that involve a direct connection between the faculty member who engages in the specific activity and the faculty member’s position at the college connecting with students or community members. Examples of college citizenship include student club sponsorship, volunteering at new student orientations or welcome tables, and volunteering and/or attending optional student or college events 2) College Representation: Service activities that involve a direct connection between the faculty member who engages in the specific activity and the faculty member’s position at the college. College representation service activities can include activities, events, and meetings in which the faculty member’s position at the college is a critical component of their engagement in the activity such as representing the college at system level events and workgroups, having an active role with local, regional, or national professional organizations directly tied either to higher education instruction or the faculty member’s field of expertise, the development and maintenance of partnerships or activities with community stakeholders, participating in the community service program at the college or community activities that reflect the faculty’s role at the college (e.g. science fair judge), and sharing innovations with colleagues at other colleges. 3) Community Citizenship: Service activities that involve an indirect connection between the faculty member their position at the college, such that the faculty member, acting as a community resident who also happens to be a college employee, engages in contributing to community welfare and community development that are consistent with the mission of the college. Activities supporting community service are not bound by the college or VCCS service regions but are instead conducted where the faculty member can help foster community in a manner that is reflective of the college’s or VCCS’ mission, vision, and values. Examples of the community service domain include participation in community events and programs that support the college’s mission while not acting as a representative of the college or membership and activity in a civic organization as a community member. |
| Institutional Responsibility | This domain is defined by fulfilling assigned and expected responsibilities in accordance with applicable laws, policies, and institutional procedures. This includes, but is not limited to: Adherence to college and VCCS policies, demonstrating collegiality, advising students, mentoring adjuncts, completing administrative tasks, engaging in required departmental or institutional leadership, serving on assigned internal committees, and carrying out other assigned duties. Many of these duties reflect the need for faculty discipline expertise (e.g. curriculum development, adjunct mentoring). Activities that do not otherwise fit into Teaching, Scholarly and Creative Engagement, or Service, but which are job related, should be counted in the Institutional Responsibility domain. Additionally, any responsibility in which a faculty member receives release time or other form of compensation should be considered as Institutional Responsibility. |
Criteria for Achieving the “Meets Expectations” Standard
The criteria used to determine whether a faculty member has achieved the “Meets Expectations” rating in each of the four evaluation domains are outlined in the Faculty Evaluation Forms (see Appendix F).
Data Sources
Three required categories of data will be used to inform the summative evaluation for each domain:
- Self-Evaluation
- Student Surveys of Instruction
- Supervisor Evaluation, which includes at least one observation
These sources, as detailed in Table 2, provide the foundation for assessing faculty performance. The dean/supervisor will review all relevant evidence from these data sources to prepare a narrative evaluation report that supports the individual domain ratings. These domain ratings are then used to determine the overall summative rating of either “Meets Expectations” or “Does Not Meet Expectations.”
Table 2 – Required data sources that contribute to domain summative ratings
| Domain | Data Source |
|---|---|
| Teaching | Self-Evaluation Student Surveys of Instruction Supervisor Evaluation |
| Scholarly and Creative Engagement | Self-Evaluation Supervisor Evaluation |
| Service | Self-Evaluation Supervisor Evaluation |
| Institutional Responsibility | Self-Evaluation Supervisor Evaluation |
Self-Evaluation
Faculty members will submit a written self-evaluation that includes a personal assessment of their performance in each of the four evaluation domains (Teaching, Scholarly and Creative Engagement, Institutional Responsibility, and Service), as outlined in Table 1. This report should align with the expectations detailed in the Faculty Evaluation Form (Appendix F) and include:
- A professional and college activities report detailed enough to support the faculty member’s self-assigned rating of either “Meets Expectations” or “Does Not Meet Expectations” for each domain.
- A review of goals met or unmet from the Annual Professional Development Objectives (APDOs) for the current evaluation cycle.
- Additional relevant information (e.g., reassigned time, temporary duties, or administrative/professional responsibilities).
Student Surveys of Instruction
Students in all course sections each semester will have the opportunity to complete the Student Survey of Instruction (Appendix G). These responses will be summarized by the supervisor in a report, with attachments as needed, and will serve as a tool to help the faculty member and supervisor to explore strengths and weaknesses in course design and course delivery.
Written comments from students submitted directly to the faculty member, the supervisor, or provided through other formats (e.g., LMS) may also be included in either the self-evaluation or supervisor’s assessment, where appropriate.
Supervisor Evaluation
The supervisor will evaluate faculty performance using:
- The faculty member’s self-evaluation
- Student ratings and feedback
- Classroom observations
- Performance in assigned duties
- Independent assessment of adherence to college policies
- Any additional assigned duties, including reassigned or temporary responsibilities, which may require commentary from other departments or divisions in which additional duties may have taken place
In addition, the supervisor will:
- Assess progress toward APDOs for the current evaluation cycle. While faculty are encouraged to set ambitious and growth-oriented objectives, it is acceptable if some objectives are not fully achieved.
- Conduct classroom observations and complete the Class Observation Assessment Form (Appendix H) at a minimum frequency of:
- Each semester for faculty in a probationary, first-year appointment
- Annually for faculty in non-probationary, one-year appointments
- Once during the final three semesters of a multi-year appointment
If a faculty member teaches in multiple modalities (e.g., in-person and asynchronous), documentation of an observation in each modality is expected over time. However, not all modalities must be observed during every evaluation cycle.
The Role of APDOs in the Formal Evaluation
APDOs align with the four evaluation domains and therefore contribute to the formal evaluation by providing examples of engagement in the domains. However, the annual APDO review is in addition to and not a substitute for the comprehensive evaluation. The formal evaluation must reflect a broader and more holistic review of performance.
Supervisor’s Summative Evaluation Rating
The supervisor will assign a summative rating of either “Meets Expectations” or “Does Not Meet Expectations” based on the preponderance of evidence from all data sources. To receive a “Meets Expectations” rating, a faculty member must:
- Demonstrate mastery of a significant majority of individual criteria in each domain
- Show satisfactory progress toward areas requiring improvement
- Receive a “Meets Expectations” rating in each of the four domains
Performance concerns must be addressed promptly and documented per Policy 3.12. A faculty member shall not receive a “Does Not Meet Expectations” rating without appropriate documentation, as outlined in Policy 3.6.
Faculty-Supervisor Evaluation Conference
After the summative evaluation is completed, the supervisor will meet with the faculty member–either in person or via video conferencing–to discuss the evaluation and its implications for continued employment as defined in VCCS Policy 3.6.
- For faculty in their first three appointment contract years, the meeting must occur before March 15, the deadline to provide written notice of non-reappointment under VCCS Policy 3.04.
- For senior faculty (beyond the third year of continuous appointment contract years), the meeting must occur before February 15, the deadline to provide written notice of non-reappointment under VCCS Policy 3.04.
Implications of Summative Ratings
Meets Expectations
Faculty receiving a summative “Meets Expectations” rating:
- Are eligible for one-year or multi-year appointments, subject to provisions in VCCS Policy 3.4 and 3.6
- Will work with their supervisor to establish new APDOs for the next year
- Are eligible for promotion consideration (per VCCS Policy 3.7), assuming all other eligibility requirements are met
- Are eligible to participate in the college’s Reward and Recognition Plan
- Note: First-year probationary faculty are eligible only for recognition, not monetary rewards.
Does Not Meet Expectations
The consequences of a “Does Not Meet Expectations” rating vary depending on faculty appointment status:
- First-Year Probationary Faculty
- Not reappointed if they receive a “Does Not Meet Expectations” rating in either semester
- May continue to teach or be reassigned at the president’s discretion for the remainder of the academic year
- Must be notified of non-reappointment before March 15
- Second- and Third-Year Faculty
- Not reappointed if they receive a “Does Not Meet Expectations” rating
- Must be notified of non-reappointment before March 15
- Senior Faculty (Beyond Year Three)
- May appeal a “Does Not Meet Expectations” rating to the college president or a peer review committee through the Faculty Grievance Procedure (Policy 3.13)
- Throughout the appeals process, the supervisor must provide documentary evidence to support the evaluation
- The president or committee will consider:
- Input from the dean/supervisor
- Input from the supervising vice president
- Additional performance documentation
If the appeal is successful and the faculty member is reappointed, they will participate in the development of a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP). The supervisor will lead the creation of the PIP, focusing on areas of performance deficiency.
Training and Onboarding
To ensure transparent and consistent implementation of the VCCS Full-Time Teaching Faculty Development, Evaluation, and Recognition Plan, the following training requirements apply:
Training for Deans/Supervisors
Training includes:
- Overview of roles and responsibilities
- Understanding the four domains and the APDO process
- Timelines and evaluation cycles
- Guidelines for managing workload across domains
- Addressing performance concerns in a timely manner (Policy 3.12)
- Observing courses across modalities
- Recognizing faculty excellence
- Sample documentation (e.g. self-evaluations, narratives)
- Provided for all newly hired supervisors during their first semester
- Required refresher training every three years
- Resources will be housed in a dedicated Canvas site and facilitated by the VCCS System Office
Training for Supervisors’ Supervisors (e.g., CAO, VP, Provost)
This training includes:
- Overview of the faculty evaluation process
- Domains, APDOs, and timelines
- Clarifying standards for a “Meets Expectations” rating
- Required for all newly hired administrators during their first semester
- Refresher training required every three years
- Training will be facilitated by the VCCS System Office
Training for Faculty
Deans will provide orientation for new full-time faculty, including:
- Overview of faculty roles and responsibilities in the system
- Understanding the domains, APDOs, and timelines
- Examples of documentation and SMART APDO writing guidance
- Required for all newly hired full-time faculty during their first semester
- Refresher sessions will be provided as new topics arise for continuing faculty
Reward and Recognition Program
Purpose and Philosophy
The Reward and Recognition Program is designed to honor the full-time teaching faculty whose exceptional professional accomplishments and contributions support the mission of their college and the Virginia Community College System (VCCS). This program promotes a vibrant learning environment and celebrates extraordinary performance in one or more of the four domains of faculty activity: Teaching, Scholarly and Creative Engagement, Institutional Responsibility, and Service.
The VCCS recognizes that attracting, retaining, and inspiring high-quality faculty requires fair, transparent, and inclusive practices. While all full-time teaching faculty are expected to meet high standards of performance, the Reward and Recognition Program specifically acknowledges those who substantially exceed expectations in one or more domains. Each college within the VCCS is responsible for designing a program that provides meaningful and timely recognition of professional excellence.
Faculty Excellence Framework
The Chancellor’s Faculty Advisory Committee (CFAC) has developed the Virginia Community College Statement of Faculty Excellence (Appendix I), which may serve as a guiding framework for organizing and assessing faculty accomplishments for reward and organizing a recognition program.
Evidence-Based Recognition
This program is grounded in a culture of evidence. A faculty member’s documented record of exceptional performance should sufficiently demonstrate the nature, extent, and impact of their professional contributions for which reward or recognition is being considered.
As defined in this plan:
- Rewards are monetary awards, such as one-time bonuses, granted in recognition of significant achievements.
- Recognition is non-monetary, such as certificates, letters of commendation, public acknowledgments, or symbolic tokens of appreciation.
Balancing both reward and recognition is essential to creating an equitable and robust program that values a wide range of faculty accomplishments.
College Reward and Recognition Plans
While system-wide consistency in evaluation standards is essential, individual colleges may customize how they celebrate excellence to reflect their unique campus culture and values.
Program Requirements
Each college must establish and publish a Reward and Recognition Program that meets the following minimum requirements:
- A formal program must be established and documented.
- Annual funding must be allocated and available to support the program.
- Clearly defined eligibility criteria must be in place (e.g., whether faculty may receive both a reward and recognition in the same year, or receive rewards in consecutive years).
- A simple, accessible nomination process (e.g., brief narrative submissions).
- A published timeline for the nomination and selection process.
- A faculty-led review process (e.g., a committee to review nominations).
- A published evaluation rubric, with training provided for all individuals involved in the selection process.
Implementation Timeline
During Academic Year (AY) 2025-26, colleges will continue using their current reward and recognition programs. Each college must convene a faculty-majority workgroup during this year to develop or revise its program to meet the above requirements. Updated college Reward and Recognition Programs must be in place and implemented system-wide by AY 2026-27.
Virginia Western’s Reward and Recognition Plan is found in Appendix J.
Assessment of Program Effectiveness
To ensure ongoing relevance and impact, each college will conduct a biannual assessment of its Reward and Recognition Program. This assessment should evaluate:
- Faculty awareness and understanding of the program
- Clarity and communication of procedures, eligibility criteria, and deadlines
- Effectiveness of program administration and implementation
- Equity and distribution of rewards and recognition across departments and faculty groups
- Impact on faculty motivation, engagement, and pursuit of professional excellence
- Alignment of the program with the college’s mission and values
Findings from this assessment should inform continuous improvement of the program and be shared with college leadership and relevant faculty bodies.
Appendices
- Appendix A: Committee Members
- Appendix B: Annual Development Objectives Faculty/Supervisor Agreement Form (PDF)
- Appendix C: First-Year Probationary Faculty Professional Development Objectives
- Appendix D: Evaluation Timelines
- Appendix E: Domain Mid-Year Check-In Form (PDF)
- Appendix F: Faculty Evaluation Form (PDF)
- Appendix G: Student Survey of Instruction (PDF)
- Appendix H: Class Observation Assessment Form (PDF)
- Appendix I: Chancellor’s Faculty Advisory Committee (CFAC) VCCS Statement of Faculty Excellence (PDF)
- Appendix J: Virginia Western Reward and Recognition Plan
- Appendix K: Learning Environment Award Nomination Form (PDF)
Additional Evaluation Plans
VWCC Alerts
We use the VW Mass Notification System to immediately contact you during a major crisis or emergency. Get more info and register!