Standard 4

From selfstudy
Revision as of 10:21, 4 January 2008 by Ralphd (Talk | contribs) (Introduction)



Teaching at Evergreen - the recruitment and socialization of new faculty members, curriculum planning, and evaluation – are guided by our mission as a public, interdisciplinary, liberal arts college. While all elements of our mission are important for the faculty, it is our commitment to interdisciplinary studies that makes teaching at Evergreen so distinctive, and offers the most rigorous and transformative experiences for faculty members.

What makes interdisciplinary teaching so powerful for faculty members comes only in part from the range of areas of study team members bring to their programs. The crucial attraction lies in the inquiry – the creation of new understanding – by faculty with students as they bring together disciplinary and critical perspectives on genuinely important issues. One faculty member (one of the original 50 faculty members at the college) defined interdisciplinary in the following way: “Interdisciplinary means, in its clearest formulation, a kind of inquiry that looks into the structure and internal logic of the various disciplines and seeks to transcend them in the interest of knowledge through inquiry that is believed to be superior to disciplinary-based inquiry.”[1] He went on to say that such teaching is more aptly described as “transdisciplinary” where disciplinary-based knowledge provides both pertinent content but also perspective to query all the fields of study within a program.

Among the faculty at Evergreen, there is no single approach to interdisciplinary teaching and learning. There is agreement about the essential conditions for such studies: team teaching with colleagues from different fields; collegial teaching where teaching partners collaborate to design, plan and teach a substantively integrated program; year-long, or multiple quarter, full time study.

Looking empirically at what has evolved at the college in the name of “interdisciplinary studies” we have developed a shared approach to teaching and learning that promotes an integration of knowledge and modes of inquiry. In other words, faculty members seek to establish in their programs an intellectual and critical relationship to the academic material. That kind of relationship is fostered by the multiple perspectives offered by the fields of study, and the ongoing and challenging dialogue among faculty and students.

By its nature, interdisciplinary teaching invites faculty members and students into unfamiliar areas of study. It can lead to unexpected and surprising new learning. Interdisciplinary teaching can change what faculty members know and how they think, their interdisciplinary and disciplinary knowledge and insight can expand, and their skills of inquiry can sharpen. Students make it abundantly clear, in their evaluations of their own learning, that faculty members who are engaged in such collegial inquiry are key to their learning. A graduating senior put it this way:

Everyone in the program, including the faculty, said this book is so difficult, none of us will be able to understand this book fully. So the professors and the students were in the same boat: we were all learners together. And that’s something Evergreen believes in. We were forced by the enormity of the text to really come together, and the faculty members were leading examples because they were exhausted, too. But they also were showing us the light at the end – not because they knew the end of the book but because they were all people who respect it, because of the sensitivities they had brought to the table. If students don’t respect their faculty, if there’s not a model in the classroom, then I don’t think students are going to get anything out of it

In both internal and external measures of learning and satisfaction, students rank their relationships with faculty as the most significant factor in their education at Evergreen. In the 2006 Evergreen Student Experience Survey students were asked about their level of satisfaction on a number of variables. The highest ranking variable for Evergreen students was with their relationship with their faculty; 47.5% of the students ranked their relationship with faculty members as “very satisfying” and an additional 42.6% ranked it as “satisfying.” The second highest ranking variable was “overall quality of instruction: 43% of the students ranked that as “very satisfying” and an additional 48% ranked it as “satisfying.” One more variable that stood was “availability of faculty outside of class”: 33% ranked this as “very satisfying” and an additional 53.4% ranked it as “satisfying.” The Evergreen Student Experience Survey can be viewed at

There were similar high levels of satisfaction with student interactions with faculty members in the National Survey of Student Engagement where Evergreen students are compared to those at other schools nationally. The “Student-Faculty Interaction” results from the NSSE can be viewed at

The engaging and rigorous inquiry essential for interdisciplinary study originates in the academic relationship faculty members establish with one another, students and the material. In other words, what and how faculty members design and teach is manifest by the academic community created. Two of our faculty members made a very helpful distinction between “team teaching” and “collegial teaching.”[2] Team members choose the nature of the relationship they will establish with one another and the material; collegial teaching reflects a decision to teach where the faculty are actively inquiring with one another and their students into compelling questions and themes:

What is crucial to collegial teaching is that the two (or more) teachers join together out of a common intellectual interest. What brings the colleagues together must be a genuine interest, not an interest invented as a pretext for creating a course. And there must be some common ground in their intellectual interests so together they can formulate a question or project the joint pursuit of which will be genuinely interesting to each – though not necessarily for the same reasons.

They go on to argue that collegial teaching is “…the central supporting, determining, and founding fact of pedagogy.” Based in both genuine difference and genuine equality, it is the fundamental “social pedagogy” essential for interdisciplinary studies. The capacity of the faculty to sustain interdisciplinary studies resides in a network of relationships – among academic disciplines, among the team members and students, and between each faculty member and the unfamiliar new knowledge and assumptions he or she encounters. It is within these relationships, experienced simultaneously, that the nature and experience of interdisciplinary studies is best understood.

It is useful to think of interdisciplinary studies at Evergreen not so much as a model but rather as a relationship created by members of a program between knowledge (as it is formalized in disciplines and publicly) and inquiries into that knowledge. As a dialectical process, knowledge and insight evolves as members of the program simultaneously challenge and integrate program material. This process is aimed toward the development of reflexive thinking. This is learning that is integrative and through which learners acquire a perspective on themselves, become informed of the array of knowledge in the world, analyze the historical and political origins of knowledge, and recognize the function of knowledge in the public world. Learning, understood in this way helps make clear the centrality of our Five Foci as the guiding principles of teaching and learning at the college.

Faculty issues and concerns

There are a number of conditions present within the faculty that today provide sources of creativity as well as strain. Two stand out for special attention. First, we are a very different faculty group from who we were at our last reaccreditation. Close to fifty percent of our current faculty members have been hired in the last ten years; an addition fifteen percent have been here for 15 years or less; and the remainder have taught at the college since its earlier years. Many of the faculty in this latter group will be retiring within the next five years.

The current faculty has a different disciplinary distribution than at our last review. Most notably we have hired more faculty members for our professional graduate and undergraduate programs; we have fewer faculty members in the humanities (21% of the faculty in 2005, down from 25% in 1997) and greater numbers in the sciences ( 35% in 2005, up from 26% in 1997). The following shows the number of faculty members hired and those that retired by planning unit over the last ten years.

Hires 13 12 16 21 10 8 10
Retirement 26 9 16 10 14 5 4

The change in demographics among the faculty has had a direct effected on curricular offerings, as well as approaches to pedagogy and epistemology. These changes can be viewed in a variety of ways. For some, they are an unsurprising change in student interest and academic priorities in higher education. But we should also consider how these changes affect our ability to do interdisciplinary studies.

There are other interesting demographic changes that help tell the story of the current faculty members at the college. The regular faculty has grown by 6% since 1997 – from 153 to close to 180. 51% of our faculty members are women, 49% males. And 23% are persons of color. In terms of age distribution, the following shows numbers and percentage (based on 180 regular faculty members in spring of 2007) in five major age categories.

Age Range Number of faculty Percentage of faculty
30 - 39 22 12%
40 –49 44 24%
50 – 59 64 35%
60 – 69 52 28%
70 – 79 1

There are interesting observations to make about these numbers. The majority of our faculty members are mid-career; we have a very small percentage in their 30s. With almost 60% 50 or older we must expect continued high rates of retirement and hiring over the next 10 to 15 years. This will make our processes of socialization and orientation to the college a very high priority for us.

In the spring of 2007, the faculty included those with as much as 33 years of teaching at the college to those in their first year. 49% of the faculty have been here for ten years or less, 21% for five years or less. 32% have been here between ten and twenty years.

Years of teaching at TESC Number of faculty Percentage of faculty
1 – 5 years 38 21%
6 – 10 years 51 28%
11 – 15 years 26 14%
16 – 20 years 34 18%
21 – 25 years 14 7%
26 – 30 years 6 3%
31 – 33 years 11 6%

A second important condition effecting faculty teaching is the increase in our faculty to student ratio largely as a result of state funding. The actual classroom ratio is 25 to 1, although the majority of faculty tend to carry something closer to FTE when sponsoring contracts is added to the mix. We have also had a significant change in the length of programs. In 1998 …….were three quarters and now only ….. programs are year long. [Matt has these numbers] Thus within a single year, a typical faculty member is interacting for shorter periods of time with twice as many students as was the case ten years ago. This poses serious tensions and constraints for the faculty attempting to create the conditions for engagement and complex learning.

For many faculty members, we have reached or exceeded a tipping point in being able to include activities that require close faculty involvement (e.g. responding to student writing, amount of time faculty members can spend one-on-one with students, time for faculty seminar, evaluation conferences). For those faculty members who include studio, field research and lab work, many feel they can’t teach in programs with more than 50 students, thus we have seen a pattern of more two-person teaching teams and a more narrow academic breadth. This pattern is having a direct impact on our ability to provide well-integrated, interdisciplinary programs.

These two factors exert enormous influence on the faculty’s decisions about program content and approach. But there are other forces that need mention:

  • We have planned programs for the last ten years within our most traditionally defined planning structures (e.g. Environmental Studies, Expressive Arts, Scientific Inquiry). Many faculty members are experiencing unintended consequences of that structure: a fracturing of the curriculum in more traditional ways and a centrifugal force that seems to pull faculty members back into their disciplinary origins.
  • The orientation of new faculty members had rested with their first teaching partners. We had been able to assume that most of what a new faculty member needed to know would be addressed in the course of team teaching. But many new faculty members report that it is very difficult to get information (e.g. narrative evaluations) from team members on our most basic processes. This may reflect any number of problems – a heavy work load among teaching partners, an inattention by the faculty (and deans) as a whole to ongoing articulation of key values and practices, and movements away from what we assumed were well established practices (here a change in pedagogy).

The faculty as a whole has much more work it must do collectively not only for the overall guidance of the college but also for the assimilation of new members. The intensity (and some would say isolation) of teaching partners has to be balanced by broader deliberations by the faculty on matters of both principles and practices.

Such a change requires us to be much more deliberate and mindful of our common work. We have been informal and varied in our approach to welcoming new faculty members as well as in our processes as a faculty. These changes call for a more broad-based and integrated discussion among the faculty. To that end, faculty development is now a major desk assignment for all the deans who work to urge more faculty discussion.

  • We have a younger faculty attracted to teach at Evergreen because of the autonomy and collegiality of teaching, and less so because of an interest in educational reform. Many of the original faculty were seasoned in the protests on college campuses in the 1960s. The planning faculty settled on interdisciplinary studies as our pedagogical innovation as both more educationally sound and better suited to develop the insights and skills useful for participation in a democratic society. In other words, Evergreen was meant to be a better and more civic-minded education.
  • One of the manifestations of this change is a heightened concern by faculty members to stay well connected to their “fields.” Many express difficulty in teaching broadly, as they understand interdisciplinary to mean, and being able to focus on the details they know are key to specific areas. This tension is partially a reflection of the faculty members; but it must also be recognized as a change that has happened within disciplines and departments over the last decades. In graduate study today there are more “disciplines,” and with greater amounts of content to be mastered. And, as noted above, more recent graduates did not complete their studies within the same critical framework as did many of the original faculty at the college. In other words, we may be seeing a change in the relationship our faculty has with their original academic preparation. This may be bearing on what they find pertinent and of interest in teaching.
  • The current negotiation for a faculty union must also be seen as a fundamental change in the relationship – actual and assumed – between the faculty and the administration. While negotiating for higher salaries is assumed to be a key incentive to form a union, many faculty members are also interested in having faculty authority established through a legal contract rather than presuming collaboration with the administration

4.A Faculty selection, Evaluation, Roles, Welfare and Development

All of the practices discussed in this section are done collaboratively, calling on the involvement and judgment of many members of the college. Our primary goal, throughout the following institutional processes, is to deepen the interdisciplinary understanding and sensibilities of our faculty: recruitment and selection of faculty members; the orientation and support provided in their first years in both their teaching assignments and development opportunities; their participation in the planning and teaching of the curriculum; on going and extensive review and evaluation of their teaching; governance and scholarly work; and their involvement on ongoing faculty development events. It is in both whom we hire and then the conditions within which they work that we sustain a faculty capable of the challenge of providing an innovative liberal arts and interdisciplinary education for students.


The institution employs professionally qualified faculty with primary commitment to the institution and representative of each field or program in which it offers major work.

The Provost is the faculty hiring authority, and delegates the coordination of that process to an academic dean. That dean, informally known as the “Hiring Dean” works in partnership with the Faculty Hiring Coordinator. They are responsible for implementing the college’s policy regarding the qualifications and experiences determined for each position.

The Hiring Dean works with the Curriculum deans and Hiring Priorities DTF members (representatives from all the curricular planning units) to select positions necessary for a comprehensive curriculum. The process for determining required qualifications is consultative involving Provost, deans, and faculty members in the field. They determine the requirements for each position based on their best judgment of an expected applicant pool, and the particular background and experiences necessary for each position. Thus our qualifications can vary from position to position [] Our usual qualifications, unless there are other considerations, are the following:

  • Terminal degree
  • College teaching experience
  • Interdisciplinary teaching and/or research
  • Intellectual and artistic vitality

Common “desirable” qualifications often include:

  • Work with underrepresented student populations
  • Work with community organizations

We assure faculty commitment to the institution in a number of ways. In our recruitment materials and when candidates are on campus for interviews, we stress the primacy of teaching. Candidates meet with faculty members in their same field, specifically around the time spent teaching and the ways in which faculty balance scholarly and artistic interests with teaching.

Establishing qualifications, and selecting new faculty members, requires striking a balance between disciplinary expertise and interdisciplinary breadth. The College’s Hiring Priorities DTF, which includes members from all the planning units, determines the positions to be hired. Then another small group, including members from across fields and working with the hiring dean, writes the final job description. A good job description makes clear that we seek both depth and breadth, and that both sets of criteria have equal weight.

Key to this process is the language we use to announce position and describe the qualities in successful candidates. We craft job announcements that articulate the required areas of expertise and qualifications, and that also convey the qualities of our work and teaching relations. Using language like “collegiality,” “innovative and engaging pedagogy,” and “intellectual and artistic curiosity, “ we hope to catch the attention of potential applicants for whom teaching, interdisciplinary studies and collaboration are strong priorities.

We believe that we hire qualified and compatible new faculty members because the hiring process is based in extensive community participation. Beyond the Provost, deans and Faculty Firing Coordinator, many people are involved in reviewing, interviewing and then selecting new faculty members. For each position there is a subcommittee that includes faculty, staff and students; the campus-wide Hiring DTF is also made up of faculty, staff and students. Candidates meet other faculty members and students at presentations, class visits, and over lunch and dinner. Everyone who has contact with the candidate is asked to review and advise the subcommittee and Hiring DTF. The procedures involved in hiring continuing faculty members is stipulated in the Faculty Handbook

What follows is a schema that lays out the progression of the hiring process and the key groups involved in the process.

Steps in the Hiring Process

Members of the six planning units

generate position proposals

Members of the Hiring Priorities DTF are

charged by the Provost to select

positions to be hired. These

recommended positions discussed by the faculty as a whole

Hiring Dean meets with representatives from

Hiring Priorities and planning unit

To write job description

Hiring Dean, in consultation with planning unit coordinator, invites

Members from across the college (faculty, students, staff)

To server on the position subcommittee

Hiring Dean invites members from across the college

(faculty, staff, students) to serve on the Hiring DTF

Hiring Coordinator and Hiring Dean develop position descriptions

And develop plan to advertise and recruit applicants

Subcommittee members for each position review

and select semi-finalists. In consultation with the Hiring

DTF they then select finalists.

Candidates are on campus for a two-day interview process. The groups that

Are involved in the interviewing process include the following:

Subcommittee Hiring DTF Deans Provost Community

Members members

The review and recommendations from thes egroups are discussed as a

“decision meeting” facilitated by the Hiring Dean.Members of the subcommittee, Hiring DTF and deans make up this group.

The recommendation to hire for the position is sent forward to the Provost who makes final decision in consultation with the President.'''


Faculty participate in academic planning, curriculum development and review, academic advising, and institutional governance.

At any one time, a faculty member is in three phases of “program planning”: their immediate program, the program coming up the next year, and their program coming up two years hence. Planning, as both a process of curricular design and inquiry, is inextricably linked to teaching at the college.

Assuring innovation and collaboration requires genuine and open inquiry as a basis for planning; and it must be supported by opportunities for rethinking and redesigning curriculum. (This means that the college’s catalogue is rewritten every year.) Currently those opportunities include the weekly faculty seminar, two annual faculty retreats, summer program planning institutes and an annual September Symposium. While the scale of participation in these opportunities varies from immediate team members in a program to the whole faculty, they all present opportunities for faculty members to articulate the substance and goals of their teaching, to listen and learn from one another, and to have an inclusive process of curriculum planning in which faculty members can draw from this wide array of input. This allows the faculty to provide not only a foundation and progression in our fields of study, but also a responsiveness that is key to relevant and thoughtful learning experiences. Collegial interaction and dialogue is the basis for rethinking and redesigning curriculum, and calls upon the most thoughtful and collaborative skills of the faculty. This process is intended to provide a process of planning curriculum that is both disciplinarily substantive and promotes genuine, engaged teaching and learning.

There are a number of ways in which faculty members participate in curriculum planning. It may be useful to think about these ways like rings in a concentric circle. At the center, and the work that is most compelling, is the planning each faculty members does with his/her teammates for the program they will teach. At any one time, a faculty member is involved in planning three such programs:

  • Within their current program, faculty team members meet minimally each week and perhaps are in touch more often by e-mail, to do the on going planning of their programs. While the major elements of the program were determined before the program started, there are ongoing refinements and changes that must be done as the substance and issues of the program emerge. For this kind of planning, all faculty members are expected to participate in their team faculty seminar. There is wide variation in how the faculty do this kind of planning. Many teams do host these seminars, but not all.
  • During any year of teaching, faculty members have been assigned to their teaching teams for the following year. They may meet occasionally during the year for informal discussions or more formal planning. The spring of the year preceding this next program, there is a spring retreat where those team members prepare materials for students prior to registration. In the summer preceding this program, faculty members can attend one of five four-day Team Planning Institutes where they meet intensively with team members to design their upcoming programs.
  • In the fall of the year, all faculty members are invited to attend a Fall Faculty Retreat that occurs over a period of three days. During this retreat, faculty members take the first steps in proposing new programs and talking with potential team members for their programs two years hence.


Faculty members are in a position to advise the students in their programs throughout the time they have contact with them. Advising relationships between students and faculty are a natural outgrowth of the sustained connections that emerge from the learning communities created by interdisciplinary programs. Many faculty members will continue on as advisors for students doing advanced work in their field. All faculty members do some amount of advising through the larger process of reflection and decision making that is embedded in the narrative evaluation process. But many faculty teams do much more.

Many teams meet with students before the program begins (during orientation week) or shortly after the beginning of the year. They also will hold special advising meetings with students in their program, and invite professional advisors from the College’s Student Academic and Support Services to meet with students. We have had a long-standing practice of faculty members serving for a year in a rotation as the “faculty advisor.” That person is relieved of assigned classroom teaching duties for the year in which he or she serves as faculty advisor, and works in the Academic Advising office with the same roles as our professional academic advising staff. As a result of how long we have done this, we now have many facultywho have had extensive experience in advising and draw on their knowledge at faculty meetings and other discussions.

Many program teams have their students develop an academic plan at the beginning of the academic year. This practice, along with the College’s decision to make it a requirement for all incoming students to attending an initial advising workshop in which they begin the process of an academic plan, will help embed advising within the ongoing activities of a program.

The College has a long-standing program called "Core Connectors" in which each core program (with 100% freshmen) and lower division program (with up to 50% freshmen) has an assigned student services professional to serve an advising role with the students in the program. The Core Connector, most often an academic advisor, visits the program at least weekly and works with the faculty to resolve student difficulties. This collaboration between Student Affairs and Academic Affairs serves not only to provide important academic advising to students, but it also strengthens faculty advising skills and their knowledge of college processes and resources.



All faculty members on regular contracts are required to do governance. To the extent possible, we try to have the faculty member determine the governance they would like to do in any one year. In the spring of the academic year, all faculty receive a questionnaire in which they list their top priorities for governance. The deans and members of the Agenda Committee then do the final determination of governance membership.

Some governance assignments are elected and others voluntary. Deans, members of the Agenda Committee, Budget Advisory members and others are nominated and then voted on by the faculty at large. Hiring subcommittee members, Hiring Priorities members and others volunteer to serve.

Governance is also distinguished by the nature of the work assigned. Those DTFs and committees that attend to ongoing curricular matters – for example, Hiring Priorities, planning unit coordinators – are charged with the ongoing work of academic planning and implementation. Other governance groups are specifically charged to review and propose policy. These DTFs, such as the recent Curricular Visions group or current First Year Cohort group, will complete their charge and then disband.

While all faculty are expected to serve in particular governance group, they are also expected to participate in the general faculty meetings and planning unit meetings.


Faculty workloads reflect the mission and goals of the institution and the talents and competencies of faculty, allowing sufficient time and support for professional growth and renewal.

[faculty workload data (Laura)]

There are a variety of opportunities and resources to support faculty scholarship, artistic work, professional travel, participation in professional organizations, travel and other activities related to research. All of these opportunities are meant to enrich the work of individual faculty members (and their success as teachers) but they are collectively designed to be shared with the College community. In this, we are promoting the quality of our faculty members and intending to maintain a vibrant academic community, one where the substantive work of its members can be shared in public ways.

  • Sabbaticals leaves. The award of sabbaticals is non-competitive and treated as an essential opportunity all faculty require to renew and deepen themselves as teachers. Faculty member accrue eligibility for sabbatical by teaching {[the rate at which that happens] Each year the Curriculum Deans and provost determine the number of lines available for sabbatical and faculty are invited to apply. The lines are awarded in order of priority on the eligibility list. We award %%% each year.

To apply a faculty member submits a proposal with a description of their intended project. They are asked to clarify the contribution this project will make to their own learning, to their teaching and to the college more broadly. At the conclusion of the sabbatical, faculty members submit a report of their experiences.

  • All faculty members have an allocation for professional travel. Faculty members on full time contracts have on average $750.00 a year; adjuncts may request a proportion of that dependent on percentage of their FTE. This fund covers all expenses if the faculty member is presenting at a conference, and travel if they are only attending.
  • Leave Without Pay (LWOP). Faculty members apply for Leave Without Pay for any number of reasons. Some have a research grant and intend to work full time on that project. Others request leave for personal reasons or other professional reasons. This leave allows faculty more flexibility than available in other colleges. LWOP leaves are awarded when the faculty member’s absence will not undermine curricular offerings, and we are assured of being able to fill their assigned position.
  • Summer Sponsored Research. Every summer 8-12 faculty members are awarded Sponsored Research grant for a wide range of proposed projects. For some faculty members, they use the funding to begin a new project; in other cases, it allows faculty member to finish up a manuscript or final details on a project. Faculty members submit a proposal in the preceding fall quarter. The proposals are read by members of the Sponsored Research DTF and awards made based on the quality of the proposal and the history of past awards. We tend to be able to support 50-75% of the proposals submitted.
  • Faculty Research Grants. This is a new source of funding provided by the College’s Board of Governors. Faculty members can submit proposals to fund research activities; this includes travel, supplies, transcription services and other resources necessary for a project. The proposals are read and awards made by the Sponsored Research DTF.
  • Fund for Innovation. Faculty and staff can apply for funds from this source for collaborative new projects. Each year the fund has approximately $60,000. to award and does so through a review process.

There are other opportunities funded for the faculty that support events, workshops, institutes and symposia in which faculty integrate their research and scholarly interests, and teaching.

  • Summer Institutes. The College currently offers 20-25 workshops and institutes for the faculty over the summer months. For those faculty members not on contract, they are paid a stipend of $125.00 a day to participate in these events. One category of these institutes is focused on program planning. These include six Team Planning Institutes, the New Faculty and Their Teams institute, the Core Colloquium, and an Evening Weekend Studies institute. The primary focus in these institutes is on preparation for upcoming teaching. Faculty members prepare for these institutes with short readings focusing on priority issues in the curriculum (e.g. Diversity, assessment) and begin each planning day in a discussion of that issue and generate ideas about how to address it within their program design. In addition to these planning institutes, there are many other institutes that provide exposure to or training in topical areas or skills. For example, every summer we offer 5-6 institutes in instructional technology. This last summer we had a number of very topical institutes dealing with sustainability, teaching climate change, innovative approaches to teaching quantitative material.

In all of the institutes, whether the focus is on planning or accruing new knowledge and insights, the emphasis is on improving teaching. And there are many other additional values that come from this time the faculty spend together. There are many informal discussion of what people are teaching and their interests and concerns; faculty members have a chance to meet many more faculty and establish personal relationships; since many of the institutes are convened by academic support staff, faculty become much more knowledgeable about the depth of expertise at the college.

Summer institutes have grown steadily in what is offered and the number of participants over the years. The following table does not include the program planning institutes (six offered each summer), and does include those institutes having to do with instructional technologies. These institutes are some of the most popular, often having waiting lists that cannot be accommodated.

Number of institutes offered Number of participants Number of IT related institutes
2005 19 155 6
2006 17 177 3
2007 22 180 4
  • September Symposium. In fall quarter of 2001, then Dean Nancy Taylor hosted the first all faculty September Symposium. The event preceded the beginning of classes and spanned two days. There were formal presentations of research and innovative curriculum; there were literary readings; a gallery was set up to display a wide array of faculty artistic work; and the skippers on the faculty hosted others on the College’s teaching sailboat.

We have hosted a September Symposium every year since 2003. It may be safe to say that this is now an anticipated part of the beginning of our academic year. We have expanded participation to more staff and students, and for the first time this year included in orientation week to allow students to attend.

  • College Speaker Series. We are inaugurating this yearlong series of speakers and other events this fall. We believe that events that allow faculty members to learn more about one another’s interests and work is directly useful in the process of selecting team mates but just as important helps create a more vigorous academic culture on the campus for everyone. There is much vitality within programs; these events are ways to generate such vitality for the College as a whole. This is a very particular way to manifest being a public college.


Faculty salaries and benefits are adequate to attract and retain a competent faculty and are consistent with the mission and goals of the institution. Policies on salaries and benefits are clearly stated, widely available and equitably administered.

The College, in its origin, rejected unequal salaries in the interest of a non-stratified and egalitarian faculty. It was assumed that the challenges inherent in team teaching would be undermined with any of the traditional relations of power present in most colleges and universities. Rather than gross inequities among the faculty, all faculties are paid on the same scale and income increases with each additional year of experience. The rationale and basis of computation of experience can be found at

Our salaries are not competitive in some academic areas, notably in areas of professional studies and fields where market forces drive up salaries at other universities (e.g. engineering, sciences, business). We are as competitive or more so in other areas traditionally paid less (e.g. humanities, arts).

We make information available about salaries in our advertising and the hiring process. Most candidates find the values regarding salary attractive, appealing to values of equity and the overly hierarchical nature of faculty relations at other colleges.


The institution provides for regular and systematic evaluation of faculty performance in order to ensure teaching effectiveness and the fulfillment of instructional and other faculty responsibilities. The institution’s policies, regulations, and procedures provide for the evaluation of all faculty on a continuing basis consistent with Policy 4.1 faculty evaluation

Evergreen originated with and has continued a culture of evaluation and reflection. Our evaluations are narrative, and are shared and discussed in face-to-face conferences. While there are conditions and expectations [please see] that provide a framework for faculty evaluations, faculty members also use their evaluations to address personal interests and insights about the college and their teaching. We intend our faculty evaluation process to be both developmental and supportive of genuine inquiry into teaching, and essential to adequately evaluate faculty members on the quality of their teaching and participation in the college as a whole.

Faculty members hired into regular positions go through two, three- year term contracts before being reviewed for a permanent continuing appointment. Each year of the term contract, they are involved in reciprocal and comprehensive evaluations that focus on their teaching and the other conditions for reappointment. [a link to the handbook} The evaluation process is based on the following evaluations:

  • Faculty member’s self-evaluation
  • Faculty member’s evaluations of his/her teaching partners for that year
  • Teaching partner’s evaluations of the faculty member
  • Faculty member’s evaluations of students
  • Faculty member’s students’ self-evaluations
  • Student evaluations of the faculty member

Faculty members on terms contracts have an annual evaluation with an academic dean. The dean does not write an independent evaluation, but rather one based on the comments found in all the above evaluations. The dean meets with the faculty member for a conference in which key patterns and outcomes are discussed. If there are any problems noted, they will appear in the deans’ evaluation for that year with direction for satisfactorily addressing the problem. In some situations, the dean with suggest that the faculty member go through a ‘developmental review” with the dean responsible for faculty development (who does not evaluate faculty members).

Once the faculty member has taught nine quarters and with six colleagues (four of whom are on continuing contracts), the faculty member goes through a cumulative review. The evidentiary base is the faculty member’s portfolio, which includes all evaluations and other relevant material and documents from teaching and research. The review panel is made up of the faculty member’s teaching colleagues and two other faculty members. The review is facilitated by an academic dean.

The faculty evaluation process, while it includes as evidence a range of evaluations, rests on peer review. For example, the faculty member as well as his or her teaching colleagues is expected to interpret and make sense of evaluations from students or student self-evaluations. The faculty, in its review, also maintains internal standards for reviews of such reappointment criteria as “professional development” or “intellectual vitality.” In this, our review is meant to be rigorous yet non-competitive, and with the frame of reference for judgment determined by the faculty member’s immediate colleagues.

The details of the process are specified in the Faculty Handbook,


The institution defines an orderly process for the recruitment and appointment of full-time faculty. Institutional personnel policies and procedures are published and made available to faculty.

Continuity in our hiring process – from writing job descriptions through the orientation of new faculty members – is coordinated through the Faculty Hiring Office. One academic dean serves as the Faculty Hiring Dean and works in partnership with the Faculty Hiring Coordinator.

The College has developed a core set of publications and other sites for advertising all faculty positions. That list has been determined by feedback from candidates (e.g. The majority of candidates say they find our advertisement in the Chronicle of Higher Education, for example) and our interest in recruitment diverse candidate pools. Included in our core list of sites is The Chronicle of Higher Education, Academic Careers Online, Black Issues in Higher Education, Hispanic Perspectives, The Women’s Book Review, Indian Scholar, and Indian Country Today. We also advertise in regional metropolitan newspapers including The Seattle Times, The Portland Oregonian, The Daily Olympian, and the Tacoma News Tribune. For some positions we also advertise in the San Francisco Chronicle. Most candidates report that they learn about our positions from either the Chronicle or the college’s web site.

For each position, we consult with faculty in the area to find out the important journals, web sites, professional organizations and conferences where we should advertise and recruit. These two approaches assure us that we are advertising broadly and to target audiences, and to those specific disciplinary sites.

Personnel policies???

Hiring faculty to the college is a community process. While the coordination of that process resides with the Hiring Dean and EWS Dean and their program coordinators, many people are involved in reviewing interviewing and then selecting new faculty members. For each position there is a subcommittee that includes faculty, staff and students; the campus-wide Hiring DTF is also made up of faculty, staff and students. Candidates meet other faculty members and students at presentations, class visits, and over lunch and dinner. Everyone who has contact with the candidate is asked to review and advise the subcommittee and Hiring DTF.

Recommendations for hiring are put forward by the subcommittee to the Hiring DTF. In consultation with the deans, the Hiring DTF members and subcommittee members ideally reach consensus the preferred candidate. That recommendation, along with a summary of references, goes to the Provost for the final decision.

Faculty hiring is a very involved and labor-intensive process. Members of the subcommittee thoroughly read each application [link to required material]. They are charged, in consultation with the Hiring DTF, to make the first cut of semi-finalists. Once candidates come to campus, they spend two days being interviewed by a number of groups and having the opportunity to observe and ask questions of faculty members, deans, provost and students. Once it comes time to discuss and compare qualities and qualifications of candidates, we have much material to consider.

In a faculty poll conducted a few years about faculty governance, serving on subcommittee and the Hiring DTF ranked the highest. In spite of the very large amount of work involved, the faculty find this very satisfying work and readily agree to serve when asked. When you add up the number of faculty, staff and students on the Hiring DTF and the varied subcommittees, it is not uncommon to have well over 100 community members involved. Thus faculty governance is also the largest governance activity at the college.


The institution fosters and protects academic freedom for faculty

[insert from handbook??]


Part-time and adjunct faculty are qualified by academic background, degree(s) and/or professional experience to carry out their teaching assignment and/or other prescribed duties and responsibilities in accord with the mission and goals of the institution.


Employment practices for part-time and adjunct faculty include dissemination of information regarding the institution, the work assignment, rights and responsibilities, and conditions of employment


The institution demonstrates that it periodically assesses institutional policies concerning the use of part-time and adjunct faculty in light of the mission and goals of the institution.

4.B. Scholarship, Research, and Artistic Creation


Consistent with institutional mission and goals, faculty are engaged in scholarship, research and artistic creation.1

One of the very distinctive sources for faculty research and creative work emerges from teaching. Because faculty members teach with others from varied fields, and have the opportunity to include new areas of inquiry into their teaching, many find teaching to be a constant source of creative inquiry. Faculty development, research and artistic work is a top priority in the academic division. Additional funding and resources are critical for the ongoing vitality and learning for faculty members.

Funding for faculty research fall into two broad categories: internal sources of funding and external sources. The Office of Academic Grants coordinates both areas of funding, and provides guidance and information to faculty about opportunities, procedures and legal policies including Human Subjects Review and ethical considerations.

The internal sources of funding include non-competitive sabbatical program (faculty accrue time towards sabbatical leave by teaching), professional travel, summer sponsored research, Faculty Foundation Grants, Harvill Award, PLATO Award, and mini-grants for assessment from the Office of Institutional Research and Assessment. Examples of sponsored research funded in the past can be in reviewed in the attached file.

Faculty members at the college are currently conducting research with support from the following foundations: Murdock Foundation, Ford Foundation, National Science Foundation, National Institute of Health and Lumina Foundation. Procedures and guidelines for college support of grants, is found at [this should link to a PDF that includes a good list of current research projects]

In addition to research and artistic work, some faculty members are involve in funded community projects. The college’s Center for Community-Based Learning and Action helps coordinate such projects for academic programs and provides a home base for faculty members doing such projects. An example of one such academic project, supported with funds from ………..., is the Gateways Project.


Institutional policies and procedures, including ethical considerations, concerning scholarship, research, and artistic creation, are clearly communicated.

Faculty members are bound by all federal, state, and college policies regarding the funding and conduct of research. These policies are found in the federal, state and college administrative codes Recepients of research and artistic funds are provided this information through the submission process and in the award letters. (is this true?)

All members of the college are obligated to go through Human Subjects Review for any research or scholarship that involves the use of human subjects. The review is coordinated through one of the academic deans, and proposals are reviewed by faculty members with backgrounds in the areas under review.


Consistent with its mission and goals, the institution provides appropriate financial, physical, administrative, and information resources for scholarship, research, and artistic creation.


The nature of the institution’s research mission and goals and its commitment to faculty scholarship, research, and artistic creation are reflected in assignment of faculty responsibilities, the expectation and reward of faculty performance, and opportunities for faculty renewal through sabbatical leaves or other similar programs.

Consistent with the college’s commitment to alternative pedagogies and professional development, faculty members are encouraged to exercise their judgment in the choice and focus of their research and artistic creations. The application process for internal funds always includes a discussion of the relevance of the proposal to the faculty member’s teaching and the curriculum as a whole. Being able to clarify that contribution contributes to the likelihood of being funded.

In the early 1990s, the faculty decided to make the award of sabbatical leave non competitive. Until that time, faculty members submitted proposals and that were reviewed competitively. Now faculty members accrue time toward sabbatical through teaching. Every year of full time teaching….. In the fall of each acacdemic year, there is a list of leave eligibility circulated among the faculty. Quarters of sabbatical leave are awarded until funds for that year are expended.

In making sabbaticals noncompetitive, the faculty recognized that all faculty members require regular periods of rejuvenation. They also honored the range of interests and methodologies among the faculty, opting to support the development opportunities proposed by each faculty member.


Sponsored research and programs funded by grants, contracts, and gifts are consistent with the institution’s mission and goals.


Faculty are accorded academic freedom to pursue scholarship, research, and artistic creation consistent with the institution’s mission and goals.

The academic culture and the nature of teaching at Evergreen are meant to promote creativity and free inquiry. Those principles are laid out in the college’s Social Contract as follows:

Intellectual freedom and honesty:

(a) Evergreen's members live under a special set of rights and responsibilities, foremost among which is that of enjoying the freedom to explore ideas and to discuss their explorations in both speech and print. Both institutional and individual censorship are at variance with this basic freedom. Research or other intellectual efforts, the results of which must be kept secret or may be used only for the benefit of a special interest group, violate the principle of free inquiry.

(b) An essential condition for learning is the freedom and right on the part of an individual or group to express minority, unpopular, or controversial points of view. Only if minority and unpopular points of view are listened to, and are given opportunity for expression will Evergreen provide bona fide opportunities for significant learning.

(c) Honesty is an essential condition of learning, teaching or working. It includes the presentation of one's own work in one's own name, the necessity to claim only those honors earned, and the recognition of one's own biases and prejudices.

The faculty work under the principles of academic freedom as laid out in…


Standard 4.A - Faculty Selection, Evaluation, Roles, Welfare, and Development

Standard 4.B - Scholarship, Research, and Artistic Creation

Supporting Documentation

See Supporting Documentation for Standard Four
  1. This and other quotes in this section were gathered through interviews conducted in a study by Don Bantz, Laura Coghlan and me. The proposed study and Human Subjects Review material are available from any one of us and is on file in the Deans Office.
  2. Finkel, Donald L. and William Ray Arney. Educating For Freedom: The Paradox of Pedagogy. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers University Press. 1995