YUFA
News
Collective Agreement protects members from course
evaluation web sites
by Kathy Bischoping and Brett Cemer
YUFA addressed two instances of student-designed course evaluation
websites that have come to the union's attention. Both attempts
contravened Article 22 of YUFA's Collective Agreement.
The first instance came to YUFA’s attention early in August, when
banners advertising a “Student Course Review” website were up in the
foyer of Vari Hall. This site invited students to rate their instructors
and teaching assistants on a 1 to 5 scale and to provide anonymous
comments. The site, which had had over 600 visitors by mid-September, was
housed initially on York's web server and featured York’s logo.
YUFA notified management that making this website accessible through York
violated the Collective Agreement. Shortly after, the site was removed to
a student-owned, independent web address, with a disclaimer stating,
“this site is not in any way affiliated with and/or endorsed by York
University. This is a student-run site designed for no purpose other than
to help York students.”
In the second instance, the History Students Association requested that
the Department of History (Arts) supply the results of standardized
teaching evaluations for posting on its website. Marc Stein, the
Undergraduate Programme Director, contacted the Faculty of Arts to inquire
about relevant policies, and was referred to a Senate Policy on Student
Evaluation of Teaching. This policy includes the statement, “SCOTL
[Senate Committee on Teaching and Learning] encourages
Departments/Divisions/Faculties to make quantifiable results available to
students.”
Article 22.06 of YUFA’s Collective Agreement specifies that documents
and materials used by the Employer to assess an employee professionally
are not to be made available to third parties, except to perform duties
set forth in the Agreement or except when an employee so requests. In
YUFA’s view, this provision certainly applies to standardized teaching
evaluations, which are used in tenure and promotion decisions.
This is an area where Senate legislation contravenes the Collective
Agreement. As in its current tenure and promotions procedures, Senate here
strays into the area of collectively bargained terms and conditions of
employment. In such cases, the Collective Agreement takes precedence.
The Employer has agreed with YUFA's interpretation and has taken action to
distance itself from these initiatives.
But why should YUFA members care about having evaluations of their courses
(whether impressionistic or standardised) published on the web?
Several issues arise from these student initiatives and management’s
interest in them. In YUFA’s view, course evaluations are one among many
tools available to assist instructors in improving their teaching and to
assist in tenure & promotions assessments. They are not consumer
reports.
Publication of evaluations tips the balance between their formative and
summative purposes. It validates educational consumerism and performance
indicators used to measure faculty members’ and librarians’ worth.
Publicising evaluations may be used to put pressure on YUFA members to
base pedagogical decisions on their likely popularity with students.
“I am struck by how this practice underlines the relentlessness of
commodificaton,” said Penni Stewart, YUFA’s Acting Chairperson,
“with students reinvented as customers, and knowledge as a good to be
packaged, valued and traded.”
"The work of people in complex teaching and learning situations can't
be evaluated on the same basis as work in situations with fewer
variables," said Celia Haig-Brown, Graduate Programme Director in
York's Faculty of Education. "There'll be classrooms where people
take up what my colleague Deborah Britzman calls 'difficult knowledges'.
Instructors who take risks like that can have lower teaching ratings than
those who stick with mainstream ideas. Publication of ratings may lead to
censuring, to interference with academic freedom."
Further, the anonymous comments presented on the Student Course Review
website are screened neither for discriminatory content nor for
potentially libellous material. Such comments may also be prejudicial to
peer evaluation and careers. [Note: This is why we are not providing the
site’s current address. For an example of such a site, see Princeton's
at www.princeton.edu/~scg.]
"While there's the possibility of such websites alerting students to
ineffectual teaching practices," said Haig-Brown, "there's also
a danger that they'll convey homophobic, racist, and other oppressive
readings of classroom dynamics."
The pressure to measure, publicise, and pay according to “performance”
is increasingly present in YUFA members professional lives. Members who
hear of such websites are encouraged to contact YUFA representatives.