Student Association committee members have one week to polish up a proposal to publish teacher evaluations.

The SA Academic Affairs Committee will go before the University Council April 11 to gain approval to publish teacher evaluations.

Jim Mertes, SA senator and committee member, said the UC Comittee A suggested four modifications before the proposal reaches the council.

The UC committee members suggested publishing the proportion of students participating in the evaluation, allowing the evaluation forms to be returned to instructors, publishing results for each individual class—not just for each instructor—and allowing the publication to be voluntary for each instructor, Mertes said.

Mertes said the Academic Affairs Committee conceded to the UC committee’s demands, but had a “big problem” with the committee’s insistence to have the publication voluntary instead of mandatory.

“Students should have a right to evaluate their teachers’ performance, make comments on their performance and have those evaluations published regardless of if they agree,” Mertes said.

But Sue Ouellette, the UC committee chairman, said the proposal will not be approved unless it is voluntary.

“Our primary concern is the issue of our right to confidentiality. The committee is concerned with safeguarding the constitutionality of course evaluation and how it will be used,” Ouellette said.

“There isn’t any outlandish opposition to the proposal. Many of the faculty support the students suggestions. We are considering the revised proposal,” she said.

The evaluations would include statistics of student assessments of their instructors based upon the the following five objective questions:

Was the instructor able to communicate effectively?

Did the instructor grade exams, quizzes and assignments fairly?

Did the instructor place reasonable demands upon the student?

Did the instructor convey a thorough knowledge of the subject?

Was the instructor actively helpful to the student?

There would be five grading categories: (1) Strongly disagree, (2) Disagree, (3) Neutral, (4) Agree, (5) Strongly Agree.

Funding alternatives for the evaluations include selling advertising space within the packet itself, charging students who buy the publication, funding through the SA or NIU funding, Mertes said.

“We would like this to go into effect as early as next semester. That would mean students would be evaluating their teachers this semester,” he said.

“This was an excellent opportunity for students and faculty to interchange their definite concerns on the issue,” Ouellette said.

Students should have a right to evaluate their teachers’ performance, make comments on their performance and have those evaluations published regardless of if they agree.”

Jim Mertes, SA senator