Artifact+Number+8

=Artifact #8= ==

Analysis of Screening Process Performance analysis of screening process ED TECH 540 Standard - Cognitive: Analyze, synthesize, use inductive and deductive reasoning, solve problems effectively and creatively. Project Description ** All applicants who wish to teach for our organization must submit an application to be screened. Applications are then submitted to a screening committee who evaluates them to determine if the applicant is qualified to teach, based on criterion established by local and state organizations. Having served on this committee, it was apparent that there was confusion among committee members on certain components of the process, including the educational background of the applicant, work experience, and educational equivalencies. I completed a performance analysis of the program. This analysis included identifying key questions for stakeholders, interviewing key stakeholders, reviewing available documents and then evaluating barriers which face committee members. From this, I was able to offer solutions to speed the process, increase the accuracy of screening and to establish satisfactory protocol for faculty and staff. Outcomes ** This performance analysis was successful in determining the issues which faced committee members as they progressed through the hiring process. Members of the screening committee were polled, and the results suggested that confusion existed among all members. The Human Resource manager was also polled to clarify protocol and to offer ways to improve the process. Extant data established qualifications as determined by the State Academic Senate and the state level of California Community College, and compared against what was provided to committee members for screening purposes. From these sources, the optimal and actual performances were identified, and barriers were revealed. Solutions were suggested based on the results of this analysis.

One challenge faced was to determine equivalencies for qualification. Equivalencies occur in certain subject matters which do not require a master's degree to teach. Each of the two documents reviewed (Academic Senate and Community College) mention equivalencies, but differed in their interpretation. I had to consult with our own Academic Senate to consider what local policy existed. In those areas where there was no clear policy, I went back to the committee to determine our own interpretation for equivalencies. With the committee, we were able to compare the documents and to infer the spirit of the language. Using this process, equivalencies were established, and are now used for screening applicants.
 * Challenges **

This process of review, analysis and discussion was useful in clarifying the confusion which surrounds the hiring process. As a result, new procedures were established which were useful in future screenings. A video tutorial was created, as well as a screening checklist which is now used to determine qualified applicants. This new procedure is far more accountable than the prior, less detailed process. Faculty response was excellent, and the new process has now been implemented in our department.
 * Growth **