Report of the
Boulder Faculty Assembly Administrator
Appraisal Committee[1]
Concerning
Anne Heinz, Dean , Continuing Education
, University of Colorado at Boulder
The Administrator Appraisal
Program (AAP) seeks to provide in-depth feedback based on a high rate of
faculty response, to assure a representative survey of the faculty. Faculty
members have the opportunity to provide AAP feedback to the
review/reappointment process when the president, chancellor, provost, or the
dean of their school or college is undergoing the third- or fifth-year review.
Faculty members also are requested to complete and return a “BFA Satisfaction
Survey” that addresses campus-wide concerns such as salary and benefit
programs. With regard to the appraisal of administrators, the survey contains
questions addressing the effectiveness of each administrator’s performance in
key areas. Various questions--such as those addressing general administrative
style, salary process, and diversity--are common for all administrators.
Responses are solicited using a 5-point effectiveness scale (1 = very
ineffective, 3 = effective, and 5 = very effective ). The committee has
interpreted the ratings in between as 2 = less than effective, and 4 = more
than effective. In addition, the committee includes a “Don’t Know” option.
The
evaluation process for Dean Anne Heinz was designed to take into account the
broad scope of faculty across Continuing Education. Although chairs, directors,
associate and assistant deans have regular opportunities to interact with Dean
Heinz, most individual faculty members do not, and, therefore, may be less well
informed or simply uninformed about many aspects of the dean’s performance.
To address the problem of different levels of familiarity, the AAP Committee sent the questionnaire to all Continuing Education faculty designated as eligible by the Boulder Faculty Assembly, and then analyzed the responses from three groups among the recipients. The first group of recipients was all “knowledgeable” faculty, the second group was a random sample of the faculty associated with Continuing Education, and the third group was faculty members who were in a position to have the most knowledge of the dean’s work.
The
AAP Committee and the Boulder Faculty Assembly have agreed, on the advice of
faculty who specialize in survey methods, that a 60% return rate is needed for
a representative statistical study. Of these three categories, only the
“knowledgeable” group ( 41 responses out of 62 surveyed, a 66% response rate)
met this requirement. The random sample response rate was 39% (43 responses out
of 110 surveyed) and the response rate for the entire population was 27% (88
responses out of 327 surveyed). These last two response rates are too low to
assure us that they are a statistically representative sample. Many respondents
answered with comments indicating a total lack of knowledge about Dean Heinz’s
performance. With this caveat, the Committee reports the results of this appraisal.
The
AAP Committee hopes to provide a developmental picture of strengths and
weaknesses for administrators standing for reappointment in AY 2005-2006.
Broadly viewed, the committee considered four general categories in evaluating
responses regarding Dean Heinz:
Strengths to Build on represent areas of the administrator’s performance
that were rated as highly effective by a substantial majority of the faculty
(at least 60% of respondents giving a rating of 4 or 5).
Assets to Protect were areas where at least half of the responding
faculty found the administrator’s performance to be better than effective
(50-59% of respondents giving a rating of 4 or 5). Thus, any reallocation of
effort to correct weaknesses or changes in priorities should try to protect
these strengths.
Issues to be Mindful of were judged to be effective or better by the majority
of the respondents, but less than effective by a significant minority of
respondents (25-39% of respondents giving a rating of 1 or 2).
Areas that Need Improvement were areas judged by a significant fraction of the
faculty as unsatisfactory (at least 40% of respondents giving a rating of 1 or
2).
On
16 of the 18 questions 60% or more of the “knowledgeables” respondents gave the
dean a rating of 4 or 5. On one question 44% of the “knowledgeables”
respondents gave a rating of 1 or 2. On another question 52% of the
“knowledgeables” gave a rating of 4 or 5.
The
dean received ratings in this category on 16 of 18 questions from the total
group sample and 16 of 18 from the “knowledgeables” group.
The total group (population,
sample, and “knowledgeables”) rated the following 16 performance measures as
strengths:
· Providing vision, strategic plan
· Acting with integrity
· Supporting high-quality teaching
· Making decisions in a timely fashion
·
Creating an atmosphere of trust
·
Making progress towards diversity goals
·
Being receptive to concerns of faculty
·
Being receptive to concerns of staff
· Being receptive to concerns of students
·
Managing conflicts among faculty
· Managing conflicts among staff
·
Treating faculty fairly and inclusively
·
Representing program on campus
· Representing program to external audiences
·
Making sound budget decisions
·
Raising funds
Assets to Protect (50-59% of respondents
giving a rating of 4 or 5)
Only
one area fell into the category of “Assets to Protect” for the “knowledgeables”
group:
· Supporting high-quality teaching
Two
areas fell into the category of “Assets to Protect” for the population group:
· Making
progress towards diversity goals
· Appropriately
involving faculty in decisions
Five
areas fell into the category of “Assets to Protect” for the sample group:
· Supporting
high-quality teaching
· Supporting/mentoring
young teaching faculty
· Making
progress towards diversity goals
· Treating
faculty fairly and inclusively
· Appropriately
involving faculty in decisions
Issues to be Mindful of (25-39% of
respondents giving a rating of 1 or 2)
Only
one area fell into the category of “Issues to be Mindful of ’’ for both the
population and sample groups:
· Appropriately
involving faculty in decisions
Another
area fell into the category of “Issues to be Mindful of” for the population
group:
· Supporting/mentoring
young teaching faculty
Only one
area fell into this category for the “knowledgeables” group:
· Supporting/mentoring
young teaching faculty
THE BFA SATISFACTION SURVEY
RESULTS
The BFA also asked the
respondents in Continuing Education to complete a satisfaction survey that
asked 20 questions about their satisfaction with the general level of
university support. The satisfaction survey among the
“knowledgeables” points out strengths, Assets, Issues, and areas that Need
Improvement as follows:
There are three “areas of
strengths”:
· Teaching responsibilities
· Relationships with colleagues
· Library’s access to
outside resources
There was one area under “Assets to Protect”:
· Education and training support offered by the
library.
There are eight areas under
“Issues to be Mindful of”:
· Classroom facilities
· Technological
support in teaching
· Departmental
support services
· University
support for research and creative work
· Other
benefits, including retirement
·
Faculty
governance/progress in shared governance
· University efforts to recruit/retain diverse
faculty
· Evaluation of teaching
There are seven areas “In Need of
Improvement”
· Number of
graduate students assisting teaching
· Support for soliciting outside money
·
Space and facilities
· Salary compared with i institution salaries
·
Equitable distribution of
salary
· Current health plan
·
University efforts to
retain diverse undergraduates
Overall (total population),
the Satisfaction Survey indicates substantial dissatisfaction in those areas
involving the level of material/teaching support, and salaries. There also are
indications of serious dissatisfaction with the “difficult problem” of University efforts to improve the diversity
climate on this campus.
CONCLUSIONS
Dean Heinz was rated on eighteen performance measures. She
was rated by 66% of the “knowledgeables”, but only by 27% of all others who are
associated with the Division of Continuing Education. This is not surprising
given that Dean Heinz has a unique relationship with UCB faculty whereby she
contracts with them based on the recommendation of their respective College or
School. There has been little expectation, as part of her duties and
responsibilities, that she would interact substantially with faculty teaching
in her Division. The AAP Committee recognizes that the faculty in Continuing
Education is, in fact, made up primarily of adjunct and qualified instructors
of all ranks and few of the tenure track, full time faculty found in all other
colleges. Therefore, the AAP Committee made the decision to base its
conclusions solely on the information from the survey questionnaire provided by
the “knowledgeables”.
Perhaps, for future reviews of the Dean of Continuing
Education, a different appraisal method could be developed that would elicit
responses from a larger population. In addition, it should be stated just how
much contact with, and mentoring of faculty is expected from the Dean of
Continuing Education.
Thus, the Administrator Appraisal Program Committee
conclude that among the “knowledgeables” Dean Heinz scored very high in sixteen
of the eighteen categories in the survey; there was only one area in the
category “In Need of Improvement” namely Supporting
and Mentoring Young Faculty. There were no “Issues to be Mindful of” and
only one in the category “Assets to Protect” namely, Supporting High Quality Teaching. Other areas of concern indicated
in the “knowledgeables” group relate to the issue of providing classroom
support and the material needs of the courses offered by Continuing Education.
The Administration Appraisal Program Committee concludes
that Dean Heinz has achieved a considerable degree of satisfaction with her
leadership of Continuing Education as expressed by the “knowledgeables” in
their response to the survey questionnaire.
[1] The members of the committee are: Sedat Biringen, Paul Erhard, Lawrence Frey, Ken Iwamasa, Richard Laver, Clayton Lewis, Uriel Nauenberg (chair), Lynn Ross-Bryant, Jeff Schiel, Robert Schulzinger, Daniel Sher.