University of Colorado at Boulder Search A to Z Campus Map
University of Colorado at BoulderBoulder Faculty Assembly
University of Colorado at Boulder CU Search Links

Report of the Boulder Faculty Assembly Administrator Appraisal Committee[1]
Concerning Anne Heinz, Dean, Continuing Education, University of Colorado at Boulder
Fifth-Year Comprehensive Review, Fall of 2005


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.

Strengths to Build on (at least 60% of respondents giving 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

Areas that Need Improvement (at least 40% of respondents giving a rating of 1 or 2)

Only one area fell into this category for the "knowledgeables" group:

  • Supporting/mentoring young teaching faculty


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.


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.

Home | Contact Us
303-492-5606, Campus Box 428, Boulder, CO, 80309
© Regents of the University of Colorado