CWU Faculty Assessment of Academic Administrators
A Report to the Faculty Senate from the
Faculty Senate Evaluation and Assessment Committee
Jeffrey Snedeker, chair
Christine Bernadas
Rick Creveling
Patrick Owens
Lynn Richmond
Received and approved by the Faculty Senate Executive Committee
March 18, 2009
A special thank you to Janet Shields for her help
Introduction
In a culture of assessment, the ideal is one where all constituencies are able to assess each other fairly and equitably. At CWU, opportunities exist for faculty to be evaluated at the department, college, and university levels, by a full range of populations. While administrator job performance is assessed periodically within the administrative structure, the opportunity and means for offering credible and constructive input by faculty has not always been available or seen as valid. If done effectively, a faculty assessment of academic administrators can provide useful input for the development of administrators and for the assessment of the quality of service provided by these administrators to their respective units.
This document reports the work done by the Faculty Senate Evaluation and Assessment Committee (FSEAC) during Winter quarter 2009. The intent is not only to report to the Senate, but also to explain to supervisors and administrators the proposed process and dimensions of the assessment instrument. If all goes well in 2009, this report may also shape future policy proposals regarding this important activity. It is organized into the following sections:
· Background and History of this Assessment
· Purpose and Goals of the Assessment
· Selection of Categories, Sub-categories, and Questions
· Proposed Process for constructing, administering, and reporting individual surveys in Spring 2009
· Conclusion
· Appendix I: Framework proposed in 2007-08, sent to administrators in June 2008
· Appendix II: Categories and Pools of Questions
· Appendix III: Sample Survey
Background and History of this Assessment
The Faculty Evaluation of Administrators was created in 1984 by the Faculty Senate, at that time the only collective voice of the faculty, representing both academic and employment concerns. The first evaluation was constructed by an ad hoc committee appointed specifically for this purpose and administered in April 1985. The plan was to conduct this assessment biannually and it has been administered in odd years since 1985, except in 2001 when Dolph Norton was Interim President. In 1998, the ad hoc committee was disbanded and the process was taken over by the newly formed FS Personnel Committee. With the advent of collective bargaining, the FSPC was discontinued and a Faculty Senate Evaluation and Assessment Committee was created and charged with this responsibility. Historically, the assessment instrument has been developed in consultation with faculty and administrators, and generally administered in the spring quarter.
Over the years, problems with and objections to the process and assessment instrument were voiced. Some involved the questions asked—faculty complained that the answers or scores produced were not seen as useful by administrators and their supervisors, evidenced by a lack of consistent or substantive acknowledgement or response to the information reported. Open-ended questions led some faculty to vent opinions or frustrations that were not always phrased respectfully or in useful terms, which created credibility problems for the process itself. Other problems or objections voiced indicated a climate of assessment existed that did not encourage a substantial number of faculty to participate – often faculty did not feel that filling out the survey was worth their time because there was no proof that concerns were heard or acted upon. Further concerns suggested frustration with a climate of assessment where results could not or would not be shared freely, occasionally exacerbated by the position taken by some administrators that the questions asked did not provide pertinent information or that faculty could not comment effectively on their job performance because they are not familiar with the duties and responsibilities required. This latter position was alleviated somewhat in 2005 with the posting of administrative job descriptions and summaries of activities for faculty information. In all, there was a need to get everyone on the same page to create an instrument that could provide useful feedback, supported by administration such that faculty would be encouraged to participate responsibly.
In 2007-08, in an effort to address these problems and objections, the Faculty Senate Executive Committee developed a framework for a new assessment instrument that offered a different level of flexibility in how the questions would be gathered. Specifically, the choice was to seek to empower different stakeholders by allowing them to choose questions that would address improvement and/or job performance. The resulting framework proposed to allow Supervisor, Faculty Senate, and the Administrator being evaluated to choose specific questions from pools of questions. This framework was sent to the respective administrators in June 2008, and the response was uniformly supportive of the approach among those who responded (See Appendix I). What remained was to determine what questions would be included in the pools and how the results would be reported.
On November 14, 2008, the Faculty Senate Evaluation and Assessment Committee (FSEAC) received the following charge:
EAC08-09.02Work with the Faculty Senate Executive Committee and the academic administrators to provide an agreed upon instrument for the Faculty Assessment of Academic Administrators. Instruments should be presented to the Faculty Senate Executive Committee by the beginning of spring quarter.
The 2008-09 Evaluation and Assessment Committee began with the new framework, the existing assessment instruments, and a review of available literature and samples of similar instruments.
Purpose and Goals of the Assessment
First, the purpose and goals of the assessment were examined. The assessment of administrators responds to five main goals:
1. Provide formative information to administrators for the purpose of improving and evaluating performance.
2. Provide faculty input to the appropriate supervisor concerning the performance of the President and all administrators in the academic unit at or above the dean level.
3. Provide a means of facilitating communication between faculty and administration by opening a forum that stimulates the independent expression of views of faculty members on administrative performance;
4. Exercise faculty voice in the shared governance of CWU.
5. Include administrators in a review process analogous to what faculty experience.
The importance of an assessment that meets these goals has many facets. Not only does the process contribute to an ideal culture of assessment, closing a gap of communication between faculty and administration, but it also provides opportunities for administrators to build on acknowledged successes, to improve in areas that need improvement, to receive input regarding priorities and perceptions of management skills and unit management, and to receive data that contributes to their supervisor’s evaluation of job performance. The results of evaluations can influence future opportunities for advancement. Responses to reports make faculty feel valued in taking their time to provide input, as well as participating in the shaping of the academic environment of the university.
The challenge for the FSEAC became to create an instrument and accompanying guidelines that addressed past problems and objections, while meeting the goals as expressed above. The committee first concentrated on producing an instrument based on credible categories of evaluation that faculty could comment on effectively. Then the committee considered how the instruments would be constructed. After the instrument was produced, the committee considered how results should be reported.
Selection of Categories, Sub-categories, and Questions
Available literature and samples of existing instruments were collected and reviewed. Resources ranged from position papers endorsed by the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) to numerous examples from other universities found online (list available upon request). While criteria varied widely, certain consistencies began to appear, which led to a useful collection of categories for faculty evaluation of administrators. The categories of evaluation include:
a) Leadership and Planning
b) Human Resource Management
c) Program Management
d) Budget Management
e) Enhancement of Quality
f) Governance-Internal Relations
g) External Relations, and
h) Overall assessment of the administrator’s performance.
Using existing CWU instruments and numerous online resources, large pools of questions were gathered and analyzed for inclusion in the categories. Subsequent discussions led to the reorganization and the reduction of larger categories in two categories (Management Skills and Job Performance) with 4 subcategories each.
I. Management Skills (general qualities of the individual)
Leadership qualities
Communication skills
Human Resources Management skills
Budget-Resources Management skills
II. Job Performance (specific to the unit)
Overall Unit Management
Enhancement of Quality
Governance-Internal Relations
External Relations
Finally pools of questions were organized or adapted to address specific skills or qualities within the categories and sub-categories. (See Appendix II)
Control factors were also considered, including:
· College the faculty member is a part of
· Years of service as a faculty member at CWU (in five year ranges)
· Faculty status (tenure-track/tenured or non-tenure-track)
See Appendices II and III for pools and samples.
Proposed Process for constructing, administering, and reporting individual surveys in Spring 2009
Participation
Academic Administrators who participate:
1) Academic Administrators for this assessment include
a. the President
b. all administrators in the academic unit, including
1. the Provost,
2. the Associate Vice President for Undergraduate Studies,
3. the Assistant Vice President for Faculty Relations,
4. the Executive Director of International Programs,
5. the Director of the Center for the Teacher/Scholar,
6. the Director of Graduate Studies,
7. the College Deans.
2) Faculty will evaluate Academic Administrators who have been in their current position more than 6 months. Administrators in their position less than 6 months may request to be included in assessment, with the approval of their Supervisor.
3) In the case of retiring administrators, the assessment will still be conducted in the spirit of providing input to the successor.
4) The following participation is requested:
a. Chair of Board of Trustees reviews and selects questions for the President
b. President reviews/requests questions
1. As Supervisor for the Provost
2. For his/her own assessment
c. Provost reviews/selects questions
1. As Supervisor for Vice President for Undergraduate Studies, the Assistant Vice President for Faculty Relations, the Executive Director of International Programs, the Director of Graduate Studies, the College Deans;
2. For his/her own assessment
d. Vice President for Undergraduate Studies, the Assistant Vice President for Faculty Relations, the Executive Director of International Programs, the Director of the Center for the Teacher/Scholar, the Director of Graduate Studies, the College Deans review/select questions for their own assessments
5) All administrators being evaluated will be asked to make available their current job descriptions, summaries of activities over the past assessment period, self-statements if desired, and other materials as desired, in order to inform faculty and provide a context for assessment. These materials will be requested by the Faculty Senate Office and posted on the Senate website.
How the Instrument is Constructed
1) The Faculty Senate Evaluation and Assessment Committee assumes responsibility for the design and approval of the assessment instruments. It shall review previous assessment instruments and make changes as needed. The Faculty Senate or the FS Executive Committee may also charge the committee with specific items of concern.
2) All instruments are subject to approval by the FS Executive Committee. Consultation with Academic Administrators and CWU Testing Services is expected.
3) Pools of questions for each category and sub-category will be generated by the FS Evaluation and Assessment Committee. These pools are submitted to the FS Executive Committee for approval, and then distributed by the Faculty Senate Office to the other assessment stakeholders, namely the Supervisor, and the Administrator being evaluated. Questions from these pools will be selected by the individual stakeholders (FSEC, Supervisors, Administrators) according to the limits recommended by the FSEAC and approved by the FSEC. Questions selected will be sent to and compiled by the Faculty Senate Office and put into an instrument for distribution. Different stakeholders may request the same question. Additional questions not included in the pools may be submitted for inclusion, subject to approval by the FSEAC and then by the FSEC.
4) The instruments will be distributed in the Spring Quarter.
Gathering and Reporting of Results
The current reporting process is:
1. Numerical data is forwarded to the Administrator being evaluated and their immediate supervisor.
2. This data is also retained in the Faculty Senate Office, available only to faculty who visit the office in person
3. Written comments are given to the Administrator and their Supervisor. They are not shared with anyone else. In some years, these comments were summarized or vetted to remove unprofessional language or comments deemed irrelevant by the FS Executive Committee and/or Administrative Assistant.
Proposed process for 2009
1) Questions, sub-categories, and categories for assessment will be constructed to produce numerical data. Space for additional written comments may be provided for optional response.
2) Data and written comments will be compiled by the Faculty Senate Office.
3) Data and written comments will be shared in the following manner
a. Numerical data for individual questions, as well as cumulative data for sub-categories and categories, and for an overall score will be computed and posted on the Senate website. Data for additional control factors as well as statistics of participation will also be included.
b. Written comments for corresponding questions will be distributed only to the Supervisor, Administrator, and the FS Executive Committee. These comments will not be edited. The FS Executive Committee will take all possible steps to keep written comments confidential.
4) The Faculty Senate Office assumes responsibility for distributing data and written responses to the appropriate stakeholders, and that approved information will be shared or posted.
5) The Supervisor and Administrator being evaluated shall provide a written response to the Faculty Senate, no later than twenty-eight (28) calendar days after receipt of the assessment report, including acknowledgement of receipt and descriptions of any actions that have been taken, or are planned, in response to the report.
It is acknowledged that public availability of numerical data can be problematic, but the committee recommends the above process for the following reasons: