12.01.99.R0.04 Academic Administrator Evaluation
Effective September 1, 1996
Supplement A&M-Commerce Procedure 12.01.99.R0.02

1. Purpose

Evaluation of administrators is conducted to:

a. Improve administrator performance;

b. Document levels of performance;

c. Identify areas of professional growth;

d. Develop consistency between university-wide goals and administrator performance;

e. Validate selection, retention, salary, and promotion processes;

f. Verify Texas A&M University-Commerce's commitment to effective and efficient administration;

g. Facilitate internal communication; and

h. Determine compensation levels.

2. Criteria for Evaluating Academic Administrators

Generally, academic administrators (in this section referred to as "administrators") are evaluated according to their relative success in working with people, programs, policies, procedures and finances. A significant factor in judging administrator effectiveness is his or her performance in relation to the job description for the specific position held, as well as the individual's performance on special assignments. Specifically, administrators are evaluated according to their leadership qualities relating to:

a. Recruiting a diverse faculty;

b. Providing faculty development opportunities;

c. Conducting effective faculty evaluation;

d. Developing curriculum;
e. Maintaining standards of quality;

f. Establishing appropriate budgeting procedures, and managing fiscal and educational resources;

g. Communicating skillfully;

h. Demonstrating initiative;

i. Conducting miscellaneous administrative duties; and

j. Demonstrating institutional commitment.

3. Stages of Administrator Evaluation

Administrators are evaluated on an annual basis. Quadrennially, the evaluation will be comprehensive and in-depth.

4. Timetable for Administrator Evaluation

The timetable for annual evaluation is the period January 1 through December 31 of each year. The quadrennial evaluation will be comprehensive for the four year period, with the evaluation coinciding with the other annual evaluations.

5. Responsibility for Evaluation

The responsibility for evaluating administrators for the annual evaluation rests with the immediate administrative superior. The quadrennial comprehensive evaluation process includes evaluation by superiors and subordinates, as well as surveys of faculty, peers, students and others with whom the particular administrator works.

6. Documents

Formats, instruments, and related items are developed specifically for each administrative position (department heads, deans, vice presidents, etc.) and are submitted through regular administrative channels to the vice president for academic affairs (vpaa) for approval prior to implementing the evaluation process. General guidelines for the above evaluation items are established and maintained by the vpaa.

References: Prior ETSU Policies II N 8.1 and D-37; approved January 1, 1983; revised Fall 1996; Procedure A12.21

**********

CONTACT FOR INTREPRETATION: Vice President for Academic Affairs

ACADEMIC ADMINISTRATOR EVALUATION SELF-REPORT

Name Department/College

Evaluation Period: ______________

This tool is to be used for the academic administrator’s narrative self report and rating on the scale of one to five with five being the lowest rating. Teaching assignments of academic administrators will also be evaluated in accord with the Annual Evaluation of Faculty (Procedure A12.20). The final evaluation will be an average proportional to the responsibilities in each area, i.e., teaching and administration.

Criteria for evaluating academic administrators. For each criterion identified below, write a brief narrative describing administrative efforts. If additional space is necessary, pages may be attached.

a. Recruiting a diverse faculty 1 2 3 4 5

b. Providing faculty development opportunities 1 2 3 4 5

c. Conducting effective faculty evaluation 1 2 3 4 5

d. Developing curriculum 1 2 3 4 5

e. Maintaining standards of quality 1 2 3 4 5

f. Establishing appropriate budgeting procedures and managing 1 2 3 4 5
fiscal and educational resources

g. Communicating skillfully 1 2 3 4 5

h. Demonstrating initiative 1 2 3 4 5

i. Demonstrating institutional commitment and 1 2 3 4 5

j. Conducting miscellaneous administrative duties 1 2 3 4 5

OVER-ALL RATING ________

REPORT OF ACADEMIC ADMINISTRATORS EVALUATION

This format is to be used for the supervisor’s narrative report and the numerical performance ratings. Teaching assignments of academic administrators will, also, be evaluated in accord with the Annual Evaluation of Faculty (Procedure A12.20). The final evaluation will be an average proportional to responsibilities in each area.

Name Department/College

Evaluation Period: ________________

Performance Rating: Provide administrative self-ratings of performance for each criterion (1=highest...5=lowest).

Ratings:
a. Diverse faculty _______ f. Budget management _______
b. Faculty development _______ g. Communication _______
c Faculty evaluations _______ h. Initiative _______
d. Curriculum _______ i. Institutional Commitment _______
e. Quality standards _______ j. Miscellaneous duties _______

Over-all Rating _______

I agree_________ I disagree_________

Identify changed rating(s):
Rating changed: ______________________ Criterion: _____
Rating changed: ______________________ Criterion: _____
Rating changed: ______________________ Criterion: _____

Adjusted Administrative Rating _______

Comments: (Additional pages may be attached)

_________________________________ ___________________________
Academic Administrator Date

________________________________ ___________________________
Provost/Vice President for Academic Affairs Date