Toward a Model Academic
Administrator Evaluation Policy
Adopted Fall 1992
Introduction:
The academic administrators
evaluation process proposed in this document is
designed to transcend legal compliance and to
foster meaningful professional growth. Moreover,
this document is presented as a model of administrator
evaluation and should not be viewed as a prescription
for local districts to follow. Local academic
senates are encouraged to meet and work with governing
boards, and/or their designees, to modify the
model to meet local conditions and needs.
In what follows,
two types of administrator evaluation procedures
shall be identified: annual and comprehensive.
Preceding these discussions are brief comments
on criteria for developing an evaluation process
and on preparation for the evaluation.
Criteria For Developing
an Evaluation Process :
This paper recognizes
that the precise nature of the evaluation process
for administrators should be subject to local
definition and control. It is assumed however
that governing boards seek through the implementation
of evaluation processes:
to ensure that
administration consists of administrators who
can lead, organize, plan, and supervise; who understand
the needs of faculty and the learning process;
and who value institutional governance based upon
a genuine sharing of responsibility with faculty
colleague".
To promote collegiality
in the administrator evaluation process Districts
should include the following:
Representatives
of the faculty and other employees whose circumstances
at work will be directly affected by the employment
of the administrator should participate effectively
in all phases of the evaluation process.
For the purposes
of this paper, the term "administrator" is used
to mean those employees of the local district
who have management and/or supervisory responsibility.
The proposed model is envisioned to apply to all
levels of administration with only slight variations
at the levels of Chancellor or President.
Section (4) (o)
(3) of Assembly Bill 1725
Clear and complete
job descriptions that include all job related
skill requirements should be prepared for each
position, and these job descriptions should be
reviewed before the position is evaluated to ensure
conformity with the community college's affirmative
action and nondiscrimination commitments.
The evaluation process should
be effective in yielding a genuinely useful
and substantive assessment of an administrator's
performance. Among other things, this requires
an articulation of clear, relevant criteria
on which evaluations will be based.
The evaluation process should
be timely. This requires that evaluations
be performed regularly at reasonable intervals.
The specific purposes for which
evaluations are conducted should be clear
to everyone involved. This requires recognition
that the principal purposes of the evaluation
process are to recognize and acknowledge good
performance, to enhance satisfactory performance
and help administrators who are performing
satisfactorily further their own growth, to
identify weak performance and assist administrators
in achieving needed improvement, and to document
unsatisfactory performance.
Preparation for
the Evaluation :
Prior to beginning
the evaluation process districts should take two
key steps:
Performance Standards Established:
Clear and complete
job descriptions for each position, that include
all job-related skill requirements, shall be prepared
one year in advance of the evaluation process.
Representatives of the faculty and other employees
whose circumstances at work will be directly affected
by the employment of the administrator should
participate effectively in the development of
the job descriptions.
Annual goals and
objectives shall be prepared in relations to the
job description. These goals and objectives shall
have the following seven qualities: acceptable,
flexible, measurable over time, motivating, suitable,
understandable, and achievable. These goals and
objectives shall be established to assess the
administrator in terms of:
knowledge of the position;
planning and managing in the
context of shared governance;
time utilization
budget management;
progress toward achievement
of professional development plan;
communication skills;
fostering trust and collegiality;
leading and motivating a diverse
faculty and staff;
articulating to management
the views and concerns of the faculty and
staff he or she supervises;
developing community relations;
commitment to academic freedom
and academic excellence in the teaching/learning
process;
integrity and professional
conduct;
commitment to students, particularly
those not traditionally served;
promoting affirmative action
and cultural diversity;
implementing legal mandates;
and
interpreting and enforcing
the rules and regulations of the district
including collective bargaining agreements.
2. Performance
Standards Communicated:
Administrators
shall be told clearly and precisely what the performance
standards are, and how they are to be met in advance
of the evaluation process.
Decisions about
an administrator's assignment, length of contract,
additional training, retention, or eligibility
for retreat rights3 all shall be based primarily
upon performance evaluations.
In addition, an
effective performance appraisal system is a way
of satisfying certain legal conditions i.e., affirmative
action, wrongful terminations, Title IX infringements.
4
3 Section 34 of
Assembly Bill 1725 added Section 87458 to the
Education Code to provide for administrator retreat
rights. For more details see Appendix A of this
document.
4 See Donald E.
Walker 'a comments on effective and ineffective
administrators in The Effective Administrator.
(San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Pub., 1979, pp.2-5).
Two Types of Procedures
For The Evaluation of Administrators
This document proposes
two types of administrator evaluation procedures:
annual and comprehensive.
Annual Evaluations
Procedures:
Each academic administrator
shall be evaluated annually by the supervising
administrator.
Established procedure
shall be adhered to in completing an annual performance
evaluation and provisions shall be made for the
following:
review and discussion of results
by the supervising administrator and the evaluates;
evaluatee signature and receipt
of the evaluation report, which contains all
completed evaluations;
filing of the original copy
of the evaluation report in the evaluatee's
personnel file in the district's Human Resources
Department.
Each evaluation
period shall begin no later than the third week
of the fall semester and be concluded no later
than the third week of the spring semester.
The annual evaluation
of an administrator's performance shall consist
of the following three steps:
Step One Conducting
the Evaluation
The supervising
administrator shall evaluate the administrator's
performance in accordance with established standards
and the evaluation process shall be oriented toward
providing constructive feedback for improved performance
(see "Preparation for the Evaluation" above).
Sten Two Concluding
the Evaluation
At the conclusion
of the evaluation process, the supervising administrator
shall make a written recommendation to the appropriate
senior staff administrator regarding the evaluatee's
performance.5 Such recommendation shall include
a rating of "excellent," "exceeds expectations,"
"meets expectations", "needs improvement," or
"unsatisfactory," as well as including recommendations
regarding the evaluatee's assignment, length of
contract, professional development and training
activities, or retention.
5. The assumption
is made, in using the term "senior staff administrator,"
that recommends regarding performance evaluations
should be forwarded to one level of administration
above the supervising administrator for disposition.
The supervising
administrator shall meet with the evaluatee to
discuss the evaluation results and to develop
a plan for training and development activities
to address the needs identified through the evaluation
process.
It shall be the
responsibility of the supervising administrator
to submit all evaluation materials to the appropriate
senior staff administrator for her or his review
and comment.
It shall be the
responsibility of the senior staff administrator
to submit a written recommendation to the Superintendent/President
regarding the evaluatee's assignment, length of
contract, professional development and training
activities, or retention; and to transmit to the
Superintendent/President the original evaluation
packet which shall include: the self-evaluation,
the supervisor's evaluation, and other evaluation
documentation for inclusion in the evaluatee's
official personnel file. The evaluates shall be
given a copy of all evaluation materials, including
the senior staff administrator's written recommendation.
Step Three Providing
the Follow-up
The performance
evaluation process is understood to be an appropriate
time for discussing an administrator's successes
and providing developmental feedback to help the
employee perform her or his job better.
It takes time to
learn a job and do it well. After the evaluation
has been completed, Step Three is envisioned to
support the evaluatee's efforts to integrate the
evaluation results into her or his daily activities
and improve performance.
The supervising
administrator shall work with the evaluated throughout
the year to achieve the professional development
objectives identified in Step Two and shall prepare
an assessment of evaluatee's progress at the end
of the yearly cycle for inclusion in the next
evaluation period.
Comprehensive Evaluation
Procedures:
A comprehensive
evaluation can occur for any of the following
three conditions:
all academic administrators
shall undergo a comprehensive evaluation once
every three (3) years;
all new academic administrators
shall undergo a comprehensive evaluation two
(2) consecutive years after appointment; and
any administrator can be evaluated
at anytime as determined by the ChancellortSuperintendent
or President .6 In such cases,
a comprehensive evaluation shall be conducted.
Established procedure
shall be adhered to in completing a performance
evaluation and provisions shall be made for the
following:
review and discussion of results
by the evaluation team and the administrator;
administrator signature and
receipt of the evaluation report, which contains
all completed evaluations;
filing of the original
copy of the evaluation report in the administrator's
personnel file in the district's Human Resources
Department.
Each evaluation
period shall begin no later than the third week
of the fall semester and be concluded no later
than the third week of the spring semester.
The annual evaluation
of an administrator's performance shall consist
of the following five steps:
Step One: Establishing
the Evaluation Team
An evaluation team
shall be established within 30 days of the beginning
of the evaluation period and shall supervise the
comprehensive evaluation procedures.
The evaluation
team shall be composed of six to eight members.
The members shall include the evaluatee's supervising
administrator, other administrators, designees
of the academic senate, and representatives of
other employees whose circumstances at work will
be directly affected by the employment of the
administrator.7 The members, whenever possible,
should reflect the demographics of California
and must be sensitive to affirmative action concerns.
The evaluation
team shall meet at least three times during the
evaluation period. Meeting times shall be established
early in the evaluation period.
6 Conditions may
prompt the senate to request Chancellor/Superintendent
or President to evaluate an administrator, in
which case a comprehensive evaluation shall be
conducted. Procedures for this event should be
determined locally.
7 The collective
bargaining agent may wish to be part of the process.
This should be determined at the local level.
Step Two: Training
The Evaluation Team
In preparation
for conducting the performance assessment, the
evaluation team shall participate in educational
programs focusing on (a) district evaluation policies
and procedures and (b) techniques and strategies
for carrying out the team's assigned duties (see
"Conducting the Evaluation" below).
Step Three: Conducting
the Evaluation.
Listed below are
the evaluation team's duties and responsibilities,
and three primary sources of information that
the evaluation team relies upon to prepare its
recommendation regarding the evaluatee's performance.
Evaluation Team
The evaluation
team shall evaluate the academic administrator
in accordance with established performance standards
and the evaluation process shall be oriented toward
providing constructive feedback for improved performance
(see "Preparation for the Evaluation" above).
The evaluation
team shall have the following duties:
maintain confidentiality and
the integrity of the evaluation process;
collect and review the self-evaluation;
collect and review the supervising
administrator's annual evaluations;
collect and review the faculty/staff
evaluations;
compare the evaluation results
with the self-evaluation to facilitate improvement;
discuss the evaluatee's goals
and the process for achieving them;
cooperate with all members
of the evaluation team in completing the Evaluation
Team Report Form;
meet with the administrator
being evaluated to present the Evaluation
Team Report; and
assist the evaluatee in developing
a plan for training and development activities
to address needs identified through the evaluation
process.
Administrator's
Self-Evaluation
The evaluatee's
self-evaluation shall be in accordance with the
following criteria reflected in the incumbent's
job description and performance standards:
1. effectiveness
in achieving prior goals and objectives;
goals and objectives for
the new evaluation period;
3. plans for improvement;
success in achieving affirmative
action goals and objectives; and
attention to intent and spirit
of shared governance.
Each administrator
shall develop a written statement of specific
goals and objectives for two areas of performance
evaluation: professional development and the administrative
unit she or he manages.
1. Professional
development: the administrator shall conduct a
personal assessment of her or his performance
and define annual goals and objectives consistent
with the incumbent's job description.
Administrative unit: administrative
goals and objectives for the unit shall
be developed in consultation with unit faculty
and the performance standards statement
shall reflect those District or College
goals and objectives developed and approved
through collegial processes.
The written statement
of goals and objectives shall be established with
the approval of the administrator's immediate
supervisor.
Supervisor's Evaluation
of the Administrator
In making this
evaluation, the supervising administrator shall
consider the official job description, the administrative
unit, prior goals and objectives, those efforts
made to execute extraordinary tasks and projects,
standards of acceptable administrative behavior,
and the administrator's efforts to achieve affirmative
action goals and objectives.
Faculty/ Staff
/Other Involvement
Early in the evaluation
period the Faculty/Staff Administrator Appraisal
Instruments (see Appendix C) shall be distributed
to the appropriate representative groups for the
purposes of securing faculty/staff input.
Step Four: Conclusion
of the Evaluation Process
At the conclusion
of the evaluation process, the evaluation team
shall make a written recommendation to the appropriate
senior staff administrator regarding the evaluatee's
performance. Such recommendation shall include
a rating of "excellent," "exceeds expectations,"
"meets expectations", "needs improvement," or
"unsatisfactory," as well as including recommendations
regarding the evaluatee's assignment, length of
contract, professional development and training
activities, or retention. The evaluation team
shall meet with the administrator being evaluated
to discuss the evaluation results and to establish
the follow-up schedule.
It shall be the
responsibility of the evaluation team to submit
all evaluation materials to the appropriate senior
staff administrator for her or his review and
comment.
It shall be the
responsibility of the senior staff administrator
to submit a written recommendation to the Superintendent/President
regarding the evaluatee's assignment, length of
contract, training and development activities,
or retention; and to transmit to the Superintendent/President
the original evaluation packet which shall include:
self-evaluation, supervisor's evaluation, faculty/staff
appraisal reports, evaluation team's report, and
other evaluation documentation for inclusion in
the evaluatee's official personnel file. The evaluates
shall be given a copy of all evaluation materials,
including the senior staff administrator's written
recommendation.
Step Five: Providing
the Follow-up.
The evaluation
team shall work with the evaluates to create a
plan for training and development activities to
address needs identified through the evaluation
process.
The supervising
administrator shall work with the evaluates throughout-the
year to achieve the planned professional development
objectives and shall prepare an assessment of
evaluatee's progress at the end of the yearly
cycle for inclusion in the next evaluation period.
Appendix A: Legislative
Provisions:
The following represent
pertinent statutory provisions for the Assembly
Bill 1725 governing evaluation of administrators.
Section 4 (o)
(3) reads :
Any set of laws,
regulations, directives, or guidelines regarding
community college faculty and administrator qualifications,
evaluation, hiring, or retention should promote
the efforts of local community colleges to ensure
that their faculty and administration consists
of:
Administrators
who can lead, organize, plan, and supervise; who
understand the needs of faculty and the learning
process; and who value institutional governance
based upon a genuine sharing of responsibility
with faculty colleagues.
Section 4 (r)
(2) reads:
The hiring process
for administrators and faculty (both temporary
and permanent) should be designed so that both
faculty and administrators take real responsibility
for meeting affirmative action goals and ensuring
that affirmative action considerations effectively
influence hiring decisions.
Section 4 (s)
(5) reads:
... in hiring administrators
the goal is to ensure that the community colleges
will select administrators who are competent to
perform the kind of administrative responsibilities
that administrators are normally required to assume
in the context of the operation and programs of
the community colleges.
Section 4 (u)
(1) and (4) reads:
The state should
provide the community colleges with enough resources
and a sufficiently stable funding environment
to enable them to predict their staffing needs
and to establish highly effective hiring processes.
While the precise nature of the hiring process
for administrators should be subject to local
definition and control, each community college
should, in a way that is appropriate to its circumstances,
establish a hiring process which ensures that:
Representatives
of the faculty and other employees whose circumstances
at work will be directly affected by the employment
of the administrator participate effectively in
all appropriate phases of the process.
Clear and complete
job descriptions that include all jobrelated skills
requirements are prepared for each position and
these job descriptions are reviewed before each
position is announced, to ensure conformity with
the community college's affirmative action and
nondiscrimination commitments.
Section 34 added
Sec. 87458 to the Education Code to read:
A person employed
in an administrative position that is not part
of the classified service, who has not previously
acquired tenured status as a faculty member in
the same district, shall have the right to become
a first year probationary faculty member once
his or her administrative assignment expires or
is terminated if all of the following apply:
(a) The process
by which the governing board reaches the determination
shall be developed and agreed upon jointly by
representatives of the governing board and the
academic senate, and approved by the governing
board. The agreed upon process shall include reasonable
procedures to ensure that the governing board
relies primarily upon the advice and judgment
of the academic senate to determine that the administrator
possesses the minimum qualifications for employment
as a faculty member. The process shall further
require that the governing board provide the academic
senate with an opportunity to present its views
to the governing board before the board makes
a determination; and that the written record of
the decision, including the views of the academic
senate, shall be available for review pursuant
to Section 87358.
(b) Until a joint
agreement is reached pursuant to subdivision (a),
the district process in existence on January 1,
1989, shall remain in effect.
The administrator has completed
at least two years of satisfactory service,
including any time previously served as a
faculty member, in the district.
(d) The termination
of the administrative assignment is for any reason
other than dismissal for cause.
Section 51 Amended
Sec. 87663 of the Education Code to Read:
(a) Contract employees
shall be evaluated at least once in each academic
year.
(b) Whenever an
evaluation is required of a certificated employee
by a community college district, the evaluation
shall be conducted in accordance with the standards
and procedures established by the rules and regulations
of the governing board of the employing district.
(c) Evaluations
shall include, but not be limited to, a peer review
process.
(d) The peer review
process shall be on a departmental or divisional
basis, and shall address the forthcoming demographics
of California, and the principles of affirmative
action. The process shall require that the peers
reviewing are both representative of the diversity
of California and sensitive to affirmative action
concerns, all without compromising quality and
excellence in teaching.
