Administrator Evaluation Surveys 2015
College of Visual and Performing Arts
Chairs and Other Mid-Level Administrators as Evaluated by All Faculty of a College
Survey participation: 59 (48.4%)
1
2
Actively
Actively
promotes
promotes
research and
teaching
scholarly
excellence
excellence
3
Actively
promotes
excellence in
institutional
and public
service
4
5
6
Seeks
Effectively Is responsive
faculty input
represents the
to faculty
in decision
department
interests
making
7
Supports
faculty
development
8
9
Conducts fair Actively
and rigorous promotes
tenure and
diversity
promotion
within the
processes
department
10
Overall, this
leader inspires
confidence
11
12
Has a clear
Conducts fair and
strategic plan
rigorous processes
and allocates
to hire new faculty
resources
members in the
consistently
department
with that plan
13
Effectively
manages
financial
resources
14
15
Administers
Has an effective
in an open
and competent
and
administrative
transparent
staff
manner
16
Promotes
cooperation
between
disciplines
within the
department
ALL
Statistics
Count
Average
Maximum
Median
Minimum
Standard Deviation
Standard Error (±)
59
3.97
5
5
1
1.35
0.18
59
4.24
5
5
1
1.14
0.15
59
4.34
5
5
1
0.91
0.12
59
4.02
5
5
1
1.33
0.17
59
3.78
5
4
1
1.35
0.18
59
3.61
5
4
1
1.53
0.20
59
4.05
5
5
1
1.27
0.17
57
4.07
5
5
1
1.18
0.16
57
4.05
5
5
1
1.23
0.16
59
3.80
5
4
1
1.48
0.19
55
3.89
5
4
1
1.36
0.18
59
3.66
5
4
1
1.43
0.19
59
3.88
5
5
1
1.40
0.18
59
3.53
5
4
1
1.56
0.20
59
4.02
5
4
1
1.20
0.16
58
3.86
5
4
1
1.31
0.17
935
3.92
5
4.5
1
1.32
0.04
No-Response out of 59
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
2
3%
2
3%
0
0%
4
7%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
1
2%
9
1%
5
7
4
12
31
59
3
3
6
12
35
59
1
1
9
14
34
59
5
6
4
12
32
59
5
8
8
12
26
59
9
8
7
8
27
59
4
6
4
14
31
59
3
4
8
13
29
57
4
3
9
11
30
57
9
4
6
11
29
59
5
6
6
11
27
55
8
6
8
13
24
59
6
7
5
11
30
59
11
7
5
12
24
59
4
4
6
18
27
59
5
4
12
10
27
58
87
84
107
194
463
935
8.5%
11.9%
6.8%
20.3%
52.5%
100%
5.1%
5.1%
10.2%
20.3%
59.3%
100%
1.7%
1.7%
15.3%
23.7%
57.6%
100%
8.5%
10.2%
6.8%
20.3%
54.2%
100%
8.5%
13.6%
13.6%
20.3%
44.1%
100%
15.3%
13.6%
11.9%
13.6%
45.8%
100%
6.8%
10.2%
6.8%
23.7%
52.5%
100%
5.3%
7.0%
14.0%
22.8%
50.9%
100%
7.0%
5.3%
15.8%
19.3%
52.6%
100%
15.3%
6.8%
10.2%
18.6%
49.2%
100%
9.1%
10.9%
10.9%
20.0%
49.1%
100%
13.6%
10.2%
13.6%
22.0%
40.7%
100%
10.2%
11.9%
8.5%
18.6%
50.8%
100%
18.6%
11.9%
8.5%
20.3%
40.7%
100%
6.8%
6.8%
10.2%
30.5%
45.8%
100%
8.6%
6.9%
20.7%
17.2%
46.6%
100%
9.3%
9.0%
11.4%
20.7%
49.5%
100%
3.6
7.8
24.0
4.0
2.9
2.1
4.5
6.0
5.9
3.1
3.5
2.6
3.2
2.0
5.6
4.1
3.8
Ratings Distribution:
1=Strongly Disagree
2=Disagree
3=Neutral
4=Agree
5=Strongly Agree
1=Strongly Disagree
2=Disagree
3=Neutral
4=Agree
5=Strongly Agree
Ratio of high ratings to
low ratings
(4+5)/(1+2)[all
agreements divided by all
disagreements)
Institutional Research, 1/25/2016, page 1 of 1
Administrator Evaluation Surveys 2015
College of Visual and Performing Arts
School of Art
Chair: Lydia C. Thompson
Chairs and Other Mid-Level Administrators as Evaluated by all Faculty of a Department
Survey participation: 22 (53.7%)
1
2
Actively
Actively
promotes
promotes
research and
teaching
scholarly
excellence
excellence
3
Actively
promotes
excellence in
institutional
and public
service
4
5
6
Seeks
Effectively Is responsive
faculty input
represents the
to faculty
in decision
department
interests
making
7
Supports
faculty
development
8
9
Conducts fair Actively
and rigorous promotes
tenure and
diversity
promotion
within the
processes
department
10
Overall, this
leader inspires
confidence
11
12
Has a clear
Conducts fair and
strategic plan
rigorous processes
and allocates
to hire new faculty
resources
members in the
consistently
department
with that plan
13
Effectively
manages
financial
resources
14
15
Administers
Has an effective
in an open
and competent
and
administrative
transparent
staff
manner
16
Promotes
cooperation
between
disciplines
within the
department
ALL
Statistics
Count
Average
Maximum
Median
Minimum
Standard Deviation
Standard Error (±)
22
3.32
5
3.5
1
1.52
0.32
22
3.86
5
4
1
1.25
0.27
22
3.86
5
4
2
0.92
0.20
22
3.36
5
4
1
1.49
0.32
22
3.27
5
3.5
1
1.39
0.30
22
3.36
5
4
1
1.55
0.33
22
3.50
5
4
1
1.41
0.30
20
3.80
5
4
2
0.98
0.22
21
4.10
5
5
1
1.23
0.27
22
3.23
5
4
1
1.62
0.35
19
3.89
5
4
1
1.29
0.30
22
2.95
5
3
1
1.43
0.30
22
3.32
5
3.5
1
1.39
0.30
22
3.14
5
3
1
1.58
0.34
22
3.68
5
4
1
1.29
0.28
22
3.45
5
4
1
1.56
0.33
346
3.51
5
4
1
1.37
0.07
No-Response out of 22
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
2
9%
1
5%
0
0%
3
14%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
6
2%
3
6
2
3
8
22
1
3
4
4
10
22
0
1
8
6
7
22
4
3
3
5
7
22
4
2
5
6
5
22
4
4
2
4
8
22
3
3
3
6
7
22
0
2
6
6
6
20
2
0
3
5
11
21
6
2
2
5
7
22
2
1
2
6
8
19
5
4
4
5
4
22
3
4
4
5
6
22
5
4
3
3
7
22
2
3
2
8
7
22
4
3
3
3
9
22
48
45
56
80
117
346
13.6%
27.3%
9.1%
13.6%
36.4%
100%
4.5%
13.6%
18.2%
18.2%
45.5%
100%
0.0%
4.5%
36.4%
27.3%
31.8%
100%
18.2%
13.6%
13.6%
22.7%
31.8%
100%
18.2%
9.1%
22.7%
27.3%
22.7%
100%
18.2%
18.2%
9.1%
18.2%
36.4%
100%
13.6%
13.6%
13.6%
27.3%
31.8%
100%
0.0%
10.0%
30.0%
30.0%
30.0%
100%
9.5%
0.0%
14.3%
23.8%
52.4%
100%
27.3%
9.1%
9.1%
22.7%
31.8%
100%
10.5%
5.3%
10.5%
31.6%
42.1%
100%
22.7%
18.2%
18.2%
22.7%
18.2%
100%
13.6%
18.2%
18.2%
22.7%
27.3%
100%
22.7%
18.2%
13.6%
13.6%
31.8%
100%
9.1%
13.6%
9.1%
36.4%
31.8%
100%
18.2%
13.6%
13.6%
13.6%
40.9%
100%
13.9%
13.0%
16.2%
23.1%
33.8%
100%
1.2
3.5
13.0
1.7
1.8
1.5
2.2
6.0
8.0
1.5
4.7
1.0
1.6
1.1
3.0
1.7
2.1
Ratings Distribution:
1=Strongly Disagree
2=Disagree
3=Neutral
4=Agree
5=Strongly Agree
1=Strongly Disagree
2=Disagree
3=Neutral
4=Agree
5=Strongly Agree
Ratio of high ratings to
low ratings
(4+5)/(1+2)[all
agreements divided by all
disagreements)
Institutional Research, 2/8/2016, page 1 of 1
Administrator Evaluation Surveys 2015
College of Visual and Performing Arts
School of Music
Chair: William L. Ballenger
Chairs and Other Mid-Level Administrators as Evaluated by all Faculty of a Department
Survey participation: 27 (46.6%)
1
2
Actively
Actively
promotes
promotes
research and
teaching
scholarly
excellence
excellence
3
Actively
promotes
excellence in
institutional
and public
service
4
5
6
Seeks
Effectively Is responsive
faculty input
represents the
to faculty
in decision
department
interests
making
7
Supports
faculty
development
8
9
Conducts fair Actively
and rigorous promotes
tenure and
diversity
promotion
within the
processes
department
10
Overall, this
leader inspires
confidence
11
12
Has a clear
Conducts fair and
strategic plan
rigorous processes
and allocates
to hire new faculty
resources
members in the
consistently
department
with that plan
13
Effectively
manages
financial
resources
14
15
Administers
Has an effective
in an open
and competent
and
administrative
transparent
staff
manner
16
Promotes
cooperation
between
disciplines
within the
department
ALL
Statistics
Count
Average
Maximum
Median
Minimum
Standard Deviation
Standard Error (±)
27
4.37
5
5
1
1.09
0.21
27
4.56
5
5
1
1.07
0.21
27
4.70
5
5
1
0.81
0.16
27
4.67
5
5
1
0.82
0.16
27
4.37
5
5
1
1.09
0.21
27
4.15
5
5
1
1.27
0.24
27
4.59
5
5
1
0.95
0.18
27
4.44
5
5
1
1.20
0.23
27
4.37
5
5
1
0.99
0.19
27
4.48
5
5
1
1.10
0.21
26
4.35
5
5
1
1.07
0.21
27
4.52
5
5
1
0.96
0.18
27
4.70
5
5
1
0.81
0.16
27
4.26
5
5
1
1.11
0.21
27
4.33
5
5
1
1.05
0.20
26
4.42
5
5
3
0.79
0.16
430
4.46
5
5
1
1.01
0.05
No-Response out of 27
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
1
4%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
1
4%
2
0%
2
0
1
7
17
27
2
0
0
4
21
27
1
0
0
4
22
27
1
0
0
5
21
27
1
2
1
5
18
27
2
1
5
2
17
27
1
1
0
4
21
27
2
1
1
2
21
27
1
0
4
5
17
27
2
0
1
4
20
27
1
1
3
4
17
26
1
1
0
6
19
27
1
0
0
4
22
27
2
0
2
8
15
27
1
1
3
5
17
27
0
0
5
5
16
26
21
8
26
74
301
430
7.4%
0.0%
3.7%
25.9%
63.0%
100%
7.4%
0.0%
0.0%
14.8%
77.8%
100%
3.7%
0.0%
0.0%
14.8%
81.5%
100%
3.7%
0.0%
0.0%
18.5%
77.8%
100%
3.7%
7.4%
3.7%
18.5%
66.7%
100%
7.4%
3.7%
18.5%
7.4%
63.0%
100%
3.7%
3.7%
0.0%
14.8%
77.8%
100%
7.4%
3.7%
3.7%
7.4%
77.8%
100%
3.7%
0.0%
14.8%
18.5%
63.0%
100%
7.4%
0.0%
3.7%
14.8%
74.1%
100%
3.8%
3.8%
11.5%
15.4%
65.4%
100%
3.7%
3.7%
0.0%
22.2%
70.4%
100%
3.7%
0.0%
0.0%
14.8%
81.5%
100%
7.4%
0.0%
7.4%
29.6%
55.6%
100%
3.7%
3.7%
11.1%
18.5%
63.0%
100%
0.0%
0.0%
19.2%
19.2%
61.5%
100%
4.9%
1.9%
6.0%
17.2%
70.0%
100%
12.0
12.5
26.0
26.0
7.7
6.3
12.5
7.7
22.0
12.0
10.5
12.5
26.0
11.5
11.0
No low
ratings
12.9
Ratings Distribution:
1=Strongly Disagree
2=Disagree
3=Neutral
4=Agree
5=Strongly Agree
1=Strongly Disagree
2=Disagree
3=Neutral
4=Agree
5=Strongly Agree
Ratio of high ratings to
low ratings
(4+5)/(1+2)[all
agreements divided by all
disagreements)
Institutional Research, 2/8/2016, page 1 of 1
Administrator Evaluation Surveys 2015
College of Visual and Performing Arts
Department of Theatre and Dance
Chair: Mark J. Charney
Chairs and Other Mid-Level Administrators as Evaluated by all Faculty of a Department
Survey participation: 10 (43.5%)
1
2
Actively
Actively
promotes
promotes
research and
teaching
scholarly
excellence
excellence
3
Actively
promotes
excellence in
institutional
and public
service
4
5
6
Seeks
Effectively Is responsive
faculty input
represents the
to faculty
in decision
department
interests
making
7
Supports
faculty
development
8
9
Conducts fair Actively
and rigorous promotes
tenure and
diversity
promotion
within the
processes
department
10
Overall, this
leader inspires
confidence
11
12
Has a clear
Conducts fair and
strategic plan
rigorous processes
and allocates
to hire new faculty
resources
members in the
consistently
department
with that plan
13
Effectively
manages
financial
resources
14
15
Administers
Has an effective
in an open
and competent
and
administrative
transparent
staff
manner
16
Promotes
cooperation
between
disciplines
within the
department
ALL
Statistics
Count
Average
Maximum
Median
Minimum
Standard Deviation
Standard Error (±)
10
4.30
5
5
2
1.00
0.32
10
4.20
5
4
3
0.75
0.24
10
4.40
5
4.5
3
0.66
0.21
10
3.70
5
4
2
1.27
0.40
10
3.30
5
3
2
1.27
0.40
10
2.70
5
2
1
1.55
0.49
10
3.80
5
4
2
1.08
0.34
10
3.60
5
4
1
1.20
0.38
9
3.00
5
3
1
1.33
0.44
10
3.20
5
3
1
1.25
0.39
10
2.70
5
2
1
1.42
0.45
10
2.90
5
3
1
1.22
0.39
10
2.90
5
2.5
1
1.45
0.46
10
2.40
5
2
1
1.56
0.49
10
3.90
5
4
1
1.14
0.36
10
3.30
5
3
1
1.19
0.38
159
3.39
5
3
1
1.21
0.10
No-Response out of 10
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
1
10%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
1
1%
0
1
1
2
6
10
0
0
2
4
4
10
0
0
1
4
5
10
0
3
1
2
4
10
0
4
2
1
3
10
3
3
0
2
2
10
0
2
1
4
3
10
1
1
1
5
2
10
1
3
2
1
2
9
1
2
3
2
2
10
2
4
1
1
2
10
2
1
4
2
1
10
2
3
1
2
2
10
4
3
0
1
2
10
1
0
1
5
3
10
1
1
4
2
2
10
18
31
25
40
45
159
0.0%
10.0%
10.0%
20.0%
60.0%
100%
0.0%
0.0%
20.0%
40.0%
40.0%
100%
0.0%
0.0%
10.0%
40.0%
50.0%
100%
0.0%
30.0%
10.0%
20.0%
40.0%
100%
0.0%
40.0%
20.0%
10.0%
30.0%
100%
30.0%
30.0%
0.0%
20.0%
20.0%
100%
0.0%
20.0%
10.0%
40.0%
30.0%
100%
10.0%
10.0%
10.0%
50.0%
20.0%
100%
11.1%
33.3%
22.2%
11.1%
22.2%
100%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
20.0%
20.0%
100%
20.0%
40.0%
10.0%
10.0%
20.0%
100%
20.0%
10.0%
40.0%
20.0%
10.0%
100%
20.0%
30.0%
10.0%
20.0%
20.0%
100%
40.0%
30.0%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
100%
10.0%
0.0%
10.0%
50.0%
30.0%
100%
10.0%
10.0%
40.0%
20.0%
20.0%
100%
11.3%
19.5%
15.7%
25.2%
28.3%
100%
8.0
No low
ratings
No low
ratings
2.0
1.0
0.7
3.5
3.5
0.8
1.3
0.5
1.0
0.8
0.4
8.0
2.0
1.7
Ratings Distribution:
1=Strongly Disagree
2=Disagree
3=Neutral
4=Agree
5=Strongly Agree
1=Strongly Disagree
2=Disagree
3=Neutral
4=Agree
5=Strongly Agree
Ratio of high ratings to
low ratings
(4+5)/(1+2)[all
agreements divided by all
disagreements)
Institutional Research, 2/8/2016, page 1 of 1