2006 Evaluation Process

2006 Evaluation Process for MCE Faculty

Evaluation of MCE Faculty is one of the most important functions of the MCE Administrative team. The evaluation process is a performance management and recognition tool. Performance evaluation is important for professional growth of individual faculty members and for the continued growth and advancement of our MCE organization. The emphasis for faculty evaluations will be on not only the work completed throughout the year, and more importantly the outcomes and impacts of those programs; i.e. the difference we make to our constituents and Maryland citizens.

Here are some of the guiding principles of the process:

• This is an individual process where faculty members are evaluated on their individual merit, not in comparison with other faculty.

• Evaluation is part of the larger program development process which begins with the approved Individual Extension Plan (IEP); methods for identifying program results and impact must be defined as part of the program planning process.

• Faculty members are expected to update their MCERS data for the program year.

• Faculty are expected to annually submit:

Their current C.V.

Annual teaching effectiveness forms (minimum of 6 clientele evaluations, 2 peer evaluations and 1 administrative evaluation)

A minimum of one (1) one-page significant program impact, demonstrating situation statement/program objective(s), program inputs/outputs, and measurable outcomes. (These one page impacts are used for federal reporting and MCE Marketing efforts.)

• The Curriculum Vitae (C.V.) will serve as the tool for evaluating faculty performance; the only information considered in the evaluation process will be the C.V., MCERS data, and summary of teaching effectiveness.

• All evaluations will follow the same process:

MCE administrators (i.e. County/City Extension Director, Regional Extension Director and Program Leader) will have equal input into and be part of the MCE faculty evaluation process. Each administrator will submit an independent review for consideration in making final ratings.

Program Leaders and Regional Extension Directors will meet in late February to determine final evaluation ratings, in order to foster consistency in expectations and evaluations throughout out the state.

Individual faculty evaluations will be conducted by the RED and, as appropriate, the CED, during March and April.

An evaluation appeal process will continue to be available to faculty members.

• Merit pay will be distributed based upon the following evaluation ratings:

Ratings

1

Exceeds Expectations

Doing significantly more than what has been planned as part of the annual, approved IEP; educator demonstrates that he/she is successful in scholarship, teaching effectiveness and service.

2

Job Well Done

Doing what is planned in the approved IEP; educator has demonstrated scholarship, teaching effectiveness sand service.

3

Needs Improvement

Educator is not meeting aspects of the annual approved IEP in the areas of scholarship, teaching effectiveness and/or service.

Timeline for MCE Faculty Evaluations

January 15, 2007 Submit C.V.s electronically to: RED Office, Program leaders’ via Theresa Queen and to CED/Unit Chair.

January 15 to February 16, 2007

CEDs review faculty C.V.'s

CEDs compile Teaching Effectiveness Summary

Program Leaders and REDs review faculty C.V.s

February 23, 2007 CEDs submit completed evaluation forms and teaching effectiveness summaries to RED office.

February 26 to February 28, 2007
Program Leaders and RED’s meet to discuss final evaluation scores of field faculty members.

March 1 to April 30, 2007 REDs and CEDs meet with individual faculty members to discuss evaluation.

Other MCE Employees

FSNE Timeline and Process: Late February for review by FSNE Director, Project Leader and CED

EFNEP uses and follows PRD system: April 1 to March 31

Nutrient Management uses and follows PRD system: April 1 to March 31

Program Assistants and Hourly FEA’s use and follow the PRD system: April 1 to March 31

Administrative Support Staff and IT Specialists use and follow PRD System: April 1 to March 31
updated: 07/11/2006

1	Exceeds Expectations
	Doing significantly more than what has been planned as part of the annual, approved IEP; educator demonstrates that he/she is successful in scholarship, teaching effectiveness and service.
2	Job Well Done
	Doing what is planned in the approved IEP; educator has demonstrated scholarship, teaching effectiveness sand service.
3	Needs Improvement
	Educator is not meeting aspects of the annual approved IEP in the areas of scholarship, teaching effectiveness and/or service.

January 15, 2007	Submit C.V.s electronically to: RED Office, Program leaders’ via Theresa Queen and to CED/Unit Chair.
January 15 to February 16, 2007	CEDs review faculty C.V.'s CEDs compile Teaching Effectiveness Summary Program Leaders and REDs review faculty C.V.s
February 23, 2007	CEDs submit completed evaluation forms and teaching effectiveness summaries to RED office.
February 26 to February 28, 2007	Program Leaders and RED’s meet to discuss final evaluation scores of field faculty members.
March 1 to April 30, 2007	REDs and CEDs meet with individual faculty members to discuss evaluation.