Conducting Evaluations Sample Clauses

Conducting Evaluations. The University retains the right to evaluate adjunct professors, including use of student and/or administrative evaluations.
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs
Conducting Evaluations. Evaluations shall be conducted in accordance with established District protocols.
Conducting Evaluations. The performance of a Unit B Member shall be observed openly and with the full knowledge of the Unit B Member. No adverse comments shall be made to a Unit B Member in the presence of pupils, parents or other non-Unit B Members. Any issues, concerns, or opportunities for improvement shall be brought to the attention [verbally] of the Unit B Member within a reasonable time. APPENDIX “B” UNIT B TIMELINE Unit B Members will be evaluated every year. All Unit B administrators will have four goals as part of their evaluation. The Management/Operations standard (2) may be substituted with the teaching All Students Standard (2) according to the State Evaluation Rubric. If needed, can be discussed at goals meetings. • By September 30 – Unit B Members will be informed about the Evaluation Procedure. • By October 31 – Goals meeting based on Individual Professional Development Plan (IPDP) and School and District Improvement Plans will occur. • By February 15– Mid-year goals’ meetings will be held. • By the June 15– Year end goals’ meetings will be held. • By the June 30 – Final evaluation narratives will be completed by evaluators. Important Terms Final Evaluation – A narrative, written by the evaluator, discussing the Unit B Members annual performance in light of specific goals. Goals’ Meetings – Meetings held at the beginning, middle, and end of the school year for the purpose of Unit B Members and evaluators determining, discussing, and monitoring annual goals Individual Professional Development Plan (IPDP) – A plan developed by Unit B Members, monitored by administrators, and required by the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education for professional development planning, certification, and licensure. Specific, Measureable, Attainable, Realistic, Timely (XXXXX) Goals – Characteristics of the annual goals developed by teachers. Teachers with Non-professional Status – Teachers who have worked in the Xxxxxxx-Xxxxxx Regional School District for a period of time less than three complete school years with each school year of employment beginning on the first day of school for teachers and ending on the last day of school. APPENDIX “C” UNIT A SALARY SCHEDULES
Conducting Evaluations. 1. Non-Probationary ESP’s shall be given a minimum of one written evaluation to be conducted biannually.
Conducting Evaluations. Project Manager per day/per hour Senior Evaluator/Team leader per day Evaluation Specialist per day Subject matter expert (Education, Health, etc) per day Data collectors/field workers per day Type of service Method of pricing Price in USD Translators per page Quality assurace support per hour Editorial support per page/per hour Graphic designer (if applicable) per day
Conducting Evaluations. The performance of a Unit B Member shall be observed openly and with the full knowledge of the Unit B Member. No adverse comments shall be made to a Unit B Member in the presence of pupils, parents or other non-Unit B Members. Any issues, concerns, or opportunities for improvement shall be brought to the attention [verbally] of the Unit B Member within a reasonable time. APPENDIX “B” UNIT B TIMELINE Unit B Members will be evaluated every year. All Unit B administrators will have four goals as part of their evaluation. The Management/Operations standard (2) may be substituted with the teaching All Students Standard

Related to Conducting Evaluations

  • Annual Evaluations The purpose of the annual evaluation is to assess and communicate the nature and extent of an employee's performance of assigned duties consistent with the criteria specified below in this Policy. Except for those employees who have received notice of non-reappointment pursuant to the BOT- UFF Policy on Non- reappointment, every employee shall be evaluated at least once annually. Personnel decisions shall take such annual evaluations into account, provided that such decisions need not be based solely on written faculty performance evaluations.

  • Student Evaluations Student evaluations shall be completed by the end of the 12th week of the Fall semester.

  • Program Evaluation The School District and the College will develop a plan for the evaluation of the Dual Credit program to be completed each year. The evaluation will include, but is not limited to, disaggregated attendance and retention rates, GPA of high-school-credit-only courses and college courses, satisfactory progress in college courses, state assessment results, SAT/ACT, as applicable, TSIA readiness by grade level, and adequate progress toward the college-readiness of the students in the program. The School District commits to collecting longitudinal data as specified by the College, and making data and performance outcomes available to the College upon request. HB 1638 and SACSCOC require the collection of data points to be longitudinally captured by the School District, in collaboration with the College, will include, at minimum: student enrollment, GPA, retention, persistence, completion, transfer and scholarships. School District will provide parent contact and demographic information to the College upon request for targeted marketing of degree completion or workforce development information to parents of Students. School District agrees to obtain valid FERPA releases drafted to support the supply of such data if deemed required by counsel to either School District or the College. The College conducts and reports regular and ongoing evaluations of the Dual Credit program effectiveness and uses the results for continuous improvement.

  • TECHNICAL EVALUATION (a) Detailed technical evaluation shall be carried out by Purchase Committee pursuant to conditions in the tender document to determine the substantial responsiveness of each tender. For this clause, the substantially responsive bid is one that conforms to all the eligibility and terms and condition of the tender without any material deviation. The Institute’s determination of bid’s responsiveness is to be based on the contents of the bid itself without recourse to extrinsic evidence. The Institute shall evaluate the technical bids also to determine whether they are complete, whether required sureties have been furnished, whether the documents have been properly signed and whether the bids are in order.

  • Final Evaluation IC must submit a final report and a project evaluation to the Arts Commission within thirty (30) days after the completion of the Services. Any and all unexpended funds from IC must be returned to City no later than sixty (60) days after the completion of the Services.

  • MANAGEMENT OF EVALUATION OUTCOMES 11.1 The evaluation of the Employee’s performance will form the basis for rewarding outstanding performance or correcting unacceptable performance.

Time is Money Join Law Insider Premium to draft better contracts faster.