Educator and evaluator hold the Summative Evaluation Conference Sample Clauses

Educator and evaluator hold the Summative Evaluation Conference. In the Summative Evaluation Conference, the evaluator and educator review artifacts prepared by the educator, student growth data, and observation reports as appropriate. This conference enables the educator to point out important aspects of his or her work as well as essential areas of growth. The educator will present his/her student growth data relative to his/her goals in Criteria 3 and 6. This data will be used to evaluate the student growth Component of TPEP using the student growth rubrics. Criterion scores, including instructional and student growth rubrics, will be determined by an analysis of evidence.
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs
Educator and evaluator hold the Summative Evaluation Conference. Prior to June 1, the evaluator and educator hold a final summative evaluation conference to review the outcome of the initial conference, artifacts and/or evidence prepared by the educator, student growth data, and observation reports as appropriate. This summative evaluation conference enables the educator to point out important aspects of his or her work as well as essential areas of growth. The educator will present his/her student growth data relative to his/her goals in Criterion 3 or 6. This data will be used to evaluate the student growth component of TPEP using the student growth rubrics. Criterion scores, including instructional and student growth rubrics, will be determined by an analysis of evidence. The Summative score reported to OSPI is the Summative score earned on the most recent Comprehensive Evaluation Cycle. Should an educator provide evidence of exemplary practice on the chosen focused criterion, a Distinguished score may be awarded by the evaluator for that year. Ratings shall be based upon the preponderance of evidence and its relationship to the state developed rubric. When there is an even number of components within a criterion, a split score, or evidence is unclear, the educator and evaluator may use one or more of the following to determine the criterion score:  Have further discussion about the specific components; or  Provide additional convincing evidence or artifacts, if relevant; or  Conduct additional observations if the criterion can be evaluated by observation. The educator signs the Focused evaluation; copies are filed with the educator, evaluator, and the District’s Human Resources office. The educator’s signature shall indicate that the evaluation has been discussed, but does not necessarily denote agreement with all that is written. Such statements as the educator may deem appropriate may be attached to the evaluation. Evidence and artifacts are not submitted with the report to the MISD Human Resources Department.

Related to Educator and evaluator hold the Summative Evaluation Conference

  • Evaluation Conference The final evaluation conference shall occur not later than the end of the fall term. The purpose of the final evaluation conference is to discuss with the probationary employee the results of the evaluation and announce the team's recommendation. The evaluation team shall determine what additional evaluation activity shall occur during the spring term. If the team recommends that the District not employ the professor for the following year, no evaluation activities in the spring are necessary.

  • JOC EVALUATION If any materials being utilized for a project cannot be found in the RS Means Price Book, this question is what is the markup percentage on those materials? When answering this question please insert the number that represents your percentage of proposed markup. Example: if you are proposing a 30 percent markup, please insert the number "30". Remember that this is a ceiling markup. You may markup a lesser percentage to the TIPS Member customer when pricing the project, but not a greater percentage. EXAMPLE: You need special materials that are not in the RS Means Unit Price Book for a project. You would buy the materials and xxxx them up to the TIPS Member customer by the percentage you propose in this question. If the materials cost you, the contractor, $100 and you proposed a markup on this question for the material of 30 percent, then you would charge the TIPS Member customer $130 for the materials. No response TIPS/ESC Region 8 is required by Texas Government Code § 791 to be compensated for its work and thus, failure to agree shall render your response void and it will not be considered. Yes - No Vendor agrees to remit to TIPS the required administration fee or, if resellers are named, guarantee the fee remittance by or for the reseller named by the vendor?

  • 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.

  • Independent Evaluation Buyer is experienced and knowledgeable in the oil and gas business. Buyer has been advised by and has relied solely on its own expertise and legal, tax, accounting, marketing, land, engineering, environmental and other professional counsel concerning this transaction, the Subject Property and value thereof.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Performance Evaluations 34.1. The Contractor is subject to an annual performance evaluation to be conducted by NYCDOT pursuant to the PPB Rules.

  • Program Monitoring and Evaluation (c) The Recipient shall prepare, or cause to be prepared, and furnish to the Association not later than six months after the Closing Date, a report of such scope and in such detail as the Association shall reasonably request, on the execution of the Program, the performance by the Recipient and the Association of their respective obligations under the Legal Agreements and the accomplishment of the purposes of the Financing.”

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