Student Ratings Instrument Sample Clauses

Student Ratings Instrument. The Administration shall use a university-wide student rating system. The system, and the procedures and practices for the use of the system, shall be agreed upon by written mutual consent between the Administration and the Chapter. Until such written mutual consent is achieved, the current system, procedures, and practices shall continue unchanged. Faculty members and departments may choose to use additional evaluative tools. The Administration agrees to take the evidence on professional competence provided by such instruments into consideration in tenure and promotion reviews, as one of several sources of evidence of professional competence. By January 15, 2018, the Administration shall provide the Chapter with a list of three to five (3-5) externally developed student ratings instruments that meet university and technical requirements. No later than March 15, 2018, the Chapter shall select an instrument from the list for implementation. The Chapter’s selection will constitute written mutual consent. Unless otherwise agreed upon by the Administration and the Chapter, the selection connotes acceptance of the vendor’s standard item template. If the Chapter chooses not to select a replacement instrument from the list, the existing system shall continue.
Sample 1Sample 2Sample 3
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs
Student Ratings Instrument. The Administration shall use a university-wide student rating system. The system, and the procedures and practices for the use of the system, shall be agreed upon by written mutual consent between the Administration and the Chapter. Until such written mutual consent is achieved, the current system, procedures, and practices shall continue unchanged. Faculty members and departments may choose to use additional evaluative tools. The Administration agrees to take the evidence on professional competence provided by such instruments into consideration in tenure and promotion reviews, as one of several sources of evidence of professional competence.
Sample 1Sample 2Sample 3
Student Ratings Instrument. The Administration and the Chapter agree to use the procedures and practices of ICES Online, as developed by the WMU ICES Implementation Committee and approved by the WMU ICES Steering Committee. ICES Online is the online version of the student ratings instrument recommended by the Evaluation Study Committee in its report of February 14, 2003, namely, the Instructor and Course Evaluation System (ICES) of the University of Illinois. A Steering Committee will be responsible for policies and procedures for the use of the student ratings instrument. Faculty members and departments may choose to use additional evaluative tools. The Administration agrees to take the evidence on professional competence provided by such instruments into consideration in tenure and promotion reviews.
Sample 1Sample 2
Student Ratings Instrument. Western and the Chapter agree to use the student ratings instrument recommended by the Evaluation Study Committee in its report of February 14, 2003, namely, the Instructor and Course Evaluation System (ICES) of the University of Illinois. A Steering Committee will be responsible for policies and procedures for the use of the student ratings instrument. Faculty members and departments may choose to use additional evaluative tools. Western agrees to take the evidence on professional competence provided by such instruments into consideration in tenure and promotion reviews.
Sample 1
Student Ratings Instrument. Western and the Chapter agree to use the procedures and practices of ICES Online, as developed by the WMU ICES Implementation Committee and approved by the WMU ICES Steering Committee. ICES Online is the online version of the student ratings instrument recommended by the Evaluation Study Committee in its report of February 14, 2003, namely, the Instructor and Course Evaluation System (ICES) of the University of Illinois. A Steering Committee will be responsible for policies and procedures for the use of the student ratings instrument. Faculty members and departments may choose to use additional evaluative tools. Western agrees to take the evidence on professional competence provided by such instruments into consideration in tenure and promotion reviews.
Sample 1

Related to Student Ratings Instrument

  • Moody’s Xxxxx’x Investors Service, Inc. and its successors.

  • Credit Rating With respect to the Competitive Supplier or Competitive Supplier’s Guarantor, its senior unsecured, unsubordinated long-term debt rating, not supported by third party credit enhancement, and if such debt is no longer rated, then the corporate or long-term issuer rating of Competitive Supplier or Competitive Supplier’s Guarantor.

  • Insurance Company Rating The required insurance must be written by a company approved to do business in the State or Texas with a financial standing of at least an A- rating, as reflected in Best’s insurance ratings or by a similar rating system recognized within the insurance industry at the time the policy is issued.

  • Insurance Carrier Rating Coverages provided by Contractor must be underwritten by an insurance company deemed acceptable to the State of Washington’s Office of Risk Management. Insurance coverage shall be provided by companies authorized to do business within the State of Washington and rated A- Class VII or better in the most recently published edition of Best’s Insurance Rating. Enterprise Services reserves the right to reject all or any insurance carrier(s) with an unacceptable financial rating.

  • BBB SCDHEC shall mean the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control and its authorized representatives. CCC. Statement of Basis shall mean the report(s) describing the corrective measure(s)/remedial action(s) being con ducted pursuant to South Carolina Hazardous Waste Management Regulations, as amended.

  • Ratings No “nationally recognized statistical rating organization” as such term is defined for purposes of Rule 436(g)(2) (i) has imposed (or has informed the Company that it is considering imposing) any condition (financial or otherwise) on the Company’s retaining any rating assigned to the Company or any securities of the Company or (ii) has indicated to the Company that it is considering any of the actions described in Section 7(c)(ii) hereof.

  • Rating The Notes can be issued without the requirement that they have any rating from a nationally recognized statistical rating organization.

  • Industry Ratings The City will only accept coverage from an insurance carrier who offers proof that it:

  • Special Permit from Relevant Ministerial/ Government Agencies and Foreign Capital Ownership Limitation Raw Material for Explosives (Ammonium Nitrate) with maximum foreign equity ownership of 49% and a special permit from the Minister of Defense (ISIC 2411) Industry of explosive materials and its components for industry need with maximum foreign equity ownership of 49% and a special permit from the Minister of Defense (ISIC 2429) Sugar Industry (Xxxxx Xxxxxxx Sugar, Refined Crystal Sugar and Raw Crystal Sugar) with maximum foreign equity ownership of 95% and a special permit from the Minister of Industry and the Minister of Agriculture, and it has to be integrated with the sugar plantation. The manufacturing of raw crystal sugar is required for any sugar manufacturer with sugarcane input capacity exceeding 8000 tons per day (ISIC 1542) Processing of plantation product industry (similar capacity or exceeding a certain capacity, according to Regulation of Minister of Agriculture Number 26 of 2007 with maximum foreign capital ownership of 95% with a special permit from Minister of Agriculture. - Fiber and Seed Cotton Industry (ISIC1514, 1711) - Crude oil industry (edible oil) from vegetable and animal, coconut oil industry, palm oil industry, rubber to be sheet, thick latex, crumb rubber industry, raw castor oil industry, sugar, sugar cane and sugar cane residue industry, black tea/green tea industry, dry tobacco leaves industry, Copra, Fiber, Coconut Charcoal, Dust, Nata de coco industry, Coffee sorting, cleaning and peeling industry, Cocoa cleaning, peeling and drying industry, cleaning and peeling seed other than coffee and cacao industry, cashew to be dry seed cashew and Cashew Nut Shell Liquid (CNSL) Industry, Peppercorn to be dry white pepper and dry black pepper industry (ISIC 1514, 2429, 1542, 1549, 1600, 2519, 1531)

  • Performance Rating Describes the Educator’s performance on each performance standard and overall. There shall be four performance ratings:  Exemplary: the Educator’s performance consistently and significantly exceeds the requirements of a standard or overall. The rating of exemplary on a standard indicates that practice significantly exceeds proficient and could serve as a model of practice on that standard district-wide.  Proficient: the Educator’s performance fully and consistently meets the requirements of a standard or overall. Proficient practice is understood to be fully satisfactory.

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