The Evaluation Sample Clauses

The Evaluation. Review Committee shall produce a decision to uphold or modify the prime evaluator's directions for professional improvement. The decision shall be binding upon both the prime evaluator and the evaluatee.
Sample 1Sample 2Sample 3See All (4)
The Evaluation. The written evaluation shall be discussed in detail with each individual employee. The employee shall have the right to include a written statement or addenda to the evaluation.
Sample 1Sample 2
The Evaluation. 10.1 The Evaluator shall provide the Evaluation to the parties in writing within ten (10) working days of whichever event is the latter of:
Sample 1Sample 2
The Evaluation. The main task of the evaluation was to analyse and assess the relevance, effectiveness, and efficiency, as well as the EU-added value, of the Preparatory Actions and special events that were carried out during 2009 and 2010, the first two years of Preparatory Action funding.1 The evaluation collected data and information through a mix of primary and secondary sources, with a heavy emphasis on the former. The main data collection methods were: • A survey of coordinators and partners for the transnational projects funded in 2009; • A survey of coordinators for the transnational projects funded in 2010;
Sample 1
The Evaluation. At the end of your placement it is important for you to hear what your supervisor thinks of your performance. It is also interesting for the company to hear your opinion about their business. Even an established business can learn from something that you might have noticed. Thus, the evaluation is divided into three parts: • You offer your opinion about your placement company. • You give your opinion about your own job performance. • Your placement supervisor gives an opinion on your performance. Prepare Task A first before having the final discussion with your placement supervisor. You can take this data with you to this concluding meeting. During the meeting itself you will be working on Task B. Task A What is your opinion about the company? (Put an “X” after the appropriate answer) The first time I went to my placement company I knew where I needed to report to. Yes No The building where my placement was located is: Really nice Average Poor My work area was: Really nice Average Poor The tools and materials with which I had to work were: Modern Customary Out-dated The underlying atmosphere in my work area was: Really good Good Mediocre Poor The people surrounding me found in their work: Much pleasure No pleasure These things appealed to me about the place where I worked: …………………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………………………… I did not care for the following regarding the place where I worked: ………………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………………………… I would /would not want to work for this company because: …………………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Task B Give your opinion about your own job performance. (Place an “X” after the appropriate answer) I did the work that was assigned to me: Really well Reasonably well In a mediocre manner I showed a great deal of initiative in my work: Often Occasionally Rarely I did my work: With much pleasure With some pleasure With little pleasure I was: Always on time Sometimes too late Often too late I think that I: Fit in well with the company from the very beginning Increasingly began to fit in with the company during the placement. Did not fit in well with this company. I could get along with my colleagues: Really well Reasonably well Not very well I could get along with management personnel: Really ...
Sample 1
The Evaluation. Peer Committee is a committee consisting of three Faculty Members elected by the Faculty Association as required by Article 12.
Sample 1Sample 2
The Evaluation. The Evaluation will seek to establish that the implementation of the Assessment Statement is being followed and specifically that the following criteria are being fulfilled: • That the standards of any relevant accreditation system for academic programs and/or examinations are substantially equivalent to systems operated under the relevant Agreement; • The process by which substantial equivalence of qualifications is determined is robust and conforms to good practice in the Agreement; • That the policies and procedures used are well documented, subject to regular review and updating, and accurately presented in the Assessment Statement. • That the processes by which engineers are registered domestically are robust and in accordance with the Assessment Statement and the description provided to the Review Team by the Authorized Member and that the competence standard required for registration is substantially equivalent to that of the Agreement (exemplified by the competence profiles approved by the Authorized Members); • That the processes by which individuals are registered on the jurisdictional section of the relevant international register are robust and in accordance with the Assessment Statement; • That the standard of professional judgement demonstrated through acceptance or rejection of applications is satisfactory, including the judgement regarding demonstration of sufficient and satisfactory evidence of current competence; Cross checks of the standards and system in operation might be: • Is the educational standard equivalent to the relevant Accord? For non-Accord jurisdictions this will require an in depth evaluation of educational standards and accreditation processes with a rigour similar to that required for Accord membership. The Accord review procedures should be used as guideline in undertaking this evaluation which may result in a two stage process i.e. an evaluation of the substantial equivalence of the educational standards followed by an evaluation of the substantial equivalence of the competence assessment system. • Is the standard of competence required in practice in accordance with the relevant exemplar competence profile? • Are the candidate competence assessment procedures well established and practiced? • Is the evaluation of continuing professional development sufficiently robust? • Does the system demonstrate consistency of standards, operation and decisions including, as appropriate, formal moderation? • Ultimately, as an overa...
Sample 1

Related to The Evaluation

  • 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?

  • JOB EVALUATION 34.01 During the term of this Agreement, if a new or revised Job Evaluation System is implemented by the Employer, the Employer shall before applying the new or revised Job Evaluation System, negotiate with the Union the rates of pay and the rules affecting the pay of employees for the evaluations affected. If the parties fail to reach agreement within sixty (60) days from the date on which the Employer submits the new or revised standard to the Union, the Employer may apply the new rates of pay and the Union may refer the matter to arbitration. The arbitrator's decision will be retroactive to the date of application of the new rates.

  • Self-Evaluation Each regular faculty member shall provide a self-evaluation. It shall address, among other items, the faculty member's fulfillment of professional responsibilities as referenced in Section 18.2.3 and an assessment of his or her own performance. The faculty member will share the self-evaluation with the Faculty Evaluation Committee and the first-level manager or designee. The self-evaluation will become part of the evaluation report.

  • EMPLOYEE EVALUATION Employees will be evaluated on an annual basis or more frequently if deemed necessary, and informed of the quality of their work. All evaluations are the responsibility of the immediate administrative supervisor and shall be comprehensive. Employees will receive a copy of their evaluation at least five (5) duty days before the end of their work year. The employee has a right to review and to comment in writing regarding all evidence on file to support any evaluation of the employee’s performance. An employee who disagrees with the evaluation may submit a written addendum or rebuttal to the evaluation. The evaluation and the addendum, if any, will be placed in the employee’s personnel file. The employee shall be requested to sign the evaluation. Signing the evaluation does not mean that the employee agrees or disagrees with the assessment. If an employee desires a performance assessment with his/her immediate supervisor, he/she may request the assessment in writing. In the case of an unsatisfactory performance, the immediate supervisor will note areas that are unsatisfactory and make recommendations for improvement. Employees who receive an unsatisfactory performance evaluation will not be eligible for a step increase. If the employee achieves a satisfactory rating on a subsequent out-of-sequence evaluation, he/she will receive the step increment effective of the date of achieving the satisfactory evaluation. Judgment of performance by an evaluator shall not be subject to the grievance procedure. An employee who disagrees with the unsatisfactory evaluation may file an administrative appeal under Section 4-205 (c) of the Annotated Code of Maryland, Education Article. If an employee’s unsatisfactory evaluation is overturned as a result of a Section 4-205 (c) appeal the employee shall be granted a step increase retroactive to the beginning of the contract year.

  • Annual Evaluation The Partnership will be evaluated on an annual basis through the use of the Strategic Partnership Annual Evaluation Format as specified in Appendix C of OSHA Instruction CSP 00-00-000, OSHA Strategic Partnership Program for Worker Safety and Health. Xxxxxxxxx & Xxxxxx will be responsible for gathering required participant data to evaluate and track the overall results and success of the Partnership. This data will be shared with OSHA. OSHA will be responsible for writing and submitting the annual evaluation.

  • EMPLOYEE EVALUATIONS Every new employee should be evaluated on or about three (3) months and six (6) months after employment. Probationary employees may be evaluated at any time during their probationary period. Every full-time or part-time employee shall be evaluated annually, prior to the month the employee is eligible for a step increment or the anniversary of the step increment date. Additional performance evaluations may be used when deemed appropriate by the Elected Official/Department Director Evaluations shall be used as a factor in granting regular status, promotions, step increases, transfers, demotions, layoffs and terminations. Concerns regarding performance which could negatively impact the performance evaluation score, should be communicated to the employee in a timely manner, in order to provide the employee an opportunity for taking corrective action. The employee’s comments are included in the evaluation. For further information on evaluation procedure, reference the County Personnel Manual.