Evaluation Criteria: Tenure-track and Tenured Faculty Sample Clauses

Evaluation Criteria: Tenure-track and Tenured Faculty. Instructional faculty holding the ranks of Instructor, Assistant Professor and Associate Professor shall be evaluated for reappointment, promotion and/or tenure based upon the candidate’s record of performance in the areas of teaching, advising, scholarship/research/ creative work and service. Each candidate is expected to be engaged in a program of work that is sound and productive and that can be expected to continue to develop throughout his or her professional career, consistent with the needs and mission of the University. In all instances, excellent intellectual attainment, in accordance with the criteria set forth below, is the standard for reappointment, promotion and/or tenure. Insistence upon this standard for continuing members of the faculty is necessary for the maintenance of quality of the University as an institution dedicated to the discovery, preservation and transmission of knowledge. The University is committed to longstanding traditions of scholarship as well as evolving per- spectives on scholarship. The University further recognizes that the role of academia is not static, and that methodologies, topics of interest, and boundaries within and between disciplines change over time. The University will continue to support scholars in all of these traditions.
Sample 1Sample 2See All (4)
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs

Related to Evaluation Criteria: Tenure-track and Tenured Faculty

  • Evaluation Criteria 5.2.1. The responses will be evaluated based on the following: (edit evaluation criteria below as appropriate for your project)

  • Study Population ‌ Infants who underwent creation of an enterostomy receiving postoperative care and awaiting enterostomy closure: to be assessed for eligibility: n = 201 to be assigned to the study: n = 106 to be analysed: n = 106 Duration of intervention per patient of the intervention group: 6 weeks between enterostomy creation and enterostomy closure Follow-up per patient: 3 months, 6 months and 12 months post enterostomy closure, following enterostomy closure (12-month follow-up only applicable for patients that are recruited early enough to complete this follow-up within the 48 month of overall study duration).

  • Evaluation Cycle: Formative Assessment A) A specific purpose for evaluation is to promote student learning, growth and achievement by providing Educators with feedback for improvement. Evaluators are expected to make frequent unannounced visits to classrooms. Evaluators are expected to give targeted constructive feedback to Educators based on their observations of practice, examination of artifacts, and analysis of multiple measures of student learning, growth and achievement in relation to the Standards and Indicators of Effective Teaching Practice.

  • Using Student feedback in Educator Evaluation ESE will provide model contract language, direction and guidance on using student feedback in Educator Evaluation by June 30, 2013. Upon receiving this model contract language, direction and guidance, the parties agree to bargain with respect to this matter.

  • Evaluation Cycle Goal Setting and Development of the Educator Plan

  • Additional RO Review Criteria (1) In addition to the requirements in Subparagraph 34A, the RO must:

  • STATEWIDE ACHIEVEMENT TESTING When CONTRACTOR is an NPS, per implementation of Senate Bill 484, CONTRACTOR shall administer all Statewide assessments within the California Assessment of Student Performance and Progress (“CAASP”), Desired Results Developmental Profile (“DRDP”), California Alternative Assessment (“CAA”), achievement and abilities tests (using LEA-authorized assessment instruments), the Fitness Gram with the exception of the English Language Proficiency Assessments for California (“ELPAC”) to be completed by the LEA, and as appropriate to the student, and mandated by XXX xxxxxxxx to LEA and state and federal guidelines. CONTRACTOR is subject to the alternative accountability system developed pursuant to Education Code section 52052, in the same manner as public schools. Each LEA student placed with CONTRACTOR by the LEA shall be tested by qualified staff of CONTRACTOR in accordance with that accountability program. XXX shall provide test administration training to CONTRACTOR’S qualified staff. CONTRACTOR shall attend LEA test training and comply with completion of all coding requirements as required by XXX.

  • Evaluation Cycle: Annual Orientation A) At the start of each school year, the superintendent, principal or designee shall conduct a meeting for Educators and Evaluators focused substantially on educator evaluation. The superintendent, principal or designee shall:

  • Evaluation of Students Acknowledging the District’s adopted grading system, the teacher shall maintain the right and responsibility to determine grades and other evaluation of a student. No grade or evaluation shall be changed except by the teacher with the approval of the building administrator.

  • Alignment with Modernization Foundational Programs and Foundational Capabilities The activities and services that the LPHA has agreed to deliver under this Program Element align with Foundational Programs and Foundational Capabilities and the public health accountability metrics (if applicable), as follows (see Oregon’s Public Health Modernization Manual, (xxxx://xxx.xxxxxx.xxx/oha/PH/ABOUT/TASKFORCE/Documents/public_health_modernization_man ual.pdf):

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