Accreditation Review Team Composition Sample Clauses

Accreditation Review Team Composition. The Accreditation Review Team is appointed by CAEP according to the guidelines and policies for each selected accreditation pathway. The state will participate in a joint CAEP/IDOE review team. Joint teams consist of members appointed by CAEP and the state authority to conduct reviews. The team is led by co-chairs (one appointed by state authority, one by CAEP). CAEP-appointed members make up more than 50 percent of the team. The IDOE will also provide a state consultant during the offsite and onsite visit. The following conditions apply to all teams: • All members of the onsite and offsite review teams must have successfully completed CAEP review team member training. • When possible, a P-12 professional will be included as a member of each CAEP team. • The STATE Teachers' Association(s) may appoint an observer for the onsite review at the associations' expense. • The EPP will assume all expenses- including travel, lodging and meals- for CAEP and Indiana team members, as well as the periodic evaluation fee. Onsite team activities will be conducted according to CAEP policy. • The CAEP team report will be shared with the Indiana Department of Education. • To assure educator preparation providers and the public that CAEP reviews are impartial and objective, to avoid conflicts of interest, and to promote equity and high ethical standards in the accreditation system, Accreditation Review Team members will adhere to CAEP's Code of Conduct.
Sample 1Sample 2
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs
Accreditation Review Team Composition. A. The accreditation review team is appointed by CAEP according to the guidelines and policies for each selected accreditation pathway and will consist of a joint review team with no more than four (4) national reviewers and three (3) state reviewers. Additionally, PTSB may also choose to have a representative on each team. B. The following conditions apply to all teams: - All members of review teams must have successfully completed CAEP review team member training. - A P-12 practitioner shall be a member of each CAEP team. - The Wyoming Education Association (WEA) may appoint an observer for the onsite review at the association's expense. - The EPP will assume all expenses- including travel, lodging and meals- for CAEP and state team members including the PTSB representative, as well as the periodic evaluation fee. Onsite team activities will be conducted according to CAEP policy. - The CAEP team report will be shared with PTSB; the state and CAEP will share data as needed. - To assure educator preparation providers and the public that CAEP reviews are impartial and objective, to avoid conflicts of interest, and to promote equity and high ethical standards in the accreditation system, accreditation review team members will adhere to CAEP's Code of Conduct.
Sample 1
Accreditation Review Team Composition. The accreditation review team is appointed by CAEP according to the guidelines for each selected accreditation pathway. If the Continuous Improvement Pathway (CI) or Transformation Initiative Pathway (TI) is selected, the state may choose to use either joint CAEP/NHDOE review teams (operating as a single team) or concurrent CAEP and NHDOE teams (operating independently). The following conditions apply to all teams: o All members of review teams must have successfully completed CAEP review team member training. o A P-12 practitioner shall be a member of each CAEP team.
Sample 1
Accreditation Review Team Composition. A. During the period of this agreement, in the cases where an EPP is undergoing state review with a NCATE/TEAC extension, the state team will conduct all visits according to state policies. If an EPP opts to pursue CAEP accreditation during this time they do so under their own volition. In such a case, the following provisions will apply:
Sample 1
Accreditation Review Team Composition. A. Joint Review Teams
Sample 1
Accreditation Review Team Composition. A. The CAEP Accreditation Review Team is appointed by CAEP and accompanied by the DPI CAEP state consultant who serves as a non- writing, non-voting member of the team. The state consultant shall explain the state program approval process, answer questions for the team and shall be present and participate in the offsite review, the pre- visit and the onsite visit. B. The following conditions shall apply: 1. All members of Review Teams must have successfully completed CAEP Review Team Member training. 2. A P-12 practitioner shall be a member of the CAEP team whenever possible. 3. The state teachers' association (NCAE) may appoint an observer for the onsite review at the association's expense. 4. The EPP will be responsible for assuming all CAEP accreditation expenses-including travel, lodging and meals for site team members and the evaluation fee. NCDPI shall not be responsible for paying said expenses on behalf of the EPP. 5. Onsite team activities will be conducted according to CAEP policy. 6. NCDPI will pay the state DPI CAEP consultant's expenses for all costs associated with the CAEP accreditation process. 7. The CAEP site-visit report will be shared with CAEP state contacts and other NCDPI officials (CAEP Dec 2014 Policy Manual, page 17, Section 2, Policy XXI). 8. The state program approval process shall be explicitly defined and shall be available on the NCDPI website. The state's DPI CAEP consultant shall be responsible for ensuring the visiting team's understanding of the state program approval process.
Sample 1
Accreditation Review Team Composition. A. The accreditation review team is appointed by CAEP. B. The ADE designates a state consultant, who will participate in all activities of the accreditation review process as a non-voting member of the accreditation review team at the agency's expense. The state consultant advises the accreditation review team regarding state policies and participates in team activities (data collection, interviews, discussions), but does not have any report writing responsibilities. C. The Arkansas Department of Higher Education (ADHE) appoints to the accreditation review team a representative, who serves as the agency's official contact during the accreditation process and participates in the onsite visit as an observer at the agency's expense. The ADE notifies the ADHE of all upcoming accreditation reviews to be conducted at Arkansas XXXx. D. The following conditions apply to the accreditation review teams: 1. All members of the accreditation review team must have successfully completed CAEP Review Team training. 2. Each accreditation review team shall include a P-12 practitioner. 3. The Arkansas Education Association (AEA) may appoint an observer for the onsite review at the association's expense. 4. The EPP will assume all expenses - including travel, lodging and meals - for the CAEP site visit team, as well as the periodic evaluation fee. 5. Offsite and onsite team activities will be conducted according to CAEP policy. 6. The CAEP team report, with supporting data and evidence, will be shared among CAEP, ADE and ADHE. 7. To assure educator preparation providers and the public that CAEP reviews are impartial and objective, to avoid conflicts of interest, and to promote equity and high ethical standards in the accreditation system, accreditation review team members, consultants and observers will adhere to CAEP's Code of Conduct.
Sample 1
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs
Accreditation Review Team Composition. The Accreditation Review Team is appointed by CAEP. All CAEP-appointed members must have successfully completed the CAEP visiting team members' training. The DDOE will designate up to three (3) members to serve on the Accreditation Review Team. Additional team members may be appointed to joint teams or concurrent teams in accordance with CAEP policies and the needs of the accreditation pathway. The following conditions apply CAEP, Joint CAEP-Delaware Accreditation Review Teams, and to the CAEP Team that is part of a Concurrent Visit: • All members of Review Teams must have successfully completed CAEP Review Team Member training. • A P-12 practitioner shall be a member of each CAEP team. • The EPP will assume all expenses- including travel, lodging and meals- for CAEP and Delaware team members, as well as the periodic evaluation fee. Onsiteteam activities will be conducted according to CAEP policy. • The CAEP team report will be shared with the DDOE. • To assure educator preparation providers and the public that CAEP reviews are impartial and objective, to avoid conflicts of interest, and to promote equity and high ethical standards in the accreditation system, Accreditation Review Team members will adhere to CAEP's Code of Conduct.
Sample 1

Related to Accreditation Review Team Composition

  • Project Review A. Programmatic Allowances 1. If FEMA determines that the entire scope of an Undertaking conforms to one or more allowances in Appendix B of this Agreement, with determinations for Tier II Allowances being made by SOI-qualified staff, FEMA shall complete the Section 106 review process by documenting this determination in the project file, without SHPO review or notification. 2. If the Undertaking involves a National Historic Landmark (NHL), FEMA shall notify the SHPO, participating Tribe(s), and the NPS NHL Program Manager of the NPS Midwest Regional Office that the Undertaking conforms to one or more allowances. FEMA shall provide information about the proposed scope of work for the Undertaking and the allowance(s) enabling FEMA’s determination. 3. If FEMA determines any portion of an Undertaking’s scope of work does not conform to one or more allowances listed in Appendix B, FEMA shall conduct expedited or standard Section 106 review, as appropriate, for the entire Undertaking in accordance with Stipulation II.B, Expedited Review for Emergency Undertakings, or Stipulation II.C, Standard Project Review. 4. Allowances may be revised and new allowances may be added to this Agreement in accordance with Stipulation IV.A.3, Amendments. B. Expedited Review for Emergency Undertakings

  • Classification Review (A) Reclassification Request (a) An employee who has good reason to believe that they are improperly classified may apply, in writing by electronic mail, to their immediate out-of-scope Manager to have their classification reviewed. This may occur when there has been a substantive change in the job functions, when there has been a change in organizational structure that significantly impacts roles, or when a classification specification has been amended in a manner that alters the basis on which classification levels are differentiated. The employee making the request will indicate the reason(s) why they believe their position is inappropriately classified, including the changes that have occurred to the position, organization or classification specifications. In some circumstances, a classification review may be initiated in response to a long standing perceived inequity in how a position is classified. However, where a review has been previously conducted, employees should not request a subsequent classification review unless there has been a substantive change as described above. Submissions must include an approved job description, in the event that a current job description is not available an employee can initiate their written request so as to establish a potential effective date as per article 40.04(a). The manager shall send a copy of the employee’s request to Human Resources without delay, and shall confirm in writing to the employee and the Union that the employee’s request has been received. The manager shall advise the employee of the results of the classification review within ninety (90) calendar days of receiving the request. The notification shall be in writing and include rationale for the decision, specifically addressing the reasons for the review provided by the employee. (b) When reviewing a request for reclassification, the Employer shall follow the guidelines included in the Classification Specification User Manual. Requests are reviewed by the Employer. The evaluation of the role may include an audit of the role, including interviews with the Employee and the Employee’s Manager as needed. (c) Should the employee feel that they have not received proper consideration in regard to a classification review, they may request that the matter be referred to the Internal Appeal Process.

  • Clinical 1.1 Provides comprehensive evidence based nursing care and individual case management to a specific group of patients/clients including assessment, intervention and evaluation. 1.2 Undertakes clinical shifts at the direction of senior staff and the Nursing Director including participation on the on-call/after-hours/weekend roster if required. 1.3 Responsible and accountable for patient safety and quality of care through planning, coordinating, performing, facilitating, and evaluating the delivery of patient care relating to a particular group of patients, clients or staff in the practice setting. 1.4 Monitors, reviews and reports upon the standard of nursing practice to ensure that colleagues are working within the scope of nursing practice, following appropriate clinical pathways, policies, procedures and adopting a risk management approach in patient care delivery. 1.5 Participates in xxxx rounds/case conferences as appropriate. 1.6 Educates patients/carers in post discharge management and organises discharge summaries/referrals to other services, as appropriate. 1.7 Supports and liaises with patients, carers, colleagues, medical, nursing, allied health, support staff, external agencies and the private sector to provide coordinated multidisciplinary care. 1.8 Completes clinical documentation and undertakes other administrative/management tasks as required. 1.9 Participates in departmental and other meetings as required to meet organisational and service objectives. 1.10 Develops and seeks to implement change utilising expert clinical knowledge through research and evidence based best practice. 1.11 Monitors and maintains availability of consumable stock. 1.12 Complies with and demonstrates a positive commitment to Regulations, Acts and Policies relevant to nursing including the Code of Ethics for Nurses in Australia, the Code of Conduct for Nurses in Australia, the National Competency Standards for the Registered Nurse and the Poisons Act 2014 and Medicines and Poisons Regulations 2016. 1.13 Promotes and participates in team building and decision making. 1.14 Responsible for the clinical supervision of nurses at Level 1 and/or Enrolled Nurses/ Assistants in Nursing under their supervision.

  • Study An application for leave of absence for professional study must be supported by a written statement indicating what study or research is to be undertaken, or, if applicable, what subjects are to be studied and at what institutions.

  • Design Review ‌ (a) Where so specified in Schedule A (Scope of Goods and Services) or as otherwise instructed by the City, the Supplier shall submit design-related Documentation for review by the City, and shall not proceed with work on the basis of such design Documentation until the City’s approval of such Documentation has been received in writing. (b) None of: (i) the submission of Documentation to the City by the Supplier; (ii) its examination by or on behalf of the City; or (iii) the making of any comment thereon (including any approval thereof) shall in any way relieve the Supplier of any of its obligations under this Agreement or of its duty to take reasonable steps to ensure the accuracy and correctness of such Documentation, and its suitability to the matter to which it relates.

  • Log Reviews All systems processing and/or storing PHI COUNTY discloses to 11 CONTRACTOR or CONTRACTOR creates, receives, maintains, or transmits on behalf of COUNTY 12 must have a routine procedure in place to review system logs for unauthorized access.

  • Utilization Review NOTE: The Utilization Review process does not apply to Services that are not covered by Blue Shield because of a coverage determination made by Medicare. State law requires that health plans disclose to Subscribers and health plan providers the process used to authorize or deny health care services un- der the plan. Blue Shield has completed documen- tation of this process ("Utilization Review"), as required under Section 1363.5 of the California Health and Safety Code. To request a copy of the document describing this Utilization Review pro- cess, call the Customer Service Department at the telephone number indicated on your Identification Card.

  • Drug Testing (A) The state and the PBA agree to drug testing of employees in accordance with section 112.0455, F.S., the Drug-Free Workplace Act. (B) All classes covered by this Agreement are designated special risk classes for drug testing purposes. Special risk means employees who are required as a condition of employment to be certified under Chapter 633 or Chapter 943, F.S. (C) An employee shall have the right to grieve any disciplinary action taken under section 112.0455, the Drug-Free Workplace Act, subject to the limitations on the grievability of disciplinary actions in Article 10. If an employee is not disciplined but is denied a demotion, reassignment, or promotion as a result of a positive confirmed drug test, the employee shall have the right to grieve such action in accordance with Article 6.

Draft better contracts in just 5 minutes Get the weekly Law Insider newsletter packed with expert videos, webinars, ebooks, and more!