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. 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. The accreditation review team is appointed by CAEP.
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.
Sample 1
Accreditation Review Team Composition. A. Joint Review Teams 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 following conditions apply to all Joint CAEP-STATE Accreditation Review 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 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 state authority 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 state partnership member. • 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.
Sample 1
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.
Sample 1
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs
Accreditation Review Team Composition. Joint review teams will consist of members appointed by CAEP and by the TSPC and will conduct unit reviews. The team will be lead by co-chairs (one appointed by TSPC, the other by CAEP.) CAEP-appointed members will make up more the 50% of the team. The following conditions apply to the CAEP~ TSPC Accreditation Reviews: All members of Review Teams must have successfully completed CAEP Review Team Member training or similar training conducted by TSPC. A P-12 practitioner shall be a member of each joint CAEP/TSPC 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 TSPC team members as well as the periodic evaluation fee. Onsite team activities will be conducted according to CAEP Policy. The CAEP/TSPC joint team report will be shared with the state partnership member. To assure educator preparation providers and the public that Joint CAEP/TSPC 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. 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

  • Validation Review In the event OIG has reason to believe that: (a) Good Shepherd’s Claims Review fails to conform to the requirements of this CIA; or (b) the IRO’s findings or Claims Review results are inaccurate, OIG may, at its sole discretion, conduct its own review to determine whether the Claims Review complied with the requirements of the CIA and/or the findings or Claims Review results are inaccurate (Validation Review). Good Shepherd shall pay for the reasonable cost of any such review performed by OIG or any of its designated agents. Any Validation Review of Reports submitted as part of Good Shepherd’s final Annual Report shall be initiated no later than one year after Good Shepherd’s final submission (as described in Section II) is received by OIG. Prior to initiating a Validation Review, OIG shall notify Good Shepherd of its intent to do so and provide a written explanation of why OIG believes such a review is necessary. To resolve any concerns raised by OIG, Good Shepherd may request a meeting with OIG to: (a) discuss the results of any Claims Review submissions or findings; (b) present any additional information to clarify the results of the Claims Review or to correct the inaccuracy of the Claims Review; and/or (c) propose alternatives to the proposed Validation Review. Good Shepherd agrees to provide any additional information as may be requested by OIG under this Section III.D.3 in an expedited manner. OIG will attempt in good faith to resolve any Claims Review issues with Good Shepherd prior to conducting a Validation Review. However, the final determination as to whether or not to proceed with a Validation Review shall be made at the sole discretion of OIG.

  • Project Review A. Programmatic Allowances

  • Classification Review (a) An Employee who has reason to believe that they are improperly classified due to a substantial change in job duties, may apply to the Department Director, or designate, to have the Employee’s classification reviewed. The Director, or designate, will review the Employee’s application and advise the Employee of the Employer’s decision.

  • Random Drug Testing All employees covered by this Agreement shall be subject to random drug testing in accordance with Appendix D.

  • Clinical 2.1 Provides comprehensive evidence based nursing care to patients including assessment, intervention and evaluation.

  • 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 At appropriate stages of design, documented reviews of the design results shall be planned and conducted. Participants at each Design Review shall include representatives of all functions concerned with the design stage being reviewed, as well as other specialist personnel, as required. Records of such reviews shall be maintained. Any computer software used to perform alternative calculations or verify clearances through the use of scale models or computer-aided design and drafting (CADD) techniques shall be validated before the use of the application, with validation documented in accordance with Section 2.2.15. In addition, at each submittal to IFA for review, Developer shall provide hand calculations that validate any calculations performed by computer software.

  • 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.

  • Readiness Review Includes all plans to be implemented in one or more Service Areas on the anticipated Operational Start Date. At a minimum, the HMO shall, for each HMO Program:

  • Utilization Review We review health services to determine whether the services are or were Medically Necessary or experimental or investigational ("Medically Necessary"). This process is called Utilization Review. Utilization Review includes all review activities, whether they take place prior to the service being performed (Preauthorization); when the service is being performed (concurrent); or after the service is performed (retrospective). If You have any questions about the Utilization Review process, please call the number on Your ID card. The toll-free telephone number is available at least 40 hours a week with an after-hours answering machine. All determinations that services are not Medically Necessary will be made by: 1) licensed Physicians; or 2) licensed, certified, registered or credentialed health care professionals who are in the same profession and same or similar specialty as the Provider who typically manages Your medical condition or disease or provides the health care service under review. We do not compensate or provide financial incentives to Our employees or reviewers for determining that services are not Medically Necessary. We have developed guidelines and protocols to assist Us in this process. Specific guidelines and protocols are available for Your review upon request. For more information, call the number on Your ID card or visit Our website at xxx.xxxxxxx.xxx.

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