Assessment frameworks Sample Clauses

Assessment frameworks. Both EAPAA and NVAO accredit at programme level and the contents of the frameworks they apply are to a very large extent overlapping. This is the case for NVAO's limited as well as extensive programme assessment. The main difference between the accreditation frameworks is the level of detail: the EAPAA framework is specifically focused on the discipline of public administration. In order to ensure workable conditions, the NVAO framework is used as a starting point, with further and more detailed specifications regarding the following topics: a) NVAO standard 1: addition; b) NVAO standard 2: expansion; c) One additional standard; d) Additional information. a) NVAO standard 1: addition In addition to addressing NVAO standard 1, the programme should elaborate on its educational mission and how this mission translates into learning outcomes. b) NVAO standard 2: expansion In the presentation of the teaching-learning environment, the programme should address the following topics from the EAPAA framework (standards referred to between brackets): - Entry into the programme (2) - Curriculum structure (3) - Curriculum content (4) - Didactic approach (5) - Faculty (10) c) One additional standard The additional standard addresses the following topic from the EAPAA framework: - Diversity (11). d) Additional information The programme should make the following information available: background information on the programme management and the structure of the institute, faculty data sheets, course abstracts, and a list of theses from the last three years. If deemed necessary, the SVT may ask for additional, existing, documentation. EAPAA will provide the SVT with general information on the institutional background of the programme. It should be noted that the NVAO framework requires programs to justify their choice for the teaching language if a program is taught in a language other than Dutch. This also applies if the program uses a foreign language name. The program should also demonstrate that teachers have a sufficient command of the language in which they are teaching. In addition, the extensive assessment framework of NVAO requires programs to demonstrate that staff policy is conducive in this respect.
Sample 1Sample 2
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs
Assessment frameworks. The main difference between the assessment frameworks of AACSB and NVAO is their perspective: AACSB accredits at institutional level and the NVAO accredits at program level. The following paragraphs discuss the combining of the assessment frameworks. An important principle in the cooperation is that both levels (institutional and program) are assessed by the panel in order to ensure valid decision-making processes for both accreditation organizations. The AACSB assessment framework for the initial accreditation is an extended framework that covers, among other standards, the first three standards of the limited program assessment of the NVAO. The fourth standard of the latter mentioned framework, concerning achieved learning outcomes, is not covered in the AACSB framework. The panel will assess this standard according to the procedures described in the NVAO framework. Workable conditions (the number of theses1 the panel needs to assess) will be determined per audit. Following discussion with the review team the organization under review may decide to outsource the assessment of theses to a third party. In principle, the panel will assess at least 15 theses for each program. A reduction of this number can only be considered if programs share an Examination Board and if there is a demonstrable overlap of courses between the programs of at least one year or 60 EC for a bachelor’s program and 20 EC for a master’s program. In that case the panel will assess a minimum of 8-10 theses per program. NVAO must agree before the start of the assessment to the reduction in the number of theses to be assessed. The extensive program assessment of the NVAO is also mostly covered by the AACSB initial accreditation framework. Standard 11 of the NVAO framework, concerning achieved learning outcomes, is the only standard that is not covered in the AACSB initial accreditation framework. The panel will assess this standard according to the procedures described in the NVAO framework. Workable conditions (the number of theses2 the committee needs to assess) will be determined per audit. Following discussion with the review team the organization under review may decide to outsource the assessment of theses to a third party. The same rules pertaining to the possible reduction of the number of theses to be assessed that are stated above for the limited program assessment apply to the extensive program assessment. In addition to the assessment of achieved learning outcomes, the NVAO f...
Sample 1Sample 2
Assessment frameworks. Both EAPAA and NVAO accredit at programme level and the contents of the two frameworks are to a very large extent overlapping. This is the case for NVAO’s limited as well as extensive programme assessment. The main difference between the accreditation frameworks is the level of detail: the EAPAA framework is specifically focused on the discipline of public administration. In order to ensure workable conditions, the NVAO framework is used as a xxxxxxx point, with further and more detailed specifications regarding the following topics: a) NVAO Standard 1: addition; b) NVAO Standard 2: expansion; c) two additional standards; d) appendices; e) summary of the institutional audit report (only in case of NVAO limited programme assessment). a) NVAO Standard 1: addition In addition to addressing NVAO Standard 1, the programme should elaborate on its educational mission and how this mission translates into learning outcomes. b) NVAO Standard 2: expansion In the presentation of the teaching-learning environment, the programme should address the following topics from the EAPAA framework (standards referred to between brackets): - multidisciplinary character of the programme (5.1); - core components (5.5.1.1); - other components and specialisations (5.5.1.2); Page 3 of 4 - curriculum length (5.5.2); - relationship to practice and internships (5.4); - structure and didactics of the programme (5.5.1.3); - admission of students (5.10); - intake (5.5.1.4); - faculty qualifications (5.9.2). c) Two additional standards The additional standards address the following topics from the EAPAA framework: - external input regarding curriculum development and review (5.6.2 and 5.6.3); - diversity (5.9.3). d) Appendices The programme should add the following information in the appendices to the self- evaluation report: background information on the programme management and the structure of the institute, faculty data sheets, an overview of the curriculum, course abstracts, graduation / dropout rates, the teacher-student ratio and a list of theses from the last three years. If deemed necessary, the SVT may ask for additional, existing, documentation. e) Summary of the institutional audit report For programmes from institutions whose institutional quality assurance assessment (ITK) by NVAO has produced a positive result, EAPAA’s standards 5.6.1 and 5.11 to 5.13 can be covered by providing a summary of the audit report. EAPAA’s standards 5.6.1, 5.11 to 5.13 are addressed in NVAO’s extens...
Sample 1

Related to Assessment frameworks

  • Contractor Sales Reporting Vendor Management Fee Contractor Reports Master Contract Sales Reporting. Contractor shall report total Master Contract sales quarterly to Enterprise Services, as set forth below. Master Contract Sales Reporting System. Contractor shall report quarterly Master Contract sales in Enterprise Services’ Master Contract Sales Reporting System. Enterprise Services will provide Contractor with a login password and a vendor number. The password and vendor number will be provided to the Sales Reporting Representative(s) listed on Contractor’s Bidder Profile. Data. Each sales report must identify every authorized Purchaser by name as it is known to Enterprise Services and its total combined sales amount invoiced during the reporting period (i.e., sales of an entire agency or political subdivision, not its individual subsections). The “Miscellaneous” option may be used only with prior approval by Enterprise Services. Upon request, Contractor shall provide contact information for all authorized purchasers specified herein during the term of the Master Contract. If there are no Master Contract sales during the reporting period, Contractor must report zero sales. Due dates for Master Contract Sales Reporting. Quarterly Master Contract Sales Reports must be submitted electronically by the following deadlines for all sales invoiced during the applicable calendar quarter: March 31: April 30 June 30: July 31 September 30: October 31 December 31: January 31 Vendor Management Fee. Contractor shall pay to Enterprise Services a vendor management fee (“VMF”) of 1.50 percent on the purchase price for all Master Contract sales (the purchase price is the total invoice price less applicable sales tax). The sum owed by Contractor to Enterprise Services as a result of the VMF is calculated as follows: Amount owed to Enterprise Services = Total Master Contract sales invoiced (not including sales tax) x .0150. The VMF must be rolled into Contractor’s current pricing. The VMF must not be shown as a separate line item on any invoice unless specifically requested and approved by Enterprise Services. Enterprise Services will invoice Contractor quarterly based on Master Contract sales reported by Contractor. Contractors are not to remit payment until they receive an invoice from Enterprise Services. Contractor’s VMF payment to Enterprise Services must reference this Master Contract number, work request number (if applicable), the year and quarter for which the VMF is being remitted, and the Contractor’s name as set forth in this Master Contract, if not already included on the face of the check. Failure to accurately report total net sales, to submit a timely usage report, or remit timely payment of the VMF, may be cause for Master Contract termination or the exercise of other remedies provided by law. Without limiting any other available remedies, the Parties agree that Contractor’s failure to remit to Enterprise Services timely payment of the VMF shall obligate Contractor to pay to Enterprise Services, to offset the administrative and transaction costs incurred by the State to identify, process, and collect such sums. The sum of $200.00 or twenty-five percent (25%) of the outstanding amount, whichever is greater, or the maximum allowed by law, if less. Enterprise Services reserves the right, upon thirty (30) days advance written notice, to increase, reduce, or eliminate the VMF for subsequent purchases, and reserves the right to renegotiate Master Contract pricing with Contractor when any subsequent adjustment of the VMF might justify a change in pricing. Annual Master Contract Sales Report. Upon request, Contractor shall provide to Enterprise Services a detailed annual Master Contract sales report. Such report shall include, at a minimum: Product description, part number or other Product identifier, per unit quantities sold, and Master Contract price. This report must be provided in an electronic format that can be read by compatible with MS Excel. Small Business Inclusion. Upon Request by Enterprise Services, Contractor shall provide, within thirty (30) days, an Affidavit of Amounts Paid. Such Affidavit of Amounts Paid either shall state, if applicable, that Contractor still maintains its MWBE certification or state that its subcontractor(s) still maintain(s) its/their MWBE certification(s) and specify the amounts paid to each certified MWBE subcontractor under this Master Contract. Contractor shall maintain records supporting the Affidavit of Amounts Paid in accordance with this Master Contract’s records retention requirements.

  • Performance Assessment 6.1 The Performance Plan (Annexure A) to this Agreement sets out key performance indicators and competencies that needs to be evaluated in terms of – 6.1.1 The standards and procedures for evaluating the Employee’s performance; and 6.1.2 During the intervals for the evaluation of the Employee’s performance. 6.2 Despite the establishment of agreed intervals for evaluation, the Employer may in addition review the Employee’s performance at any stage while the contract of employment remains in force; 6.3 Personal growth and development needs identified during any performance review discussion must be documented in a Personal Development Plan as well as the actions agreed to and implementation must take place within set time frames; 6.4 The Employee’s performance will also be measured in terms of contributions to the goals and strategies set out in the Employer’s Integrated Development Plan (IDP) as described in 6.6 – 6.13 below; 6.5 The Employee will submit quarterly performance reports (SDBIP) and a comprehensive annual performance report at least one week prior to the performance assessment meetings to the Evaluation Panel Chairperson for distribution to the panel members for preparation purposes; 6.6 Assessment of the achievement of results as outlined in the performance plan: 6.6.1 Each KPI or group of KPIs shall be assessed according to the extent to which the specified standards or performance targets have been met (qualitative and quantitative) and with due regard to ad-hoc tasks that had to be performed under the KPI; 6.6.2 A rating on the five-point scale described in 6.9 below shall be provided for each KPI or group of KPIs which will then be multiplied by the weighting to calculate the final score; 6.6.3 The Employee will submit his self-evaluation to the Employer prior to the formal assessment; 6.6.4 In the instance where the employee could not perform due to reasons outside the control of the employer and employee, the KPI will not be considered during the evaluation. The employee should provide sufficient evidence in such instances; and 6.6.5 An overall score will be calculated based on the total of the individual scores calculated above.

  • Diagnostic Assessment 6.3.1 Boards shall provide a list of pre-approved assessment tools consistent with their Board improvement plan for student achievement and which is compliant with Ministry of Education PPM (PPM 155: Diagnostic Assessment in Support of Student Learning, date of issue January 7, 2013). 6.3.2 Teachers shall use their professional judgment to determine which assessment and/or evaluation tool(s) from the Board list of preapproved assessment tools is applicable, for which student(s), as well as the frequency and timing of the tool. In order to inform their instruction, teachers must utilize diagnostic assessment during the school year.

  • Ergonomic Assessments ‌ At the request of the employee, the Employer will ensure that an ergonomic assessment of the employee’s workstation is completed. Solutions to identified issues will be implemented within available resources.

  • Risk Assessment An assessment of any risks inherent in the work requirements and actions to mitigate these risks.

  • Joint Assessment If the Premises are not separately assessed, Lessee's liability shall be an equitable proportion of the Real Property Taxes for all of the land and improvements included within the tax parcel assessed, such proportion to be conclusively determined by Lessor from the respective valuations assigned in the assessor's work sheets or such other information as may be reasonably available.

  • Conformity Assessment Procedures 1. Each Party shall give positive consideration to accepting the results of conformity assessment procedures of other Parties, even where those procedures differ from its own, provided it is satisfied that those procedures offer an assurance of conformity with applicable technical regulations or standards equivalent to its own procedures. 2. Each Party shall seek to enhance the acceptance of the results of conformity assessment procedures conducted in the territories of other Parties with a view to increasing efficiency, avoiding duplication and ensuring cost effectiveness of the conformity assessments. In this regard, each Party may choose, depending on the situation of the Party and the specific sectors involved, a broad range of approaches. These may include but are not limited to: (a) recognition by a Party of the results of conformity assessments performed in the territory of another Party; (b) recognition of co-operative arrangements between accreditation bodies in the territories of the Parties; (c) mutual recognition of conformity assessment procedures conducted by bodies located in the territory of each Party; (d) accreditation of conformity assessment bodies in the territory of another Party; (e) use of existing regional and international multilateral recognition agreements and arrangements; (f) designating conformity assessment bodies located in the territory of another Party to perform conformity assessment; and (g) suppliers’ declaration of conformity. 3. Each Party shall exchange information with other Parties on its experience in the development and application of the approaches in Paragraph 2(a) to (g) and other appropriate approaches with a view to facilitating the acceptance of the results of conformity assessment procedures. 4. A Party shall, upon request of another Party, explain its reasons for not accepting the results of any conformity assessment procedure performed in the territory of that other Party.

  • Data Protection Impact Assessment If, pursuant to Data Protection Law, Customer (or its Controllers) are required to perform a data protection impact assessment or prior consultation with a regulator, at Customer’s request, SAP will provide such documents as are generally available for the Cloud Service (for example, this DPA, the Agreement, audit reports or certifications). Any additional assistance shall be mutually agreed between the Parties.

  • Data Protection Impact Assessment and Prior Consultation Processor shall provide reasonable assistance to the Company with any data protection impact assessments, and prior consultations with Supervising Authorities or other competent data privacy authorities, which Company reasonably considers to be required by article 35 or 36 of the GDPR or equivalent provisions of any other Data Protection Law, in each case solely in relation to Processing of Company Personal Data by, and taking into account the nature of the Processing and information available to, the Contracted Processors.

  • Risk Assessments a. Risk Assessment - DST shall, at least annually, perform risk assessments that are designed to identify material threats (both internal and external) against Fund Data, the likelihood of those threats Schedule 10.2 p.2 occurring and the impact of those threats upon DST organization to evaluate and analyze the appropriate level of information security safeguards (“Risk Assessments”). b. Risk Mitigation - DST shall use commercially reasonable efforts to manage, control and remediate threats identified in the Risk Assessments that it believes are likely to result in material unauthorized access, copying, use, processing, disclosure, alteration, transfer, loss or destruction of Fund Data, consistent with the Objective, and commensurate with the sensitivity of the Fund Data and the complexity and scope of the activities of DST pursuant to the Agreement. c. Security Controls Testing - DST shall, on approximately an annual basis, engage an independent external party to conduct a review (including information security) of DST’s systems that are related to the provision of services. DST shall have a process to review and evaluate high risk findings resulting from this testing.

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