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.
Evaluation 1. The purposes of evaluation provisions include providing employees with feedback, and employers and employees with the opportunity and responsibility to address concerns. Where a grievance proceeds to arbitration, the arbitrator must consider these purposes, and may relieve on just and reasonable terms against breaches of time limits or other procedural requirements.
FINANCIAL EVALUATION (a) The financial bid shall be opened of only those bidders who have been found to be technically eligible. The financial bids shall be opened in presence of representatives of technically eligible bidders, who may like to be present. The institute shall inform the date, place and time for opening of financial bid. (b) Arithmetical errors shall be rectified on the following basis. If there is a discrepancy between the unit price and total price that is, the unit price shall prevail and the total price shall be corrected by the Institute. If there is a discrepancy between words and figures, the lesser amount shall be considered as valid. If the Supplier does not accept the correction of the errors, his bid shall be rejected. (c) The AIIMS Jodhpur does not bind himself to accept the lowest bid or any bid and reserves the right of accepting the whole or any part of the bid or portion of the job offered; and the bidder shall provide the same at the rates quoted. The AIIMS Jodhpur reserves the right to reject any or all offers received in response to tender or cancel or withdraw the tender notice without assigning any reason, whatsoever.
Written Evaluation The Superintendent in consultation with the Board shall review and assess the Administrator’s performance on or before February 1 of each year. The Administrator shall be formally evaluated in writing annually by the Superintendent on or before February 1 of each year. The evaluation shall include a description of the Administrator’s duties and responsibilities and the standards to which the Administrator is to perform. It shall consider the Administrator’s specific duties, responsibilities, management and competence as an Administrator; specify the Administrator’s strengths and weaknesses with supporting reasons; align with research based standards established by the Illinois State Board of Education and use data and indicators on student growth as a significant factor in rating performance. The evaluation shall also consist of a review of the Administrator’s progress toward meeting established professional, student performance and academic goals set forth in Appendix A and a review of the Administrator’s leadership and management performance relative to his current assignment. The written evaluation shall be signed by both the Superintendent and the Administrator. The Administrator may respond to the evaluation in writing and such response shall be attached to and included in the Administrator’s personnel file.
Program Evaluation The School District and the College will develop a plan for the evaluation of the Dual Credit program to be completed each year. The evaluation will include, but is not limited to, disaggregated attendance and retention rates, GPA of high-school-credit-only courses and college courses, satisfactory progress in college courses, state assessment results, SAT/ACT, as applicable, TSIA readiness by grade level, and adequate progress toward the college-readiness of the students in the program. The School District commits to collecting longitudinal data as specified by the College, and making data and performance outcomes available to the College upon request. HB 1638 and SACSCOC require the collection of data points to be longitudinally captured by the School District, in collaboration with the College, will include, at minimum: student enrollment, GPA, retention, persistence, completion, transfer and scholarships. School District will provide parent contact and demographic information to the College upon request for targeted marketing of degree completion or workforce development information to parents of Students. School District agrees to obtain valid FERPA releases drafted to support the supply of such data if deemed required by counsel to either School District or the College. The College conducts and reports regular and ongoing evaluations of the Dual Credit program effectiveness and uses the results for continuous improvement.
PROGRESS EVALUATION Engineer shall, from time to time during the progress of the Engineering Services, confer with County at County’s election. Engineer shall prepare and present such information as may be pertinent and necessary, or as may be reasonably requested by County, in order for County to evaluate features of the Engineering Services. At the request of County or Engineer, conferences shall be provided at Engineer's office, the offices of County, or at other locations designated by County. When requested by County, such conferences shall also include evaluation of the Engineering Services. County may, from time to time, require Engineer to appear and provide information to the Williamson County Commissioners Court. Should County determine that the progress in Engineering Services does not satisfy an applicable Work Authorization or any Supplemental Work Authorization related thereto, then County shall review same with Engineer to determine corrective action required. Engineer shall promptly advise County in writing of events which have or may have a significant impact upon the progress of the Engineering Services, including but not limited to the following: A. Problems, delays, adverse conditions which may materially affect the ability to meet the objectives of an applicable Work Authorization or any Supplemental Work Authorization related thereto, or preclude the attainment of Project Engineering Services units by established time periods; and such disclosure shall be accompanied by statement of actions taken or contemplated, and County assistance needed to resolve the situation, if any; and B. Favorable developments or events which enable meeting goals sooner than anticipated in relation to an applicable Work Authorization’s or any Supplemental Work Authorization related thereto.
Final Evaluation IC must submit a final report and a project evaluation to the Arts Commission within thirty (30) days after the completion of the Services. Any and all unexpended funds from IC must be returned to City no later than sixty (60) days after the completion of the Services.
TECHNICAL EVALUATION (a) Detailed technical evaluation shall be carried out by Purchase Committee pursuant to conditions in the tender document to determine the substantial responsiveness of each tender. For this clause, the substantially responsive bid is one that conforms to all the eligibility and terms and condition of the tender without any material deviation. The Institute’s determination of bid’s responsiveness is to be based on the contents of the bid itself without recourse to extrinsic evidence. The Institute shall evaluate the technical bids also to determine whether they are complete, whether required sureties have been furnished, whether the documents have been properly signed and whether the bids are in order. (b) The technical evaluation committee may call the responsive bidders for discussion or presentation to facilitate and assess their understanding of the scope of work and its execution. However, the committee shall have sole discretion to call for discussion / presentation. (c) Financial bids of only those bidders who qualify the technical criteria will be opened provided all other requirements are fulfilled. (d) AIIMS Jodhpur shall have right to accept or reject any or all tenders without assigning any reasons thereof.
Evidence Used In Evaluation The following categories of evidence shall be used in evaluating each Educator: A. Multiple measures of student learning, growth, and achievement, which shall include: i. Measures of student progress on classroom assessments that are aligned with the Massachusetts Curriculum Frameworks or other relevant frameworks and are comparable within grades or subjects in a school; ii. Common assessments of student learning, growth, and achievement related to the Massachusetts Curriculum Frameworks or the Massachusetts Vocational Technical Education Frameworks or other relevant frameworks that are comparable across grades and/or subjects district-wide. These measures may include: portfolios, approved commercial assessments and district-developed pre and post unit and course assessments, and capstone projects. iii. Measures of student progress and/or achievement toward student learning goals set between the Educator and Evaluator for the school year or some other period of time as established in the Educator Plan. iv. For Educators whose primary role is not as a classroom teacher, the appropriate measures of the Educator's contribution to student learning, growth, and achievement set by the District. The measures set by the District should be based on the Educator's role and responsibility. See rubrics in Appendix A. B. Judgments based on observations and artifacts of practice including: i. Unannounced observations which are typically at least 10 minutes. ii. Announced observation(s) for non-PTS Educators in their first year of practice in a school, PTS Educators, Educators on Improvement Plans, and as determined by the evaluator. iii. Examination of Educator work products. iv. Examination of student work samples. C. Evidence relevant to one or more Performance Standards, including but not limited to: i. Evidence compiled and presented by the Educator, including: • Evidence of fulfillment of Standard IV: Professional Culture, including, but not limited to, professional responsibilities and growth such as self-assessments, peer collaboration, professional development linked to goals in the Educator plans, contributions to the school community and professional culture; and/or other items as described under Standard IV: Professional Culture. • Evidence of fulfillment of Standard III: Family and Community Engagement, including, but not limited to active outreach to and engagement with families, for example, phone logs, newsletters, conferences, district approved applications and platforms such as websites and email correspondence and /or other items as described in Standard III: Family and Community Engagement. ii. Evidence of progress towards professional practice goal(s); iii. Evidence of progress toward student learning outcomes goal(s). iv. Student Feedback (subject to negotiations) v. Any other relevant evidence from any source that the Evaluator shares with the Educator. Other relevant evidence could include information provided by other evaluators/administrators such as the superintendent. Relevant information from other sources will be assessed by the Evaluator and information will be shared with the Educator. vi. An Educators submission of evidence to support meeting the indicators of performance for Standard I: Curriculum, Planning and Assessment and Standard II: Teaching All Students, is optional as this evidence is typically gathered by the Evaluator during a classroom observation. Submission of evidence supporting either Standards I or II can provide additional data for inclusion in the Formative or Summative Reports. If an Educator chooses to submit evidence for these categories, it is suggested that the evidence be included by the time the Summative Report will be written.
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. The Choate Team 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.
