Context of the evaluation Sample Clauses

Context of the evaluation. The first EU developments in the field of sport took place in the late 90‟s (e.g. the recognition of non-economic aspects of sport, setting up the sport unit). The specific nature of sport and its important role were first formally recognised in the “Nice Declaration” (2000). The Declaration required that EU policies and decisions should take account of the specific characteristics of sport and be sport-friendly. The 2004 European Year of Education through Sport gave an impetus to enhance the role of sport in education and training. Around 200 projects relating to sport were co-financed by the Commission and accompanied by a communication campaign. Also in 2004, specific provisions on sport were included in the draft Constitutional Treaty and EU Sport Ministers adopted a Rolling Agenda for Sport. The Agenda defined priority themes for discussions on sport among the Member States and the Commission. It was not until 2007 that there was a comprehensive vision for sport in the EU. For the first time, the Commission presented a complete picture on the relationships between the EU and sport in a high-profile policy document. The White Paper on Sport (2007) identified three dimensions of sport (social, economic and organisational) that should be taken into account when developing the EU‟s approach. The accompanying Action Plan (“Xxxxxx xx Xxxxxxxxx”) suggested a number of actions to be implemented at EU level.. Following the White Paper and Action Plan, in 2008 the European Parliament adopted a resolution welcoming the vision presented by the Commission and requesting a special budget line for Preparatory Actions in the field of sport.
Sample 1
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs
Context of the evaluation. The dual higher education model is based on the recognition that the company is a special learning space where new knowledge is generated. Therefore, all concepts originate from the same root, the need to bring academia and business together and to integrate these two worlds. According to Xxxx (1998), it is the interaction of a priori two contradictory types of logic: the logic of transmission of knowledge from the university and the logic of production of the company. The integration of these two logics cannot be done by simple juxtaposition of periods of dominance. In this respect, dual education is not a simple model; it requires the construction of a systematic suitable relationship between the higher education institution and the company. It is not merely alternating between theory and practice, it involves building a system in which the relationships are bidirectional. Dual education is an original model for professionalization. "The relationship between knowledge and competence is not a simple cause and effect relation, it depends on the commitment of the person in action. It is through a confrontation with the world as it is that the individual builds its skills, mobilizing its personality, its knowledge in use and the capabilities of formalization. Therefore, activity and competition are inseparable and articulation of various educational spaces of the school and the world of work is necessary" (Malglaive, 1993: 44). Given the pedagogical and educational dimension, in dual education a series of relationships between the actors involved in the training are established. In these relationships between actors double tutelage arises. Indeed, the student is accompanied throughout its training path by both the company and higher education institution, in particular by company and academic tutors. Double mentoring appears to ensure and regulate the student ́s progress. In this regard, the company tutor plays a key role in the workplace for its ability to organize the learning and define the objectives; the academic tutor is in charge of relations with the tutor of the company to adjust the training process of the student. Success lies in being able to integrate and combine the different learning from the higher education institution and company. Since there are at least two realities involved nobody except the student has a complete overview. Thus, the student becomes a process owner, responsible for the “integration” part of the learning process. Part of th...
Sample 1

Related to Context of the evaluation

  • 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.

  • JOC EVALUATION If any materials being utilized for a project cannot be found in the RS Means Price Book, this question is what is the markup percentage on those materials? When answering this question please insert the number that represents your percentage of proposed markup. Example: if you are proposing a 30 percent markup, please insert the number "30". Remember that this is a ceiling markup. You may markup a lesser percentage to the TIPS Member customer when pricing the project, but not a greater percentage. EXAMPLE: You need special materials that are not in the RS Means Unit Price Book for a project. You would buy the materials and xxxx them up to the TIPS Member customer by the percentage you propose in this question. If the materials cost you, the contractor, $100 and you proposed a markup on this question for the material of 30 percent, then you would charge the TIPS Member customer $130 for the materials. No response TIPS/ESC Region 8 is required by Texas Government Code § 791 to be compensated for its work and thus, failure to agree shall render your response void and it will not be considered. Yes - No Vendor agrees to remit to TIPS the required administration fee or, if resellers are named, guarantee the fee remittance by or for the reseller named by the vendor?

  • Focused Evaluation The Focused Evaluation is used when a teacher is not evaluated using the Comprehensive Evaluation process, and will include evaluation of one of the eight state criteria (student growth impact required). If a non-provisional teacher has scored at Proficient or higher the previous year, they may be moved to Focused Evaluation. The teacher may remain on the Focused Evaluation for five (5) years before returning to the Comprehensive Evaluation. The teacher or the evaluator can initiate a move from the Focused to the Comprehensive Evaluation. A decision to move a teacher from a Focused to a Comprehensive Evaluation must occur by December 15.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Re-evaluation a) When a job has moved to a higher group as a result of re-evaluation, the resulting rate shall be retroactive from the date that Management or the employee has applied to the Plant Job Review Committee for re-evaluation.

  • Summative Evaluation An evaluation used to arrive at a rating on each standard, an overall rating, and as a basis to make personnel decisions. The summative evaluation includes the Evaluator’s judgments of the Educator’s performance against Performance Standards and the Educator’s attainment of goals set forth in the Educator’s Plan.

  • 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.

  • Administrative Evaluation It is the intent of the SCD administration to conduct evaluations of non-priority- hire faculty as early as possible in a faculty member's employment in an SCD instructional unit. Administrative evaluation should occur before the beginning of the fifth quarter within the nine (9) out of twelve (12) quarter sequence outlined in Article 10.7.a.

  • 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.

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