Criteria for Evaluation. Criteria for employee performance review shall be made available to the employee before the start of the evaluation period and shall remain unchanged during the evaluation period unless the employee is made aware of the changes.
Criteria for Evaluation. The criteria for evaluation shall be based on the direct observation and/or knowledge by the employee’s supervisor(s) or facts otherwise recorded and verified, and by classified competencies as established and provided by the express terms of this article. The bargaining unit member shall be provided with the classified competencies and a copy of the evaluation form. Members of the bargaining unit shall not be required to participate in the evaluation of other bargaining unit members nor shall they be required to submit a written self-evaluation. However, a self-assessment tool is available as Appendix A-1 to assist the employee in identifying goals and objectives for improving their professional practice. It is not required for the employee to complete or submit the self-assessment tool.
Criteria for Evaluation. Evaluation must yield a genuinely useful and substantive assessment of performance based on clearly stated, relevant criteria designated in the standard evaluation form(s) jointly developed by the District and SRJC CFT. Administrative and peer evaluations of faculty members shall be regular, timely, and shall follow the same procedures for all faculty in the unit. Temporary faculty shall be evaluated in the first year and at least once every six (6) regular semesters thereafter.
Criteria for Evaluation. 12.2.1 The criteria for evaluation shall be based on the legal standards as established by the State of California, and as provided by the express terms of this article.
12.2.2 No certificated employee shall be held accountable for any aspect of the educational program found deficient if he/she has no authority over the area in question and thus no ability to correct the deficiency.
Criteria for Evaluation. 1. Teachers shall be evaluated on criteria adopted by the Highland Board of Education as in compliance with OTES (Appendix F, Level I).
2. No teacher shall be evaluated on his/her work performance except after fair and reasonable observations of the work performance of the teacher. All monitoring or observation of the work performance of a teacher shall be conducted openly and with full knowledge of the teacher.
3. No misleading, inaccurate, or undocumented information may become part of a teacher’s performance evaluation report.
Criteria for Evaluation. Every administrator shall be evaluated at least annually on the basis of the following criteria:
1. Effectiveness in carrying out administrative duties and responsibilities assigned pursuant to the provisions of Article III of this Agreement as set forth in his job description; and
2. The nature and quality of the administrator’s undertaking to maintain and augment his knowledge and skills in the professional field in which he is employed and assigned; and
3. The timely and complete written evaluation of subordinates on forms identified for that purpose by the applicable labor agreement or institution policy; and
4. Such other information pertinent to the administrator’s contribution to the University community as may be submitted.
Criteria for Evaluation. The primary criteria for evaluation of faculty shall be the quality of performance of applicable responsibilities as outlined in Article 4.1, and criteria as outlined in APPENDIX C-1 and C-2.
6.4.1 Flexibility will be accommodated by allowing the addition and/or modification of criteria for a particular area if those criteria are developed jointly by the evaluatee and administrators and approved by YFA and YCCD. Agreement on additional criteria for faculty must be reached by the date indicated in the timeline (see APPENDIX C-3a-b)
6.4.2 Faculty shall be notified prior to the evaluation of the applicable provisions and criteria for evaluation. The notice shall include appropriate timeline information as described in APPENDIX C.
6.4.3 The evaluatee, peer evaluators, and immediate administrator shall confer on the process to meet the deadlines set forth in APPENDIX C. The administrator can proceed with completion of the evaluation report if materials and/or reports are not submitted in a timely manner.
Criteria for Evaluation. Employees shall be evaluated on criteria set forth in the present evaluation instrument. Any changes in this instrument shall be upon mutual agreement of the Association and the Administration.
Criteria for Evaluation. Proposals will be evaluated and ranked according to the conditions described in the evaluation criteria below, with a total overall maximum point value of 100: Criteria Score Capabilities statement and relevant experience that addresses the nature of the project. It should include descriptions of similar work and solid references. 25% Cost effectiveness and proposed required Level of Effort and Detailed Budget broken out by task 15% Ability to Meet Cost-Share 10% Proposed methodology, proposal responsiveness to SOW and project timeline that shows to what extent in which there is a clear definition of concrete project deliverables and a reasonable schedule of activity duration for each activity 35% Qualifications of the proposed staff 15% Total 100% Selection will be based on “Best Value.” Applications will first be evaluated and scored from a technical standpoint. Applications that are considered to be technically acceptable shall then be evaluated in terms of cost. The award shall be issued to the offeror with the highest combined technical and cost score. A certification of independent price determination (see Appendix 2) is required.
Criteria for Evaluation. The criteria for evaluation of certificated employees is governed by state law with additional criteria established through collective bargaining. Candid and specific dialogue should occur between the employee and the administrator throughout the evaluation cycle to encourage and assist the employee in meeting the evaluation criteria.
