Evaluators The success of a program of evaluation depends upon a high level of skill and training of all participants in the process. The District shall provide annual training on the Colorado State Educator Evaluation System and ongoing training on inter-rater reliability using approved materials from the Colorado Department of Education. As required by Colorado law, all performance evaluations must be conducted by an individual who has completed a training in evaluation skills that has been approved by the Department of Education.
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.
Evaluation of Risks The Investor has such knowledge and experience in financial tax and business matters as to be capable of evaluating the merits and risks of, and bearing the economic risks entailed by, an investment in the Company and of protecting its interests in connection with this transaction. It recognizes that its investment in the Company involves a high degree of risk.
Evaluation Cycle Goal Setting and Development of the Educator Plan
A) Every Educator has an Educator Plan that includes, but is not limited to, one goal related to the improvement of practice; one goal for the improvement of student learning. The Plan also outlines actions the Educator must take to attain the goals established in the Plan and benchmarks to assess progress. Goals may be developed by individual Educators, by the Evaluator, or by teams, departments, or groups of Educators who have the similar roles and/or responsibilities. See Sections 15-19 for more on Educator Plans.
B) To determine the goals to be included in the Educator Plan, the Evaluator reviews the goals the Educator has proposed in the Self-Assessment, using evidence of Educator performance and impact on student learning, growth and achievement based on the Educator’s self-assessment and other sources that Evaluator shares with the Educator. The process for determining the Educator’s impact on student learning, growth and achievement will be determined after ESE issues guidance on this matter. See #22, below.
C) Educator Plan Development Meetings shall be conducted as follows:
i) Educators in the same school may meet with the Evaluator in teams and/or individually at the end of the previous evaluation cycle or by October 15th of the next academic year to develop their Educator Plan. Educators shall not be expected to meet during the summer hiatus.
ii) For those Educators new to the school, the meeting with the Evaluator to establish the Educator Plan must occur by October 15th or within six weeks of the start of their assignment in that school
iii) The Evaluator shall meet individually with Educators with PTS and ratings of needs improvement or unsatisfactory to develop professional practice goal(s) that must address specific standards and indicators identified for improvement. In addition, the goals may address shared grade level or subject matter goals.
D) The Evaluator completes the Educator Plan by November 1st. The Educator shall sign the Educator Plan within 5 school days of its receipt and may include a written response. The Educator’s signature indicates that the Educator received the plan in a timely fashion. The signature does not indicate agreement or disagreement with its contents. The Evaluator retains final authority over the content of the Educator’s Plan.
Independent Evaluation Buyer is experienced and knowledgeable in the oil and gas business. Buyer has been advised by and has relied solely on its own expertise and legal, tax, accounting, marketing, land, engineering, environmental and other professional counsel concerning this transaction, the Subject Property and value thereof.
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.
Evaluator Any person designated by a superintendent who has primary or supervisory responsibility for observation and evaluation. The superintendent is responsible for ensuring that all Evaluators have training in the principles of supervision and evaluation. Each Educator will have one primary Evaluator at any one time responsible for determining performance ratings.
i) Primary Evaluator shall be the person who determines the Educator’s performance ratings and evaluation.
ii) Supervising Evaluator shall be the person responsible for developing the Educator Plan, supervising the Educator’s progress through formative assessments, evaluating the Educator’s progress toward attaining the Educator Plan goals, and making recommendations about the evaluation ratings to the primary Evaluator at the end of the Educator Plan. The Supervising Evaluator may be the primary Evaluator or his/her designee.
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.
Evaluation of Tenders 33.1 The Procuring Entity shall use the criteria and methodologies listed in this ITT and Section III, Evaluation and Qualification criteria. No other evaluation criteria or methodologies shall be permitted. By applying the criteria and methodologies, the Procuring Entity shall determine the Lowest Evaluated Tender. This is the Tender of the Tenderer that meets the qualification criteria and whose Tender has been determined to be:
a) substantially responsive to the tender documents; and
b) the lowest evaluated price.
33.2 Price evaluation will be done for Items or Lots (contracts), as specified in the TDS; and the Tender Price as quoted in accordance with ITT 14. To evaluate a Tender, the Procuring Entity shall consider the following:
a) price adjustment due to unconditional discounts offered in accordance with ITT 13.4;
b) converting the amount resulting from applying (a) and (b) above, if relevant, to a single currency in accordance with ITT 31;
c) price adjustment due to quantifiable nonmaterial non-conformities in accordance with ITT 29.3; and
d) any additional evaluation factors specified in the TDS and Section III, Evaluation and Qualification Criteria.
33.3 The estimated effect of the price adjustment provisions of the Conditions of Contract, applied over the period of execution of the Contract, shall not be considered in Tender evaluation.
33.4 Where the tender involves multiple lots or contracts, the tenderer will be allowed to tender for one or more lots (contracts). Each lot or contract will be evaluated in accordance with ITT 33.
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.
