Faculty Selection, Supervision, and Evaluation A. Faculty for a dual credit course will be approved and employed by Hill College. The instructor must meet credential requirements of Hill College and minimum requirements as specified by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges (SACSCOC). Each faculty member assigned to teach an academic course will have a master’s degree plus 18 hours in the specific discipline. Technical course instructors will have at least an associate degree and three years of work experience in the related business or industry.
B. Instructors teaching dual credit courses must meet the same standards, review, and approval procedures as full- time, regular Hill College faculty.
C. Faculty for a dual credit course who are not a full-time faculty member of Hill College report directly to the appropriate Xxxx of Instruction for the pathway in which the course(s) is being taught. The college shall supervise and evaluate part-time faculty teaching dual credit courses using the same or comparable procedures used for full-time faculty employed by college.
D. The performance appraisal process for dual credit instructors will be conducted by the immediate supervisor and reviewed by the second line supervisor prior to the appraisal interview with the employee. The dual credit faculty evaluation process will mirror the evaluation process used at the college for all full-time faculty members and will be done according to the college policy manual. All dual credit faculty will be periodically evaluated using the following means: 1) random classroom observation by the immediate supervisor of that discipline, 2) student evaluations and 3) self-evaluation.
E. All Dual Credit faculty instructors will be supervised by the following means:
i. When dual credit classes are visited during a classroom observation, supervisors will ask to see items such as the textbook, observe instruction and interaction with students, and request a class syllabus and a sample of class tests, quizzes, labs, and/or projects.
ii. Dual Credit instructors are given a self-evaluation form and are asked to fill it out and return the form to their Hill College supervisor.
iii. All dual credit instructors are given a master syllabus for the course. The master syllabus provides grading policy and student learning outcomes.
iv. All dual credit instructors are required to participate in the assessment process.
v. All dual credit instructors are required to certify rosters.
vi. All dual credit instructors are required to submit final grades.
F. Faculty teaching courses, which result in the award of college credit, will be regularly employed faculty members of Hill College. All faculty selected by Hill College to teach dual credit classes will be considered employees of Hill College and will be compensated by the college in accordance with Hill College policy, procedures, and guidelines.
G. Applications for employment and official transcripts from each college or university attended MUST be submitted and approved prior to the start of classes. All paperwork will be kept on file at Hill College.
Board Supervision All of the functions undertaken by the Investment Manager hereunder shall at all times be subject to the direction of the Board of Directors, its executive committee, or any committee or officers of the Company acting under the authority of the Board of Directors.
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.
Supervision The Recipient shall provide and maintain competent and adequate project management covering the supervision and inspection of the development and construction of the Project and bear the responsibility of ensuring that construction conforms to the approved surveys, plans, profiles, cross sections and specifications.
Independent Review Contractor shall provide the Secretary of ADS/CIO an independent expert review of any Agency recommendation for any information technology activity when its total cost is $1,000,000.00 or greater or when CIO requires one. The State has identified two sub-categories for Independent Reviews, Standard and Complex. The State will identify in the SOW RFP the sub-category they are seeking. State shall not consider bids greater than the maximum value indicated below for this category. Standard Independent Review $25,000 Maximum Complex Independent Review $50,000 Maximum Per Vermont statute 3 V.S.A. 2222, The Secretary of Administration shall obtain independent expert review of any recommendation for any information technology initiated after July 1, 1996, as information technology activity is defined by subdivision (a) (10), when its total cost is $1,000,000 or greater or when required by the State Chief Information Officer. Documentation of this independent review shall be included when plans are submitted for review pursuant to subdivisions (a)(9) and (10) of this section. The independent review shall include: • An acquisition cost assessment • A technology architecture review • An implementation plan assessment • A cost analysis and model for benefit analysis • A procurement negotiation advisory services contract • An impact analysis on net operating costs for the agency carrying out the activity In addition, from time to time special reviews of the advisability and feasibility of certain types of IT strategies may be required. Following are Requirements and Capabilities for this Service: • Identify acquisition and lifecycle costs; • Assess wide area network (WAN) and/or local area network (LAN) impact; • Assess risks and/or review technical risk assessments of an IT project including security, data classification(s), subsystem designs, architectures, and computer systems in terms of their impact on costs, benefits, schedule and technical performance; • Assess, evaluate and critically review implementation plans, e.g.: • Adequacy of support for conversion and implementation activities • Adequacy of department and partner staff to provide Project Management • Adequacy of planned testing procedures • Acceptance/readiness of staff • Schedule soundness • Adequacy of training pre and post project • Assess proposed technical architecture to validate conformance to the State’s “strategic direction.” • Insure system use toolsets and strategies are consistent with State Chief Information Officer (CIO) policies, including security and digital records management; • Assess the architecture of the proposed hardware and software with regard to security and systems integration with other applications within the Department, and within the Agency, and existing or planned Enterprise Applications; • Perform cost and schedule risk assessments to support various alternatives to meet mission need, recommend alternative courses of action when one or more interdependent segment(s) or phase(s) experience a delay, and recommend opportunities for new technology insertions; • Assess the architecture of the proposed hardware and software with regard to the state of the art in this technology. • Assess a project’s backup/recovery strategy and the project’s disaster recovery plans for adequacy and conformance to State policy. • Evaluate the ability of a proposed solution to meet the needs for which the solution has been proposed, define the ability of the operational and user staff to integrate this solution into their work.
Information Supplied by Underwriters The statements set forth in the last paragraph on the front cover page and under the heading "Underwriting" in any Preliminary Prospectus or the Prospectus (to the extent such statements relate to the Underwriters) constitute the only information furnished by any Underwriter through the Representatives to the Company for the purposes of Sections 2(b) and 8 hereof. The Underwriters confirm that such statements (to such extent) are correct.
Information Supplied None of the information supplied or to be supplied by or on behalf of the Company Parties for inclusion or incorporation by reference in the Form S-4 or the Proxy Statement/Prospectus will (a) in the case of the Form S-4, at the time such document is filed with the SEC, at any time such document is amended or supplemented or at the time it is declared effective under the Securities Act, contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state any material fact required to be stated therein or necessary in order to make the statements therein, in light of the circumstances under which they are made, not misleading, or (b) in the case of the Proxy Statement/Prospectus, on the date such Proxy Statement/Prospectus is first mailed to the Company’s stockholders or Parent’s stockholders or at the time of the Company Stockholder Meeting or at the Parent Stockholder Meeting or at the time that the Form S-4 is declared effective or at the Company Merger Effective Time, contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state any material fact required to be stated therein or necessary in order to make the statements therein, in light of the circumstances under which they are made, not misleading. At each of the times described in the preceding sentence, the Form S-4 and the Proxy Statement/Prospectus will (with respect to the Company, its directors and officers and the Company Subsidiaries) comply as to form in all material respects with the applicable requirements of the Securities Laws. No representation or warranty is made hereunder as to statements made or incorporated by reference in the Form S-4 or the Proxy Statement/Prospectus that were not supplied by or on behalf of the Company or the Partnership.
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.
Evaluation Committee 16.2.1 The Association and the Board agree to establish a standing joint Evaluation Development Committee for the purpose of regularly reviewing the effectiveness of the policy, procedure and process, including the evaluation instrument, for the evaluation of teachers in the District and to provide recommendations to the Superintendent and Board by April 30.
Supervision of Students At least one teacher is to remain with the students after the close of any activity, practice session or game until the last student has left the premises. This rule applies whether the group is at the home school or field or is away.
