Evaluator completes Final Written Evaluation Sample Clauses

Evaluator completes Final Written Evaluation. At the conclusion of the yearly evaluation cycle, evaluation results shall be used by the employee’s evaluator, in accordance with RCW 28A.405.100, to judge the CISS’s performance as satisfactory or unsatisfactory. A CISS who is rated unsatisfactory in one or more components shall result in an unsatisfactory evaluation. By May 1, CISS in the first year of employment with the District shall receive their completed Comprehensive Binary performance evaluation. By June 1, all other CISS on the Comprehensive Binary Evaluation cycle shall receive their completed evaluation. The evaluation should reflect the quality of performance based on the evidence collected by both the CISS (through artifacts) and the evaluator (through observation). In the Comprehensive Binary Evaluation process, CISS are evaluated on all four domains of the Framework for Teaching for Certificated Instructional Support Staff. The CISS signs the Comprehensive Binary Evaluation; copies are filed with the CISS, evaluator, and District’s Human Resource office. The CISS member’s signature shall indicate that the evaluation has been discussed, but does not necessarily denote agreement with all that is written. Such statements as the CISS may deem appropriate may be attached to the evaluation. Evidence and artifacts are not submitted with the report to the District’s Human Resources Department.
Sample 1
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs
Evaluator completes Final Written Evaluation. At the conclusion of the yearly evaluation cycle, evaluation results shall be used by the employee’s evaluator, in accordance with RCW 28A.405.100, to judge the employee’s performance as satisfactory or unsatisfactory. An educator who is rated unsatisfactory in one or more components/elements shall result in an unsatisfactory evaluation. (See MISD Evaluation Process for Unsatisfactory Educators, Appendix C) By May 1st, educators in their first year of employment with the Xxxxxx Island School District shall have a complete, written Initial Long Form performance evaluation. By June 1st, all other educators on the Initial Long Form Evaluation cycle shall have their evaluation completed. The evaluation should reflect the quality of performance based on the evidence collected by both the educator (through artifacts) and the evaluator (through observation). In the Initial Long Form Evaluation process, educators are evaluated on all four domains of the Framework for Teaching. The educator signs the Long Form evaluation; copies are filed with the educator, administrator, and MISD Human Resource office. The educator’s signature shall indicate that the evaluation has been discussed, but does not necessarily denote agreement with all that is written. Such statements as the educator may deem appropriate may be attached to the evaluation. Evidence is not submitted with the report to the MISD Human Resources Department.
Sample 1
Evaluator completes Final Written Evaluation. At the conclusion of the yearly evaluation cycle, evaluation results will be used by the employee’s evaluator to judge the employee’s performance as satisfactory or unsatisfactory in accordance with RCW 28A.405.100. An educator who is rated unsatisfactory in one or more Domain(s) will receive an unsatisfactory evaluation (See MISD Evaluation Process for Unsatisfactory Educators, Appendix C). By June 1st, educators on the Fifth Year Long Form Evaluation cycle shall have their evaluation completed. The narrative should reflect the quality of performance based on the evidence collected by both the educator (through artifacts) and the administrator (through observation). The educator signs the Fifth Year Long Form evaluation; copies are filed with the educator, administrator, and MISD Human Resources office. The educator’s signature shall indicate that the evaluation has been discussed with the educator, but does not necessarily denote agreement with all that is written. Such statements as the educator may deem appropriate may be attached to the evaluation. Evidence is not submitted with the report to the MISD Human Resources Department. After successful completion of the Fifth Year Long Form Evaluation cycle the educator will return to the Professional Growth Cycle.
Sample 1

Related to Evaluator completes Final Written Evaluation

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Annual Evaluations The purpose of the annual evaluation is to assess and communicate the nature and extent of an employee's performance of assigned duties consistent with the criteria specified below in this Policy. Except for those employees who have received notice of non-reappointment pursuant to the BOT- UFF Policy on Non- reappointment, every employee shall be evaluated at least once annually. Personnel decisions shall take such annual evaluations into account, provided that such decisions need not be based solely on written faculty performance evaluations.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Project Monitoring Reporting and Evaluation The Recipient shall furnish to the Association each Project Report not later than forty-five (45) days after the end of each calendar semester, covering the calendar semester.

  • Office of Inspector General Investigative Findings Expert Review In accordance with Senate Bill 799, Acts 2021, 87th Leg., R.S., if Texas Government Code, Section 531.102(m-1)(2) is applicable to this Contract, Contractor affirms that it possesses the necessary occupational licenses and experience.

Draft better contracts in just 5 minutes Get the weekly Law Insider newsletter packed with expert videos, webinars, ebooks, and more!