General Evaluation. 1. It will be the responsibility of the building principal to prepare a general evaluation and schedule a conference.
General Evaluation. Teachers who are not required to undergo a formal evaluation will have a general evaluation annually. The administrator will initiate this evaluation at any time during the second semester. The general evaluation will not be used in place of the formal evaluation for contract determination. All certified staff who do not receive a formal evaluation may receive a General Evaluation every school year. There will be no specific time lines as described in 5.01 B 2 for the General Evaluation Observation. However, the provisions in 5.01 A, 2 and 5.01 B,4 will be followed. The evaluator shall use the standard form for the general evaluation developed by the Superintendent or designee after input from the HEA. The rules for the signing of, responding to, and filing of the general evaluation shall be the same as for the formal evaluation. This form will be used in all buildings in the district.
General Evaluation. First of all it will be determined whether each Bid is accompanied with the valid Bid security i.e. the required amount and in an acceptable form. Bids not accompanied with the valid Bid security shall be rejected and may not be evaluated further. Other aspects of general evaluation will be done as per Clause 1.1.3 of NIB and clauses A4.1, A4.2, A4.3 and A5 of ITB.
General Evaluation. An evaluation of elite and popular religiosity necessitates some defence against criticism of these concepts and similar or overlapping concepts such as great and little traditions. One criticism of these distinctions is that they create the impression that the religions of the learned and the masses are static and unchanging, and can be divided into separate compartments in a clear-cut manner, each invulnerable to the effect of the other. The dichotomization is seen as leading to a concrete devaluation of popular religion as magic, oriented solely towards practical and materialistic ends, without any ethical, philosophical values. In contrast, the religious elite is exclusively associated with the spiritual, removed from worldly matters (Sharot, 2001, p. 13). Based upon the Gramscian approach explained above, this research project rejects an interpretation of ‘popular religion’ as if it were the very antithesis of ‘elite religion’. The following remark taken from X.X. Xxxxx’x article “Popular Religion in Ancient Israel” may be understood as an illustration of this pejorative approach that is rejected in this study: There were two levels of Israelite religion. The one... is that of established sanctuaries and of established dates, a formal religion, in short, which followed lines clearly defined and precise in detail. The other is less easy to characterize... Outside the borders of the established cult lies the shadowy region of popular superstition, of actions that arise from the vague, half-conscious feelings of fear and anticipation that have been summed up in the not ill-chosen term of ‘Nature religion’ (1976, p. 1). As Sharot rightly notes, these depictions misrepresent the complexity of people’s religiosity and disregard the historically dynamic and complex relations between social groups that result in religious overlap and integrations. Where one group is assumed to have an influence on another, Xxxxxx points out, this is frequently supposed to run in a downward direction, from the learned to the unlearned. Specifically, the peasants are often regarded as taking a passive stance (2001, p. 13).
General Evaluation. A. The “
General Evaluation. AGREEMENTS
