Joint Review Team Sample Clauses

Joint Review Team. For any review except one required in conjunction with an accreditation decision ofAccreditation with Stipulations or Probationary Accreditation, the composition ofthe Evaluation Team will be as follows: 5.4.1.1. For a Review involving only one level ofaccreditation (i.e., initial or advanced), the Joint Review Team includes four national reviewers appointed by CAEP and up to three reviewers appointed by the State. 5.4.1.2. For a Review involving both levels ofaccreditation, initial and advanced-level, the Evaluation Team will include five CAEP-appointed reviewers and up to four state­ appointed reviewers. 5.4.1.3. For a Stipulation or Probation review, the Evaluation Team is comprised oftwo CAEP-appointed reviewers. The state may choose to add one reviewer for a total ofa three-person team. The lead reviewer is appointed by CAEP. 5.4.1.4. The State shall provide CAEP with its recommended Evaluation Team members within any timelines established by CAEP. Ifthe State is unable to appoint members, CAEP will appoint from its pool ofvolunteers trained to serve as Evaluation Team members a CAEP-only team. All such teams are led by an Evaluation Team chair (or Evaluation Team leader) appointed by CAEP.
Sample 1Sample 2See All (8)
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs
Joint Review Team. The Joint Review Team in a standard visit which includes only an initial-level review includes four national site visitors appointed by CAEP and one (1) site visitor appointed by the State. In a standard visit which includes initial and advanced­ level reviews, the team will include five (5) CAEP-appointed visitors and one (1) state­ appointed site visitor. CAEP financial guidelines require that a joint team be composed completely of CAEP appointed site visitors, less one site visitor appointed by the state. The State shall provide CAEP with its recommended site visitor within any timelines established by CAEP in the Accreditation Policy and handbook. The team is led by a site team chair appointed by CAEP. Prior to assignment to any site team, an individual must have successfully completed CAEP site visitor training and must acknowledge understanding of, and agreement to, adhere to CAEP's code of conduct, including with regard to confidentiality and conflicts of interest. All site visit teams are supported by a state consultant.
Sample 1Sample 2
Joint Review Team. For any review except one required in conjunction with an accreditation decision ofAccreditation with Stipulations or Probationary Accreditation, the composition ofthe Evaluation Team will be as follows: 1. For a Review involving only one level ofaccreditation (i.e., initial or advanced), the Joint Review Team includes four national reviewers appointed by CAEP and up to three reviewers appointed by the State. 2. For a Review involving both levels of accreditation, initial and advanced­ level, the Evaluation Team will include five CAEP-appointed reviewers and up to four state-appointed reviewers. 3. For a Stipulation or Probation review, the Evaluation Team is comprised of two CAEP-appointed reviewers. The state may choose to add one reviewer for a total ofa three-person team. The lead reviewer is appointed by CAEP. 4. The State shall provide CAEP with its recommended Evaluation Team members within any tirnelines established by CAEP. Ifthe State is unable to appoint members, CAEP will appoint from its pool ofvolunteers trained to serve as Evaluation Team members a CAEP-only team. All such teams are led by an Evaluation Team chair (or Evaluation Team leader) appointed by CAEP. 5. Prior to assignment to any CAEP Evaluation Team, an individual must have successfully completed CAEP training for review team members and must acknowledge understanding of, and agreement to, adhere to CAEP's code of conduct, including with regard to confidentiality and conflicts of interest. 6. Each Evaluation Team shall include a P-12 practitioner, when possible. The State will make recommendations for P-12 practitioners through the CAEP accreditation platform. 7. At the discretion of the State, the State's teachers' association(s) may appoint one (1) representative per association to observe the Site Review. Any expenses associated with the attendance of an observer must be covered by the association(s) or State. Prior to participation, any observer must acknowledge understanding of an agreement to adhere to CAEP's policies and procedures regarding Site Reviews and the CAEP code ofconduct, including with regard to confidentiality and conflicts ofinterest. 8. All Site Review activities undertaken by a CAEP Evaluation Team will be conducted in accordance with CAEP policies and procedures. 9. CAEP is not responsible for Site Review expenses for state-assigned personnel. 1. An EPP that is subject to the jurisdiction of the State may choose from among any of the following program revie...
Sample 1
Joint Review Team. The Joint Review Team includes national site visitors appointed by CAEP and TSPC site visitors appointed by TSPC. TSPC shall provide CAEP with its list of site visitors within any timelines established by CAEP in the Accreditation Council Policy Manual and CAEP Accreditation Handbook. The team is led by a site team chair appointed by CAEP. However, the CAEP appointed chair shall have no authority over the unit review activities by the state team members as they relate to state-specific standards.
Sample 1
Joint Review Team. The Joint Review Team includes national Site Visitors appointed by CAEP and State Site Visitors appointed by the State. The State shall provide CAEP with its list of State Site Visitors within any timelines established by CAEP in the Accreditation Council policy and handbook. CAEP-appointed Site Visitors must make up more than 50 percent of the team. The team is led by a Lead Site Visitor (chair) appointed by CAEP. The State may appoint a designated State Lead Site Visitor to be a member of the site team under the leadership of the CAEP Lead Site Visitor. Should the State deem it necessary to have more State Site Visitors participate in an off-site or onsite visit to accommodate the work involved in reviewing a high number of programs, those State Site Visitors exceeding the 49% threshold will serve as observers and provide input regarding findings when requested by the CAEP or State Team.
Sample 1
Joint Review Team. For any review except one required in conjunction with an accreditation decision of Accreditation with Stipulations or Probationary Accreditation, the composition of the Evaluation Team will be as follows: 4.4.1.1. For a Review involving only one level of accreditation (i.e., initial or advanced), the Joint Review Team includes four national reviewers appointed by CAEP, a California Co-Chair and one reviewer appointed by the State. 4.4.1.2. For a Review involving both levels of accreditation, initial and advanced- level, the Evaluation Team will include five CAEP-appointed reviewers, a California Co-Chair and one state-appointed reviewer. 4.4.1.2.1. The Commission will assign Program Reviewers to complete the program review process. 4.4.1.2.2. The costs assumed by the EPP and the Commission for the state portion of the joint review including review of programs will be consistent with the Commission’s adopted fee policy. 4.4.1.3. For a CAEP review of an institution with a Stipulation or Probation review, the Evaluation Team is comprised of two CAEP-appointed reviewers. The state may choose to add one reviewer for a total of a three-person team. The lead reviewer is appointed by CAEP. • The State shall provide CAEP with its recommended Evaluation Team members within any timelines established by CAEP. If the State is unable to appoint members, CAEP will appoint from its pool of volunteers trained to serve as Evaluation Team members a CAEP-only team. All such teams are led by an Evaluation Team chair (or Evaluation Team leader) appointed by CAEP. The Commission will assign a staff member as the Consultant for the visit. The Consultant is not a member of the review team and does not participate in the decisions made by the review team.
Sample 1
Joint Review Team. For any review except one required in conjunction with an accreditation decision of Accreditation with Stipulations or Probationary Accreditation, the composition of the Review Team will be as follows: 4.3.1.1. For a Review involving only one level of accreditation (i.e., initial or advanced), the Joint Review Team includes four national reviewers appointed by CAEP and up to three reviewers appointed by the State. 4.3.1.2. For a Review involving both levels of accreditation, initial and advanced-level, the team will include five CAEP-appointed reviewers and up to four state-appointed reviewers. 4.3.1.3. For a Stipulation or Probation review, teams are comprised of two persons. The state may choose to add one reviewer for a total of a three-person team. The lead reviewer is appointed by CAEP. 4.3.1.4. Montana shall provide CAEP with its recommended review team members within any timelines established by CAEP in the Accreditation Policy and handbook. If the state is unable to appoint members, CAEP will appoint from the national pool of site visitors a CAEP only team. All such teams are led by a review team chair appointed by CAEP. Prior to assignment to any site team, an individual must have successfully completed CAEP Review Team training and must a adhere to CAEP’s code of conduct, including with regard to confidentiality and conflicts of interest.
Sample 1
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs
Joint Review Team. The Joint Review Team includes national site visitors appointed by CAEP and TSPC site visitors appointed by TSPC. TSPC shall provide CAEP with its list of site visitors within any timelines established by CAEP in the Accreditation Council Policy Manual and CAEP Accreditation Handbook. CAEP-appointed members must make up more than 50 percent of the team. TSPC may appoint up to one team member less than the number of CAEP-appointed team members on the joint review team. The team is led by a site team chair appointed by CAEP. However, the CAEP appointed chair shall have no authority over the unit review activities by the state team members as they relate to state-specific standards.
Sample 1
Joint Review Team. The Joint Site Visit Team includes national site visitors appointed by CAEP and state site visitors appointed by the State. The State shall provide CAEP with its list of site visitors within any timelines established by CAEP in the Accreditation Council policy and handbook. CAEP-appointed members must make up more than 50 percent of the team. The team is led by a Site Visit Team chair appointed by CAEP. The State may appoint a vice-chair. Prior to assignment to any Site Visit Team, an individual must have successfully completed CAEP training for Site Visit Team members and must acknowledge understanding of and agreement to adhere to CAEP’s code of conduct, including with regard to confidentiality and conflicts of interest.
Sample 1

Related to Joint Review Team

  • 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.

  • Project Team To accomplish Owner’s objectives, Owner intends to employ a team concept in connection with the construction of the Project. The basic roles and general responsibilities of team members are set forth in general terms below but are more fully set forth in the Design Professional Contract with respect to the Design Professional, in the Program Management Agreement with any Program Manager, and in this Contract with respect to the Contractor.

  • Project Review A. Programmatic Allowances 1. If FEMA determines that the entire scope of an Undertaking conforms to one or more allowances in Appendix B of this Agreement, with determinations for Tier II Allowances being made by SOI-qualified staff, FEMA shall complete the Section 106 review process by documenting this determination in the project file, without SHPO review or notification. 2. If the Undertaking involves a National Historic Landmark (NHL), FEMA shall notify the SHPO, participating Tribe(s), and the NPS NHL Program Manager of the NPS Midwest Regional Office that the Undertaking conforms to one or more allowances. FEMA shall provide information about the proposed scope of work for the Undertaking and the allowance(s) enabling FEMA’s determination. 3. If FEMA determines any portion of an Undertaking’s scope of work does not conform to one or more allowances listed in Appendix B, FEMA shall conduct expedited or standard Section 106 review, as appropriate, for the entire Undertaking in accordance with Stipulation II.B, Expedited Review for Emergency Undertakings, or Stipulation II.C, Standard Project Review. 4. Allowances may be revised and new allowances may be added to this Agreement in accordance with Stipulation IV.A.3, Amendments. B. Expedited Review for Emergency Undertakings

  • Program Review The State ECEAP Office will conduct a review of each contractor’s compliance with the ECEAP Contract and ECEAP Performance Standards every four years. The review will involve ECEAP staff and parents. After the Program Review, the State ECEAP Office will provide the contractor with a Program Review report. The contractor must submit an ECEAP Corrective Action Plan for non-compliance with ECEAP Performance Standards. The Plan must be approved by the State ECEAP Office.

  • Claims Review Population A description of the Population subject to the Claims Review.

  • Agreement Review If, pursuant to section 25.10 (Review of Agreement) of the Bilateral Agreement, the Bilateral Agreement is reviewed after three or five years, or both, of the effective date of the Bilateral Agreement, and any changes to the Bilateral Agreement are required as a result, the Parties agree to amend the Agreement as necessary and in a manner that is consistent with such changes.

  • ADB’s Review of Procurement Decisions 11. All contracts procured under international competitive bidding procedures and contracts for consulting services shall be subject to prior review by ADB, unless otherwise agreed between the Borrower and ADB and set forth in the Procurement Plan.

  • Review Protocol A narrative description of how the Claims Review was conducted and what was evaluated.

  • Project Steering Committee 1. For a sound implementation and management of the project, a steering committee shall be set up in line with provisions of the programme manual. 2. The steering committee is the decision-making body of the project and it shall be composed by representatives of the LP and all PPs duly authorised to represent the respective LP and PP institutions. It shall be chaired by the LP and it shall meet on a regular basis. Associated partners shall be invited to take part in the steering committee in an advisory capacity. External key stakeholders may also be invited to take part to one or more meetings in an observer/advisory capacity. 3. The steering committee shall at least: a. be responsible for monitoring and validating the implementation of the project and the achievement of the planned results as in the approved application form; b. perform the financial monitoring of the project implementation and to decide on any budget modifications as in § 11 of this agreement; c. monitor and manage deviations of the project implementation; d. decide on project modifications (e.g. partnership, budget, activities, and duration) if needed; e. be responsible for the settlement of any disputes within the partnership (as stipulated in § 22 of this agreement). 4. Further aspects, including the creation of sub-groups or task forces, may be set out in the rules of procedure of the steering committee.

  • Log Reviews All systems processing and/or storing PHI COUNTY discloses to 11 CONTRACTOR or CONTRACTOR creates, receives, maintains, or transmits on behalf of COUNTY 12 must have a routine procedure in place to review system logs for unauthorized access.

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