Non Tenure Track Faculty Evaluation Sample Clauses

Non Tenure Track Faculty Evaluation. A. All non tenure track faculty who are employed at .50 FTE or more will be evaluated annually by the Division chairs with recommendations forwarded to the respective Xxxx and filed with the Xxxxxxx’x office. B. As part of the initial job appointment, each non tenure track faculty member will receive, upon request, a copy of the current Collective Bargaining Agreement from the Xxxxxxx’x Office which describes all necessary details regarding evaluation procedures and expectations. The Collective Bargaining Agreement is available via the WOU Xxxxxxx’x website. C. The Division Chair shall be responsible for assisting each non tenure track faculty members in answering questions regarding the expectations and procedures related to evaluation and help the faculty member avail themselves of resources available to help them acclimate to the University. D. For non tenure track faculty, the annual evaluation shall be based on: 1. A classroom observation and post conference conducted by the Division Chair or his/her designee and
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs
Non Tenure Track Faculty Evaluation. A. All non tenure track faculty who are employed at .50 FTE or more will be evaluated annually by the Division Chairs with recommendations forwarded to the respective Xxxx and filed with the Xxxxxxx’x office. B. As part of the initial job appointment, each non tenure track faculty member will receive a copy of the current Collective Bargaining Agreement from the Xxxxxxx’x Office which describes all necessary details regarding evaluation procedures and expectations. C. The Division Chair shall be responsible for assisting each non tenure track faculty in answering questions regarding the expectations and procedures related to evaluation and help the faculty member avail themselves of resources available to help them acclimate to the University. D. For non tenure track faculty, the annual evaluation shall be based on: 1. A classroom observation and post conference conducted by the Division Chair or his/her designee and
Non Tenure Track Faculty Evaluation. A. All non-tenure track faculty who are employed at .50 FTE or more will be evaluated pursuant to Part D below by the Division chairs with recommendations forwarded to the respective Xxxx and filed with the Xxxxxxx’x office. B. As part of the initial job appointment, each non-tenure track faculty member will receive, upon request, a copy of the current Collective Bargaining Agreement from the Xxxxxxx’x Office which describes all necessary details regarding evaluation procedures and expectations. The Collective Bargaining Agreement is available via the WOU Xxxxxxx’x website. C. The Division Chair shall be responsible for assisting each non-tenure track faculty members in answering questions regarding the expectations and procedures related to evaluation and help the faculty member avail themselves of resources available to help them acclimate to the University. D. For non-tenure track faculty, the annual evaluation shall be based on: 1. The most recent classroom observation conducted by the division chair or his/her designee pursuant to Part 3 below, and 2. An Annual Faculty Report compiled by the non-tenure track faculty member and due to the Division Chair no later than June 30th that includes the following components: a. Data from the mutually agreed upon student course evaluation instrument (SCEI), provided by the University, and b. A summary of accomplishments for the year that addresses the non-tenure track faculty’s primary work assignments and future goals. 3. Classroom observation for non-tenure track faculty will be completed: a. Prior to the completion of contracts of one year or shorter duration, b. In the final year of their contracts for faculty members on multi-year contracts, c. Annually at the request of faculty members on multi-year contracts, in which case the division chair or his/her designee will complete the observation, d. As deemed necessary by the division chair. E. The results of the Division Chair’s evaluation for non-tenure track faculty members shall be considered in determining continued employment within the University.

Related to Non Tenure Track Faculty Evaluation

  • MANAGEMENT OF EVALUATION OUTCOMES 12.1 Where the Employer is, any time during the Employee’s employment, not satisfied with the Employee’s performance with respect to any matter dealt with in this Agreement, the Employer will give notice to the Employee to attend a meeting; 12.2 The Employee will have the opportunity at the meeting to satisfy the Employer of the measures being taken to ensure that his performance becomes satisfactory and any programme, including any dates, for implementing these measures; 12.3 Where there is a dispute or difference as to the performance of the Employee under this Agreement, the Parties will confer with a view to resolving the dispute or difference; and 12.4 In the case of unacceptable performance, the Employer shall – 12.4.1 Provide systematic remedial or developmental support to assist the Employee to improve his performance; and 12.4.2 After appropriate performance counselling and having provided the necessary guidance and/or support as well as reasonable time for improvement in performance, the Employer may consider steps to terminate the contract of employment of the Employee on grounds of unfitness or incapacity to carry out his or her duties.

  • 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.

  • FALSE STATEMENTS CONCERNING HIGHWAY PROJECTS T h i s p r o v i s i o n i s applicable to all Federal-aid construction contracts and to all related subcontracts. In order to assure high quality and durable construction in conformity with approved plans and specifications and a high degree of reliability on statements and representations made by engineers, contractors, suppliers, and workers on Federal- aid highway projects, it is essential that all persons concerned with the project perform their functions as carefully, thoroughly, and honestly as possible. Willful falsification, distortion, or misrepresentation with respect to any facts related to the project is a violation of Federal law. To prevent any misunderstanding regarding the seriousness of these and similar acts, Form FHWA-1022 shall be posted on each Federal-aid highway project (23 CFR 635) in one or more places where it is readily available to all persons concerned with the project: 18 U.S.C. 1020 reads as follows: "Whoever, being an officer, agent, or employee of the United States, or of any State or Territory, or whoever, whether a person, association, firm, or corporation, knowingly makes any false statement, false representation, or false report as to the character, quality, quantity, or cost of the material used or to be used, or the quantity or quality of the work performed or to be performed, or the cost thereof in connection with the submission of plans, maps, specifications, contracts, or costs of construction on any highway or related project submitted for approval to the Secretary of Transportation; or Whoever knowingly makes any false statement, false representation, false report or false claim with respect to the character, quality, quantity, or cost of any work performed or to be performed, or materials furnished or to be furnished, in connection with the construction of any highway or related project approved by the Secretary of Transportation; or Whoever knowingly makes any false statement or false representation as to material fact in any statement, certificate, or report submitted pursuant to provisions of the Federal-aid Roads Act approved July 1, 1916, (39 Stat. 355), as amended and supplemented; Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years or both."

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Self-Evaluation Each regular faculty member shall provide a self-evaluation. It shall address, among other items, the faculty member's fulfillment of professional responsibilities as referenced in Section 18.2.3 and an assessment of his or her own performance. The faculty member will share the self-evaluation with the Faculty Evaluation Committee and the first-level manager or designee. The self-evaluation will become part of the evaluation report.

  • 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.

  • Student Evaluations Student evaluations shall be completed by the end of the 12th week of the Fall semester.

  • 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.

  • EMPLOYEE EVALUATIONS 6.1 Administrators will meet with new employees to discuss their job description within one (1) month of hire. The Administrator and new employee will sign off on the job description and it will be forwarded to the Human Resources Department for inclusion in the employee‘s personnel file. The Human Resources Department will compile and distribute a list showing each employee‘s evaluator prior to November 1st of each year. Bargaining unit job descriptions will be made available via the District‘s web site. 6.2 Evaluations will transpire as follows for employees that are receiving satisfactory ratings: a. New hires—regular part-time (school year employees) will be evaluated at three (3) and six (6) working months. b. New hires—full time (12 month employees) will be evaluated at three (3), six (6) and twelve (12) months. c. After the initial year of employment, each employee shall be evaluated at least once annually by March 31st. 6.3 Criteria for evaluating bargaining unit members will be based on the performance categories outlined on the evaluation form as related to the job description of their specific position assignment. 6.4 Evaluation reports shall include feedback regarding strengths and weaknesses (if any) demonstrated by the employee. Prior to an employee receiving a rating less than “Meets Expectations,” the employee shall be advised of the performance concern and provided with a clear statement of any deficiency and a statement defining acceptable performance. This shall occur within a reasonable time prior to the final evaluation to allow the employee a chance to demonstrate improvement. 6.5 In the event an employee is evaluated overall as “Does Not Meet Expectations,” the district, in consultation with the employee and the Association, will provide the employee a written plan of improvement (See Employee Plan of Improvement form in Appendix). The plan shall clearly define all areas of deficiency, provide clear and attainable performance goals, and outline supports (if any) to be given, including any necessary training at the District’s expense. The employee will be given a reasonable amount of time, not to exceed sixty (60) working days, to meet job performance expectations. During the improvement period, feedback will be provided through a minimum of three scheduled meetings. Following the completion of the plan, the supervisor shall notify the employee in writing of the outcome. Failure to demonstrate satisfactory improvement may constitute grounds for termination. 6.6 The bargaining unit member shall be given a copy of their evaluation, and any data collection sheets (with the submitters name excluded) used in the evaluation. 6.7 Under the law there is no right to Association Representation at evaluation conferences. 6.8 Any information shared with the evaluating administrator for the evaluation process shall be recorded on Data Collection Sheet(s), with the exception of those unit members that have supervising teachers. Supervising teachers will work directly with the evaluating administrator to share performance information for inclusion in the unit member‘s evaluation. 6.9 Employees shall have the right to respond to evaluations in writing. Such written response shall be attached to the evaluation if received within 5 days. 6.10 No bargaining unit member shall be required to sign a blank or incomplete evaluation form.

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