Common use of Peer Intervention Process Clause in Contracts

Peer Intervention Process. a. Peer intervention based upon Student Evaluation of Teacher forms shall be considered only after a Peer Mentor Committee has noted performance concerns for two consecutive semesters. b. Intervention strategies to improve teacher performance shall be developed by the Peer Mentor Committee, with the participation of the teacher, and shall include observations of performance by the Peer Mentor Committee. c. The Peer Mentor Committee shall develop methods of evaluating the success of intervention strategies. d. Should a teacher contend that the intervention of the Peer Mentor Committee is unwarranted or that its proposed strategies for improved performance are inappropriate, the teacher may appeal such matters to the teacher’s Department/Division. e. Should a teacher refuse to participate in the Peer Mentor Committee’s Intervention Program following an unsuccessful appeal to the teacher’s Department/Division, the teacher’s name shall be forwarded to the College Administration, with a recommendation that the Administration observe and evaluate the teacher’s performance. f. Should the Peer Mentor Committee determine the teacher’s performance remains unsatisfactory following the teacher’s participation in the Intervention Program, the teacher’s name shall be forwarded to the College Administration, with a recommendation that the Administration observe and evaluate the teacher’s performance. The Peer Mentor Committee’s determination of unsatisfactory performance may be appealed to the teacher’s Department/Division. g. A member of a Peer Mentor Committee shall not participate in the review of that member’s own evaluation forms once the identity of the teacher is made known to the Committee. A teacher shall not serve on a Peer Mentor Committee while the subject of Peer Mentor intervention.

Peer Intervention Process. a. Peer intervention based upon Student Evaluation of Teacher forms shall be considered only after a Peer Mentor Committee has noted performance concerns for two consecutive semesters. b. Intervention strategies to improve teacher performance shall be developed by the Peer Mentor Committee, with the participation of the teacher, and shall include observations of performance by the Peer Mentor Committee. c. The Peer Mentor Committee shall develop methods of evaluating the success of intervention strategies. d. Should a teacher contend that the intervention of the Peer Mentor Committee is unwarranted or that its proposed strategies for improved performance are inappropriate, the teacher may appeal such matters to the teacher’s Department/Division. e. Should a teacher refuse to participate in the Peer Mentor Committee’s Intervention Program following an unsuccessful appeal to the teacher’s Department/Division, the teacher’s name shall be forwarded to the College Administration, with a recommendation that the Administration observe and evaluate the teacher’s performance.’s f. Should the Peer Mentor Committee determine the teacher’s performance remains unsatisfactory following the teacher’s participation in the Intervention Program, the teacher’s name shall be forwarded to the College Administration, with a recommendation that the Administration observe and evaluate the teacher’s performance. The Peer Mentor Committee’s determination of unsatisfactory performance may be appealed to the teacher’s Department/Division. g. A member of a Peer Mentor Committee shall not participate in the review of that member’s own evaluation forms once the identity of the teacher is made known to the Committee. A teacher shall not serve on a Peer Mentor Committee while the subject of Peer Mentor intervention.

Peer Intervention Process. a. Peer intervention based upon Student Evaluation of Teacher forms shall be considered only after a Peer Mentor Committee has noted performance concerns for two consecutive semesters. b. Intervention strategies to improve teacher performance shall be developed by the Peer Mentor Committee, with the participation of the teacher, and shall include observations of performance by the Peer Mentor Committee. c. The Peer Mentor Committee shall develop methods of evaluating the success of intervention strategies. d. Should a teacher contend that the intervention of the Peer Mentor Committee is unwarranted or that its proposed strategies for improved performance are inappropriate, the teacher may appeal such matters to the teacher’s Departmentdepartment/Divisiondivision. e. Should a teacher refuse to participate in the Peer Mentor Committee’s Intervention Program following an unsuccessful appeal to the teacher’s Departmentdepartment/Divisiondivision, the teacher’s name shall be forwarded to the College Administration, with a recommendation that the Administration observe and evaluate the teacher’s performance. f. Should the Peer Mentor Committee determine the teacher’s performance remains unsatisfactory following the teacher’s participation in the Intervention Program, the teacher’s name shall be forwarded to the College Administration, with a recommendation that the Administration observe and evaluate the teacher’s performance. The Peer Mentor Committee’s determination of unsatisfactory performance may be appealed to the teacher’s Departmentdepartment/Divisiondivision. g. A member of a Peer Mentor Committee shall not participate in the review of that member’s own evaluation forms once the identity of the teacher is made known to the Committee. A teacher shall not serve on a Peer Mentor Committee while the subject of Peer Mentor intervention.