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.
Evaluation Process A. The immediate supervisor will meet with an employee at the start of the employee’s probationary, trial services, transition, and annual review period to discuss performance expectations. The employee will receive copies of their performance expectations as well as notification of any modifications made during the review period. Employee work performance will be evaluated during probationary, trial service and transition review periods and at least annually thereafter. Notification will be given to a probationary or trial service employee whose work performance is determined to be unsatisfactory.
Promotion Procedure The rate of pay of an employee promoted shall be established in the new pay range at the nearest step which exceeds the existing rate by at least five (5) percent, but shall not exceed the maximum of that pay range except that whenever the rate of pay prior to promotion is above the maximum of the pay range established for the position to which the employee is being promoted, the present rate shall be retained.
Annual Production Program document describing the forecasts for Production and handling of Oil, Gas, water, special fluids, and waste arising from the Production process of each Development Area or Field.
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.
Escalation Process 9.1. There will be times when the pharmacist will need additional advice or will need to escalate the patient to a higher acuity care location (e.g. back to their GP or an Urgent Treatment Centre or A&E).
Selection Process The Mortgage Loans were selected from among the outstanding one- to four-family mortgage loans in the Seller's portfolio at the related Closing Date as to which the representations and warranties set forth in Subsection 9.02 could be made and such selection was not made in a manner so as to affect adversely the interests of the Purchaser;
Using Student feedback in Educator Evaluation ESE will provide model contract language, direction and guidance on using student feedback in Educator Evaluation by June 30, 2013. Upon receiving this model contract language, direction and guidance, the parties agree to bargain with respect to this matter.
Negotiation Process (a) If either the Chief Executive Officer of ICANN (“CEO”) or the Chairperson of the Registry Stakeholder Group (“Chair”) desires to discuss any revision(s) to this Agreement, the CEO or Chair, as applicable, shall provide written notice to the other person, which shall set forth in reasonable detail the proposed revisions to this Agreement (a “Negotiation Notice”). Notwithstanding the foregoing, neither the CEO nor the Chair may
Review and Selection Process The Project Narratives of SAMHSA applications are peer-reviewed according to the evaluation criteria listed above. Decisions to fund a grant are based on the strengths and weaknesses of the application as identified by peer reviewers. The results of the peer review are advisory in nature. The program office and approving official make the final determination for funding based on the following: • Individual awards over $250,000 are approved by the Center for Mental Health Services National Advisory Council; • Availability of funds; • Equitable distribution of awards in terms of geography (including urban, rural, and remote settings) and balance among populations of focus and program size; • Submission of any required documentation that must be submitted prior to making an award; and • SAMHSA is required to review and consider any information about your organization that is in the Federal Award Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS). In accordance with 45 CFR 75.212, SAMHSA reserves the right not to make an award to an entity if that entity does not meet the minimum qualification standards as described in section 75.205(a)(2). If SAMHSA chooses not to award a fundable application in accordance with 45 CFR 75.205(a)(2), SAMHSA must report that determination to the designated integrity and performance system accessible through the System for Award Management (XXX) [currently, FAPIIS]. You may review and comment on any information about your organization that a federal awarding agency previously entered. XXXXXX will consider your comments, in addition to other information in FAPIIS in making a judgment about your organization’s integrity, business ethics, and record of performance under federal awards when completing the review of risk posed as described in 45 CFR 75.205 HHS Awarding Agency Review of Risk by Applicants.
