Selection of peer evaluator Sample Clauses

Selection of peer evaluator. 1. A tenured peer evaluator (any faculty member who has completed a District and BCEA sponsored in-service training session specifically designed for peer evaluation—the evaluatee is encouraged to select a peer from within his/her department) will be selected by mutual agreement between the evaluatee and area xxxx or other administrator as designated. In those cases where mutual agreement cannot be reached, the evaluatee and appropriate administrator will each select three faculty names. Each will then cross off one name from the list leaving four names. The remaining names will then be placed in an appropriate container. The evaluatee will then draw from the container. The name drawn will be the peer evaluator. A faculty member if asked is obligated to participate in at least one peer evaluation every two years.
Sample 1
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs
Selection of peer evaluator. 1. A tenured peer evaluator (any faculty member who has completed a District and BCEA sponsored in-service training session specifically designed for peer evaluation) will be selected by mutual agreement between the evaluatee and appropriate xxxx or other appropriate administrator. In those cases where mutual agreement cannot be reached the evaluatee and appropriate administrator will each select three faculty names. Each will then cross off one name from the list leaving four names. The remaining names will then be placed in an appropriate container. The evaluatee will then draw from the container. The name drawn will be the peer evaluator. A faculty member if asked is obligated to participate in at least one peer evaluation every two years.
Sample 1

Related to Selection of peer evaluator

  • 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.

  • Timing of Evaluations Annual performance evaluations shall normally take place near the anniversary date of completion of original probation. However, as to employees who have been rehired as a restoration or after a reduction in force, the date of rehire shall be the anniversary date for the annual evaluation. The Human Resources Department will attempt to secure agency cooperation in conducting the evaluation process in reasonable relationship to the above schedule. Failure to conduct a timely annual rating shall not be grievable. Deadline for Evaluation Meetings: A meeting to discuss an evaluation shall be held within forty- five (45) days after the applicable anniversary date, or after the end of any prescriptive period for remediation (“PPR”) or warning period. This deadline may be extended to accommodate the employee’s illness or injury. Where the deadline is not satisfied, the employee shall be granted an annual overall presumptive rating equal to their last annual overall rating, but not less than a Satisfactory (“S”) rating. However, if the time for annual evaluation falls during a PPR or warning period (See Disciplinary Action 14, Section 1(e), 2 & 3, the annual evaluation shall be waived, and the last evaluation in such process shall be deemed to be the annual evaluation. In the event the time for annual evaluation falls subsequent to the issuance of a notice of performance deficiency (Step 1) but prior to the commencement of a PPR, the employer may issue an evaluation which does not supersede the previously issued notice. A special evaluation may be used at any time except it shall not be used as a late annual evaluation. Written feedback furnished to an employee which would have constituted the annual evaluation had it been timely conducted, shall not be considered as an evaluation, shall not be placed in the employee’s file at the time of issuance, shall not be grievable and does not require the presence of a union representative when issued. An oral or written notice of performance deficiency (Step 1 in the order of progressive corrective action) shall not be grievable when issued, and, when issued, shall not require the presence of a union representative. However, once Step 2 of progressive corrective action has been implemented (a special or annual evaluation coupled with a PPR) such notice or a written record of such notice shall be placed in the employee’s personnel file and shall be fully grievable.

  • Finalization of Evaluation A Written Report 1 Before the evaluation cycle is final, and not later than May 10, a copy of the formal written evaluation report shall be given to the teacher and a conference shall be held between the teacher and the evaluator.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Administrative Evaluation It is the intent of the SCD administration to conduct evaluations of non-priority- hire faculty as early as possible in a faculty member's employment in an SCD instructional unit. Administrative evaluation should occur before the beginning of the fifth quarter within the nine (9) out of twelve (12) quarter sequence outlined in Article 10.7.a.

  • TEACHER EVALUATION A. All monitoring or observation of the work performance of a teacher shall be conducted openly and with full knowledge of the teacher.

  • Purpose of Educator Evaluation A) This contract language is locally negotiated and based on M.G.L., c.71, § 38; M.G.L. c.150E; the Educator Evaluation regulations, 603 CMR 35.00 et seq.; and the Model System for Educator Evaluation developed and which may be updated from time to time by the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. See 603 CMR 35.02 (definition of model system). In the event of a conflict between this collective bargaining agreement and the governing laws and regulations, the laws and regulations will prevail.

  • Criteria for Evaluation Criteria for employee performance review shall be made available to the employee before the start of the evaluation period and shall remain unchanged during the evaluation period unless the employee is made aware of the changes.

  • 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.

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