Shared Decision-Making Model Sample Clauses

Shared Decision-Making Model. A. Each school participating in Shared Decision Making will be required to establish a clear decision-making structure (SDM Council) that will systematically involve all segments of the school community. It is at the discretion of each participating site to determine the relationship of this shared decision-making structure to the School Advisory Council required by Florida Statutes.
Sample 1Sample 2Sample 3See All (7)
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs
Shared Decision-Making Model. Shared decision-making is a process in which a variety of members of the school community collaborate, where appropriate, in identifying problems, defining goals, formulating policy, shaping direction, ensuring implementation, and evaluating the impact of their decisions. Those individuals who are responsible for the implementation of a decision at the building level or district level are actively and legitimately involved in making the decisions. Shared decision-making groups are responsible and accountable for their decisions. All participants in any District/Building Leadership positions will participate in training in the shared decision-making process and the roles and responsibilities of serving on that committee. It is our intent that all licensed staff, administrators, and Board members will be provided with opportunities for training in the shared decision-making process on a bi-annual basis. There are many shared-decision making bodies in CCSD93. Some of them include: DLT, BLT, Curriculum Committees, Insurance Committee, Professional Development Committee, and the Evaluation Committee. The building’s decision-making body is the Building Leadership Team. Each building will have a Building Leadership Team comprised of administrators, staff members, and parents/community members. The District will operate the District Leadership Team, which will be comprised of membership from the Building Leadership Teams, Association leaders, Board of Education members, and district-level administrators. The structure and roles of these two groups are defined in the document entitled "Shared Decision- Making Structures in District 93." A stipend will be provided for licensed staff that serve on the BLT. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Recognition 3 Article I - Responsibilities and Rights 4 Article II - Fringe Benefits 5 Section A - Lane Movement 5 Section B - Insurance 6
Sample 1Sample 2Sample 3
Shared Decision-Making Model. Each school participating in Shared Decision Making will be required to establish a clear decision-making structure (SDM Council) that will systematically involve all segments of the school community. It is at the discretion of each participating site to determine the relationship of this shared decision-making structure to the School Advisory Council required by Florida Statutes. A site may choose to involve the SDM Council in the school improvement planning, monitoring, and evaluation functions of the School Advisory Council as well as to serve as the day-to-day decision making structure for the site, or it may choose to have the SAC exclusively involved with the school improvement planning, monitoring, and evaluation process. It is suggested that the composition of the SDM Council be no fewer than seven (7) and no more than eleven (11) members. At sites with fewer than twenty-five (25) employees, the composition of the Council may be fewer than seven (7) members. The composition of the Council shall reflect the racial/ethnic makeup of the school community. Members shall be elected to the Council by secret ballot after the site determines the makeup of the Council. After the Council is formed, it should elect a chairperson and recorder from its members. All SDM Councils shall: Include the Lead LCTA Faculty Representative or his/her designee. Participate in training prior to implementation and on an on-going basis. Include support staff. Provide a fair process for resolving conflicts with consensus decision-making recommended. In the absence of a “sufficient consensus” among SDM Council members, the site administrator is empowered to make an “interim decision” while the Council works to resolve its impasse. The site administrator will continue to be responsible for carrying out the duties entrusted to him/her under state statute and School Board policy, implementing decisions, coordinating day-to-day operations, and responding to emergencies. Prepare an initial brief plan (reviewed and revised annually) which includes: A mission statement aligned with the District’s mission statement, defining the SDM Council’s purpose as seen by its members. A description of area(s) with which the Shared Decision-Making Council will deal. These may include, but not be limited to, instructional matters, school policies, personnel matters, and budgetary matters. The role of the site administrator in the Shared Decision-Making process. The SDM Council’s relationship to the ...
Sample 1

Related to Shared Decision-Making Model

  • Shared Decision Making 33-1 Purpose The purpose of a shared decision making program is to create an atmosphere in which decision making is a collegial, shared, process that fosters an exchange of ideas and information necessary for effective professional practice and for improved student performance. The Association and District agree to continue pursuing jointly the implementation of legitimately recognized school councils as a foundation of a shared decision-making program. All provisions of this Agreement shall continue to be in full force and effect throughout the process.

  • SITE-BASED DECISION MAKING A. The District shall provide the training and staff development to support accountability/site- based decision-making activities. Teachers shall be given release time to attend these programs.

  • Decision Making The JDC shall make decisions unanimously, with each Party’s representatives collectively having one (1) vote and at least one (1) representative from each Party participating in such decision. In the event the JDC determines that it cannot reach an agreement regarding a decision within the JDC’s authority, then, within *** Business Days after such determination: (a) for any matter that is not a Critical Issue *** shall have the final decision making authority on such matter; and (b) for any matter that is a Critical Issue, the matter shall be referred to FivePrime’s Chief Executive Officer (or designee) and HGS’ Chief Executive Officer (or designee) for resolution. If such executives cannot resolve the matter within *** Business Days, then the Chief Executive Officer of *** (or designee) shall have the final decision making authority on such matter. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Development Plan shall not be amended, without FivePrime’s prior written approval (which approval may be withheld in FivePrime’s sole discretion), to: (i) increase or materially change the nature of FivePrime-Conducted Trials or Other FivePrime-Conducted Activities; or (ii) require FivePrime to continue any FivePrime-Conducted Trial if FivePrime, in its reasonable judgment, decides not to continue such trial for any business, scientific, safety, efficacy, enrollment or ethical reason, provided that, in the event FivePrime so decides to discontinue such trial, HGS shall have no further obligation to reimburse FivePrime under Section 4.2(d) except with respect to costs *** INDICATES MATERIAL THAT WAS OMITTED AND FOR WHICH CONFIDENTIAL TREATMENT WAS REQUESTED. ALL SUCH OMITTED MATERIAL WAS FILED SEPARATELY WITH THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION PURSUANT TO RULE 406 PROMULGATED UNDER THE SECURITIES ACT OF 1933, AS AMENDED. already incurred by FivePrime prior to such discontinuation and any and all standard close out costs incurred thereafter, and HGS shall have the right to continue such trial by itself at its expense. When *** make a final determination under this Section 3.4, that final determination must be consistent with the terms of this Agreement.

  • Initial Decision Maker The Architect will serve as the Initial Decision Maker pursuant to Article 15 of AIA Document A201–2017, unless the parties appoint below another individual, not a party to this Agreement, to serve as the Initial Decision Maker. (If the parties mutually agree, insert the name, address and other contact information of the Initial Decision Maker, if other than the Architect.) « » « » « » « »

  • Hiring Decisions Contractor shall make the final determination of whether an Economically Disadvantaged Individual referred by the System is "qualified" for the position.

  • Shared Governance The parties shall develop a variety of shared governance models which schools may consider. Schools shall select a model that best suits their needs or the staff may develop an alternative model of governance with direct involvement by teachers, other staff and community representatives. Staff approval and commitment to the model is essential. The selected model of governance will be specifically described in each school's improvement plan.

  • Alternative Resolution Methods Any time during the grievance process, by mutual consent, the parties may use alternative methods to resolve the dispute. If the parties agree to use alternative methods, the time frames in this Article are suspended. If the selected alternative method does not result in a resolution, the Union may return to the grievance process and the time frames resume. Any expenses and fees of alternative methods will be shared equally by the parties.

  • Standard of Review The Parties acknowledge and agree that the standard of review for any avoidance, breach, rejection, termination or other cessation of performance of or changes to any portion of this integrated, non-severable Agreement (as described in Section 22) over which FERC has jurisdiction, whether proposed by Seller, by Buyer, by a non-party of, by FERC acting sua sponte shall be the “public interest” standard of review set forth in United Gas Pipe Line Co. v.

  • Automated decisions For purposes hereof “automated decision” shall mean a decision by the data exporter or the data importer which produces legal effects concerning a data subject or significantly affects a data subject and which is based solely on automated processing of personal data intended to evaluate certain personal aspects relating to him, such as his performance at work, creditworthiness, reliability, conduct, etc. The data importer shall not make any automated decisions concerning data subjects, except when:

  • Power Factor Design Criteria Developer shall design the Large Generating Facility to maintain an effective power delivery at demonstrated maximum net capability at the Point of Interconnection at a power factor within the range established by the Connecting Transmission Owner on a comparable basis, until NYISO has established different requirements that apply to all generators in the New York Control Area on a comparable basis. The Developer shall design and maintain the plant auxiliary systems to operate safely throughout the entire real and reactive power design range. The Connecting Transmission Owner shall not unreasonably restrict or condition the reactive power production or absorption of the Large Generating Facility in accordance with Good Utility Practice.

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