Standards for Evaluation. The contract resulting from this solicitation will be awarded based on the following evaluation factors:
Standards for Evaluation. The purpose of teacher evaluation is to improve the educational program in the District and to advance toward attainment of the District’s stated educational goals. The criteria to be used for evaluation shall relate specifically to the California Standards for the Teaching Profession and are set forth in Appendix D. The District agrees to use a “N/A” column in addition to the “Observed” and “Not Observed” columns on the Classroom Observation Form during the 2017-2018 school year. The District and JTA will edit the Classroom Observation Form before using it during the 2018-2019 school year and beyond.
Standards for Evaluation. A. Classroom teachers The fundamental basis for evaluation, and the foundation for summary evaluation, is the California Standards for the Teaching Profession (CSTP). These standards are to be applied in light of the duties and responsibilities contained in this CBA, job descriptions, school and district regulations specifically related to the unit member’s assignment, and specific responsibilities set forth in the School Plan, if applicable.
Standards for Evaluation. In the event that a deadline as prescribed in the negotiated agreement is missed by the evaluator, teachers and evaluator will proceed with evaluation as outlined for the purpose of coaching, and to improve the educational program and advancement toward attainment of District goals. In lieu of the Summary Evaluation Report and supporting documents, a written statement that the process and timeline had been violated by the district will be placed in the employee file. The purpose of teacher evaluation is to improve the educational program in the Johnstonville Elementary School District and to advance toward attainment of the District’s stated educational goals. The criteria to be used for evaluation shall relate specifically to the California Standards for the Teaching Profession and are set forth in Appendix B.
Standards for Evaluation. The California Standards for the Teaching Profession shall form the basis for the categories of evaluation of all certificated employees. In addition to the California Standards for the Teaching Profession, the Director of designee will evaluate each employee utilizing the Classroom Teacher Position Description (see Appendix B) and/or Arts Specialist Position Description (see Appendix B). If the Standards are updated, this Agreement shall automatically include the updated version of the Standards when released.
Standards for Evaluation. The Xxxxxxxxx Framework for Teaching shall form the basis for the categories of evaluation of all certificated employees. The Xxxxxxxxx Framework for Teaching, a research-based set of components of instruction, aligned to The Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (INTASC) standards, and grounded in a constructivist view of learning and teaching, shall form the basis for the categories of evaluation of all certificated employees. The Xxxxxxxxx Framework provides a common language to describe teaching practices and increases the value of the conversations that emerge from classroom observations by peers, coaches, supervisors and admin. For example, discussing "student engagement in learning" is more effective when everyone understands what this looks like in light of four elements: activities and assignments, grouping of students, instructional materials and resources, and structure and pacing. Conversations using this more specific language invite teachers to analyze their own practice and invite observers to inquire about the decisions a teacher has made in planning and executing a lesson. In addition to the Xxxxxxxxx Framework for Teaching , the Executive Director or designee will evaluate each employee utilizing the Classroom Teacher Position Description (see Appendix B) and/or Arts Specialist Position Description (see Appendix B). If the Xxxxxxxxx Framework for Teaching are updated, this Agreement shall automatically include the updated version of the Standards when released. Xxxxxxxxx Framework for Teaching Domains:
Standards for Evaluation. The articulation of DRC and Uganda’s human rights policy estab- lished a broad standard from which to assess future oil exploitation.137 Violations of advanced economic rights by either state should trigger a dialogue, if necessary with an intermediary party.138 Further violations and failure to redress prior violations where possible should incur sanc- tions, such as limitations on cooperative activities related to oil devel- opment.139 Yet, while the “violation” of certain economic rights is admi- rable in breadth, it begs the question of when a “violation” is deemed to occur.140 The 2007 Agreement could further tailor the threshold for a “violation” based on the findings of initial social impact assessments and risk analyses.141 131 See Grainger, supra note 8. 132 See Xxxx Xxxxxxxxxxxx Study, supra note 94, at v–viii. 133 See, e.g., World Bank Operational Manual, supra note 65, OP 4.12. 134 See IAG Report 2007, supra note 95, at 4–5. 135 See Inf. Crossroads, supra note 85, at 73. 136 See IAG Report 2007, supra note 95, at 5; Xxxx Xxxxxxxxxxxx Study, supra note 94, at v–viii. 137 See OHCHR, supra note 10, at 28. 138 See, e.g., 2000 Cotonou Agreement, supra note 99, art. 96. 139 See id. 140 See id. 141 See OHCHR, supra note 10, at 18.
Standards for Evaluation. The evaluator and employee shall discuss and agree on a date and time for the first observation visit, which shall be announced. The employee and evaluator shall sign and date the pre-evaluation orientation form.
Standards for Evaluation. The following standards will be used for evaluation of offers: Factor I (Technical) is significantly more important than Factor II (Past Performance), and Factor I (Technical) is significantly more important than Factor III (Price). Factor II (Past Performance) is significantly more important than Factor III (Price). Factors I and II (factors other than Price), when combined, are significantly more important than Factor III (Price). The Price factor becomes more important as the degree of equality of factors other than price increases, or when the price is so significantly high as to diminish the value of the technical superiority to the Government. The best value determination may result in the Government being willing to pay more for a higher past performance confidence rating. The evaluation factors for the award decision are listed below: FACTOR I - Technical FACTOR II - Past Performance FACTOR III - Price
