Annual Evaluation Process Clause Samples

Annual Evaluation Process. (a) The chair/supervisor shall provide to his/her department faculty the form or format for submission of a faculty member’s annual report no later than April 1. The student evaluations of classroom instruction shall be provided to the faculty member no later than May 15. (b) Each faculty member shall submit to his/her chair/supervisor the faculty member’s annual report no later than June 1. If a faculty member fails to provide his/her annual report by this date, his/her chair shall proceed to complete the faculty member’s annual evaluation without that information. (c) The chair/supervisor shall complete the annual evaluation taking into account the faculty member’s annual report and other sources of evaluative information referenced in Sections 18.2 through 18.4 above, and both the University’s criteria for annual evaluations and the department’s interpretations/clarifications referenced in Sections 18.6 and 18.7 above. (d) The chair’s/supervisor’s annual written evaluation, with an attached copy of the faculty member’s annual report and the annual assignment for the year being evaluated, shall be provided by e-mail to the faculty member no later than July 15. If the faculty member will be inaccessible by e-mail, that faculty member shall notify his/her chair in advance so that an alternative means of delivery can be identified. (1) The faculty member shall be offered the opportunity to discuss the evaluation with the evaluator prior to its being finalized and placed in the faculty member’s evaluation file. (2) The evaluation shall be signed and dated by the person performing the evaluation and by the person being evaluated who may attach a concise comment to the evaluation. A copy of the evaluation shall be provided to the faculty member. The faculty member may request, in writing, a meeting with an administrator at the next higher level to discuss concerns regarding the evaluation that were not resolved in previous discussions with the evaluator. (e) The chair/supervisor responsible for evaluating the faculty member shall provide the faculty member with written constructive feedback that is designed to assist the faculty member in improving his/her performance and expertise, and shall endeavor to identify any major performance deficiencies.
View SourceView Similar (17)
Annual Evaluation Process. (a) The chair/supervisor shall provide to his/her department faculty the form or format for submission of a faculty member’s annual evaluation portfolio no later than April 1. The student evaluations of classroom instruction shall be provided to the faculty member no later than May 15. (b) Each faculty member shall submit to his/her chair/supervisor the faculty member’s annual evaluation portfolio no later than June 1. If a faculty member fails to provide his/her annual evaluation portfolio by this date, his/her chair shall proceed to complete the faculty member’s annual evaluation without that information, unless the chair has extended the deadline based on extenuating circumstances that justify the extension.
View SourceView Similar (3)
Annual Evaluation Process. The annual evaluation assesses an employee’s performance of assigned duties consistent with the criteria specified in Section 18.5 and in departmental by- laws. (a) The annual evaluation shall be conducted in the Spring semester, and shall include evaluation of assigned duties for the Fall and Spring semesters of the current academic year and the preceding Summer terms, if the faculty member had an appointment in a summer term. (b) The chair shall provide to his/her department faculty the form or format for submission of a faculty member’s annual report no later than January 15. (c) Each faculty member shall submit to the chair the faculty member’s annual report no later than April 15. (d) Faculty committees or other individuals submitting evaluative data that may be relevant to the annual evaluation shall report to the chair no later than May 15. (e) The chair’s evaluation shall identify any major performance deficiencies and, if any such deficiency has been identified, shall provide the faculty member with written feedback designed to assist the faculty member in improving his/her performance. (f) No later than July 15 the chair shall provide to the faculty member the written annual evaluation, and shall attach to the annual evaluation a copy of the faculty member’s annual report. A faculty member may grieve an annual evaluation under the auspices of ARTICLE 28 any time after the date of presentation but no later than August 31. (1) The faculty member shall be offered the opportunity to discuss the evaluation with the evaluator prior to its being finalized. (2) The evaluation shall be signed and dated by the person performing the 1736 1737 1738 1739 1740 1741 1742 1743 1744 1745 1746 1747 1748 1749 1750 1751 1752 1753 1754 1755 1756 1757 1758 1759 1760 1761 1762 1763 1764 1765 1766 1767 1768 1769 1770 1771 1772 1773 1774 1775 1776 1777 1778 1779 evaluation and by the faculty member being evaluated, who may attach a concise comment to the evaluation. (g) The above deadlines do not apply to P.
View SourceView Similar (2)
Annual Evaluation Process. All departments will follow the university procedures and timeline for annual evaluations. Faculty will submit evaluation materials to their department chair electronically (ACRES). Submissions in ACRES will detail the faculty member's performance over the annual evaluation period in relation to teaching, service, and scholarship (if applicable) and should provide compelling evidence of the quantity, quality and impact of the faculty member's performance and progress toward tenure and/or promotion (if applicable) and progress on established goals. Materials to be submitted include: (1) a statement of contributions with appendices detailing productivity in designated areas; (2) a current curriculum vitae with those items added since the last evaluation highlighted; and (3) accompanying materials supporting claims made in the statement of contributions (e.g., student assessment of instruction, published works). It is the responsibility of the faculty member to present supporting materials that provide compelling and convincing evidence of having met the specified criteria for the self-rating in each of the designated areas of responsibility for the respective faculty member (i.e., teaching, service, and scholarship when included in assignment). Note that the performance indicators listed below are intended to be illustrative and not exhaustive. The process of assessing productivity and the relative value of individual products should be attentive to discipline specifics, emerging trends, and new technologies. Instructors should reference the criteria for teaching and service found in the SOE Statement on Teaching and Statement on Service. Tenure-earning faculty should also reference the criteria for teaching, scholarship, and service found in the SOE Statement on Teaching, Creative and Scholarly Projects, and Service. It is the responsibility of the individual faculty member to provide sufficient data and/or explanation of qualitative and/or quantitative evidence to clarify and warrant the weight/impact that should be afforded to a particular piece of evidence. Faculty should refer to the key indicators for a performance rating of “Meets Expectations” listed below to determine evidence to present. The decision to recommend tenure/promotion is based upon a pattern of sustained performance of “Meets Expectations” as indicated by annual evaluations. Faculty are expected to provide evidence for a rating of “Meets Expectations” and only those with exemplary perfo...
View SourceView Similar (2)

Related to Annual Evaluation Process

  • Annual Evaluation The Partnership will be evaluated on an annual basis through the use of the Strategic Partnership Annual Evaluation Format as specified in Appendix C of OSHA Instruction CSP ▇▇-▇▇-▇▇▇, OSHA Strategic Partnership Program for Worker Safety and Health. The Choate Team will be responsible for gathering required participant data to evaluate and track the overall results and success of the Partnership. This data will be shared with OSHA. OSHA will be responsible for writing and submitting the annual evaluation.

  • 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.

  • Annual Evaluations The purpose of the annual evaluation is to assess and communicate the nature and extent of an employee's performance of assigned duties consistent with the criteria specified below in this Policy. Except for those employees who have received notice of non-reappointment pursuant to the BOT- UFF Policy on Non- reappointment, every employee shall be evaluated at least once annually. Personnel decisions shall take such annual evaluations into account, provided that such decisions need not be based solely on written faculty performance evaluations.

  • 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. (b) The technical evaluation committee may call the responsive bidders for discussion or presentation to facilitate and assess their understanding of the scope of work and its execution. However, the committee shall have sole discretion to call for discussion / presentation. (c) Financial bids of only those bidders who qualify the technical criteria will be opened provided all other requirements are fulfilled. (d) AIIMS Jodhpur shall have right to accept or reject any or all tenders without assigning any reasons thereof.

  • 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.