Evaluation Cycle: Self-Assessment Clause Samples

Evaluation Cycle: Self-Assessment. A. Completing the Self-Assessment i. The evaluation cycle begins with the Educator completing and submitting to the Evaluator a self- assessment by October 15th or within four weeks of the start of his/her employment at the school ii. The self-assessment includes:  An analysis of evidence of student learning, growth and achievement for students under the Educator’s responsibility.  An assessment of practice against each of the four Performance Standards of effective practice using the district’s rubric.  Proposed goals to pursue: o At least one goal directly related to improving the Educator’s own professional practice. o At least one goal directed related to improving student learning. B. Proposing the goals i. Educators may consider goals for grade-level, subject-area, department teams, or other groups of Educators who share responsibility for student learning and results, except as provided in (ii) below. Educators may meet with teams to consider establishing team goals. Evaluators may participate in such meetings. ii. For Educators in their first year of practice, the Evaluator or his/her designee will meet with each Educator by October 1 (or within four weeks of the Educator’s first day of employment if the Educator begins employment after September 15 and providing that the Educator has been provided with the professional development referenced in 5 (A) ) to assist the Educator in completing the self-assessment and drafting the professional practice and student learning goals which must include induction and mentoring activities. iii. Unless the Evaluator indicates that an Educator in his/her second or third years of practice should continue to address induction and mentoring goals pursuant to 603 CMR 7.12, the Educator may propose team goals. iv. For Educators with PTS and ratings of proficient or exemplary, the goals may be team goals. In addition, these Educators may include individual professional practice goals that address enhancing skills that enable the Educator to share proficient practices with colleagues or develop leadership skills. v. For Educators with PTS and ratings of needs improvement or unsatisfactory, the professional practice goal(s) must address specific standards and indicators identified for improvement. In addition, the goals may address shared grade level, subject area or department team goals.
View SourceView Similar (5)
Evaluation Cycle: Self-Assessment. A. Completing the Self-Assessment i. The evaluation cycle begins with the Educator completing and submitting to the Evaluator a self-assessment by October 1st or within four weeks of the start of his/her employment at the school. ii. The self-assessment includes:  An analysis of evidence of student learning, growth, and achievement for students under the Educator’s responsibility.  An assessment of practice against each of the four Performance Standards of effective practice using the district’s rubrics.  Proposed goals to pursue: o At least one goal directly related to improving the Educator’s own professional practice. o At least one goal directed related to improving student learning. B. Proposing the goals i. Educators must consider goals for grade-level, subject-area, department teams, or other groups of Educators who share responsibility for student learning and results, except as provided in (ii) below. Educators may meet with teams to consider establishing team goals. Evaluators may participate in such meetings. ii. For Educators in their first year of practice, the Evaluator or his/her designee will meet with each Educator by October 1st (or within four weeks of the Educator’s first day of employment if the Educator begins employment after September 15th) to assist the Educator in completing the self-assessment and drafting the professional practice and student learning goals, which must include induction and mentoring activities. iii. Unless the Evaluator indicates that an Educator in his/her second or third years of practice should continue to address induction and mentoring goals pursuant to 603 CMR 7.12, the Educator may propose team goals. iv. For Educators with PTS and ratings of proficient or exemplary, the goals may be team goals. In addition, these Educators may include individual professional practice goals that address enhancing skills that enable the Educator to share proficient practices with colleagues or develop leadership skills. v. For Educators with PTS and ratings of needs improvement or unsatisfactory, the professional practice goal(s) must address specific standards and indicators identified for improvement. In addition, the goals may address shared grade level or subject area team goals.
View SourceView Similar (3)
Evaluation Cycle: Self-Assessment. While conducting a general self-assessment can be a productive and worthwhile activity that helps Educators reflect on their practice, it is understood that most of the Educator’s time and effort will go into drafting Professional Practice and Student Learning goals aligned with School and District goals, and developing an appropriate Educator Plan. There is no required documentation, nor are there any forms associated with the Self-Assessment activity.
View SourceView Similar (2)
Evaluation Cycle: Self-Assessment. A. Completing the Self-Assessment i. The evaluation cycle begins with the Educator completing and submitting to the Primary or Secondary Evaluator a self-assessment by October 1st or within four
View SourceView Similar (2)
Evaluation Cycle: Self-Assessment. A. Completing the Self-Assessment 1. The evaluation cycle begins with the Educator completing and submitting to the Evaluator a self-assessment by October 1st or within four weeks of the start of his/her employment at the school 2. The self-assessment includes: ▪ An analysis of evidence of student learning, growth and achievement for students under the Educator’s responsibility. ▪ An assessment of practice against each of the four Performance Standards of effective practice using the district’s rubric. ▪ Proposed goals to pursue: o At least one goal directly related to improving the Educator’s own professional practice. o At least one goal directed related to improving student learning.
View Source
Evaluation Cycle: Self-Assessment. A. Completing the Self-Assessment i. . The self-assessment includes: ● An analysis of evidence of student learning, growth and achievement for students under the Educator’s responsibility. ● An assessment of practice against each of the four Performance Standards of effective practice using the district’s rubric. ● Proposed goals to pursue: ○ At least one goal directly related to improving the Educator’s own professional practice. ○ At least one goal directed related to improving student learning. B. Proposing the goals
View Source
Evaluation Cycle: Self-Assessment 
View SourceView Similar (3)

Related to Evaluation Cycle: Self-Assessment

  • Evaluation Cycle Goal Setting and Development of the Educator Plan A) Every Educator has an Educator Plan that includes, but is not limited to, one goal related to the improvement of practice; one goal for the improvement of student learning. The Plan also outlines actions the Educator must take to attain the goals established in the Plan and benchmarks to assess progress. Goals may be developed by individual Educators, by the Evaluator, or by teams, departments, or groups of Educators who have the similar roles and/or responsibilities. See Sections 15-19 for more on Educator Plans. B) To determine the goals to be included in the Educator Plan, the Evaluator reviews the goals the Educator has proposed in the Self-Assessment, using evidence of Educator performance and impact on student learning, growth and achievement based on the Educator’s self-assessment and other sources that Evaluator shares with the Educator. The process for determining the Educator’s impact on student learning, growth and achievement will be determined after ESE issues guidance on this matter. See #22, below. C) Educator Plan Development Meetings shall be conducted as follows: i) Educators in the same school may meet with the Evaluator in teams and/or individually at the end of the previous evaluation cycle or by October 15th of the next academic year to develop their Educator Plan. Educators shall not be expected to meet during the summer hiatus. ii) For those Educators new to the school, the meeting with the Evaluator to establish the Educator Plan must occur by October 15th or within six weeks of the start of their assignment in that school iii) The Evaluator shall meet individually with Educators with PTS and ratings of needs improvement or unsatisfactory to develop professional practice goal(s) that must address specific standards and indicators identified for improvement. In addition, the goals may address shared grade level or subject matter goals. D) The Evaluator completes the Educator Plan by November 1st. The Educator shall sign the Educator Plan within 5 school days of its receipt and may include a written response. The Educator’s signature indicates that the Educator received the plan in a timely fashion. The signature does not indicate agreement or disagreement with its contents. The Evaluator retains final authority over the content of the Educator’s Plan.

  • Evaluation Period Customer’s right to use the Services on a Trial Basis are time-limited and will terminate immediately upon the earlier of (i) the trial end date as specified in an Order Form or other document executed by the parties regarding such trial, or (ii) the start date of when Customer purchases a right to use such Services on a non-Trial Basis, or (iii) the date when QuoVadis terminates Customer’s right to use the Services on a Trial Basis (which QuoVadis may do at any time in its sole discretion). Customer must cease using the Services on a Trial Basis upon any such termination.

  • Log Reviews All systems processing and/or storing PHI COUNTY discloses to 11 CONTRACTOR or CONTRACTOR creates, receives, maintains, or transmits on behalf of COUNTY 12 must have a routine procedure in place to review system logs for unauthorized access.

  • Independent Review Contractor shall provide the Secretary of ADS/CIO an independent expert review of any Agency recommendation for any information technology activity when its total cost is $1,000,000.00 or greater or when CIO requires one. The State has identified two sub-categories for Independent Reviews, Standard and Complex. The State will identify in the SOW RFP the sub-category they are seeking. State shall not consider bids greater than the maximum value indicated below for this category. Standard Independent Review $25,000 Maximum Complex Independent Review $50,000 Maximum Per Vermont statute 3 V.S.A. 2222, The Secretary of Administration shall obtain independent expert review of any recommendation for any information technology initiated after July 1, 1996, as information technology activity is defined by subdivision (a) (10), when its total cost is $1,000,000 or greater or when required by the State Chief Information Officer. Documentation of this independent review shall be included when plans are submitted for review pursuant to subdivisions (a)(9) and (10) of this section. The independent review shall include: • An acquisition cost assessment • A technology architecture review • An implementation plan assessment • A cost analysis and model for benefit analysis • A procurement negotiation advisory services contract • An impact analysis on net operating costs for the agency carrying out the activity In addition, from time to time special reviews of the advisability and feasibility of certain types of IT strategies may be required. Following are Requirements and Capabilities for this Service: • Identify acquisition and lifecycle costs; • Assess wide area network (WAN) and/or local area network (LAN) impact; • Assess risks and/or review technical risk assessments of an IT project including security, data classification(s), subsystem designs, architectures, and computer systems in terms of their impact on costs, benefits, schedule and technical performance; • Assess, evaluate and critically review implementation plans, e.g.: • Adequacy of support for conversion and implementation activities • Adequacy of department and partner staff to provide Project Management • Adequacy of planned testing procedures • Acceptance/readiness of staff • Schedule soundness • Adequacy of training pre and post project • Assess proposed technical architecture to validate conformance to the State’s “strategic direction.” • Insure system use toolsets and strategies are consistent with State Chief Information Officer (CIO) policies, including security and digital records management; • Assess the architecture of the proposed hardware and software with regard to security and systems integration with other applications within the Department, and within the Agency, and existing or planned Enterprise Applications; • Perform cost and schedule risk assessments to support various alternatives to meet mission need, recommend alternative courses of action when one or more interdependent segment(s) or phase(s) experience a delay, and recommend opportunities for new technology insertions; • Assess the architecture of the proposed hardware and software with regard to the state of the art in this technology. • Assess a project’s backup/recovery strategy and the project’s disaster recovery plans for adequacy and conformance to State policy. • Evaluate the ability of a proposed solution to meet the needs for which the solution has been proposed, define the ability of the operational and user staff to integrate this solution into their work.

  • Evaluation 1. The purposes of evaluation provisions include providing employees with feedback, and employers and employees with the opportunity and responsibility to address concerns. Where a grievance proceeds to arbitration, the arbitrator must consider these purposes, and may relieve on just and reasonable terms against breaches of time limits or other procedural requirements.