Evaluation of Full Status Full-Time Faculty Clause Samples

The 'Evaluation of Full Status Full-Time Faculty' clause establishes the procedures and criteria for assessing the performance of faculty members who hold full-time, permanent positions. Typically, this clause outlines the frequency of evaluations, the methods used—such as classroom observations, peer reviews, or student feedback—and the standards against which faculty are measured. Its core function is to ensure that faculty performance is regularly reviewed in a fair and consistent manner, supporting professional development and maintaining educational quality.
Evaluation of Full Status Full-Time Faculty. All full-status full-time faculty members shall be subject to formal evaluation once every four (4) years, utilizing the tools and procedures outlined in the ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ College Faculty Evaluation Handbook. The evaluation process is to be non-punitive, promoting growth and opportunities for professional development. 1. One IDEA survey will be distributed to students in the semester prior to the checkpoint review meeting following the same process used in the evaluation process. 2. The Faculty will have sole possession of their detailed data, which includes the data cover sheets. The faculty member will provide a copy of their review process student data cover sheets to their immediate supervisor. 3. The IDEA results will not be tied to the evaluation score system. 4. The purpose of the checkpoint review meeting will be to have dialogue between the faculty member and the designated administrator regarding student data results, professional development activities and continuous improvement objectives. The faculty will bring with them, for the purpose of review and discussion, both the IDEA student data and their proposed professional development activities for the coming semesters. 5. In lieu of a face to face meeting, exceptional circumstances (i.e. faculty member is out of state, faculty member has other full time employment) may dictate the use of an alternative meeting format (i.e. phone or Internet meeting). 6. The administration will develop a standardized form to be utilized for recording professional development plans.
View SourceView Similar (4)
Evaluation of Full Status Full-Time Faculty. All full-status full-time faculty members shall be subject to formal evaluation once every four (4) years, utilizing the tools and procedures outlined in the ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ College Faculty Evaluation Handbook. The evaluation process is to be non-punitive, promoting growth and opportunities for professional development. Where an evaluation results in an overall composite rating (OCR) score of less than 3.88, deficiencies must be stated in writing along with a plan for improvement formulated by the faculty member in consultation with the assigned faculty mentor and the designated administrator. The faculty mentor is assigned by the Designated Administrator for a period of two years. The faculty mentor will be compensated at a rate of one (1) contact hour per year. Evaluations will continue every two years until the OCR score is 3.88 or greater, at which time the regular evaluation cycle resumes. If the OCR score is less than 3.88 after mentoring occurs, faculty will be subject to the formal evaluation process outlined in the Faculty Evaluation Handbook every two years until such time as the OCR score rises to 3.88 or greater. Faculty mentor support will be provided for one (1) two-year period. If evaluation results in an OCR score of 4.50 or greater, the faculty member will receive recognition from the College for their achievement. In addition, all full status full-time faculty will have a checkpoint review meeting in the middle of the four year evaluation cycle (defined as two years after the last evaluation). The checkpoint review process is as follows: A. One IDEA survey will be distributed to students in the semester prior to the checkpoint review meeting following the same process used in the evaluation process. B. The Faculty will have sole possession of their detailed data, which includes the data cover sheets. The faculty mem- ber will provide a copy of their review process student data cover sheets to their designated administrator. C. The IDEA results will not be tied to the evaluation score system. D. The purpose of the checkpoint review meeting will be to have dialogue between the faculty member and the des- ignated administrator regarding student data results, professional development activities and continuous improve- ment objectives. The faculty will bring with them, for the purpose of review and discussion, both the IDEA student data and their proposed professional development activities for the coming semesters. E. In lieu of a face-to-face me...
View SourceView Similar (2)
Evaluation of Full Status Full-Time Faculty. All full-status full-time faculty members shall be subject to formal evaluation once every five (5) years, utilizing the tools and procedures outlined in the ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ College Faculty Evaluation Handbook. The evaluation process is to be non-punitive, promoting growth and opportunities for professional development.
View Source

Related to Evaluation of Full Status Full-Time Faculty

  • Disclosure to FERC or its Staff Notwithstanding anything in this Section 17 to the contrary, and pursuant to 18 C.F.R. § 1b.20, if FERC or its staff, during the course of an investigation or otherwise, requests information from one of the Interconnection Parties that is otherwise required to be maintained in confidence pursuant to this Interconnection Service Agreement, the Interconnection Party, shall provide the requested information to FERC or its staff, within the time provided for in the request for information. In providing the information to FERC or its staff, the Interconnection Party must, consistent with 18 C.F.R. § 388.122, request that the information be treated as confidential and non-public by FERC and its staff and that the information be withheld from public disclosure. Interconnection Parties are prohibited from notifying the other Interconnection Parties prior to the release of the Confidential Information to the Commission or its staff. An Interconnection Party shall notify the other Interconnection Parties to the Interconnection Service Agreement when it is notified by FERC or its staff that a request to release Confidential Information has been received by FERC, at which time any of the Interconnection Parties may respond before such information would be made public, pursuant to 18 C.F.R. § 388.112.

  • Evaluation of Students A teacher shall maintain the right and responsibility to determine grades and other evaluation of students within the grading policies of the District based upon professional judgment of available criteria pertinent to any given subject area or activity for which the teacher is responsible. No grade or evaluation shall be changed without consultation with the teacher.

  • Your Billing Rights: Keep this Document for Future Use This notice tells you about your rights and our responsibilities under the Fair Credit Billing Act.

  • CERTIFICATION PROHIBITING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST FIREARM AND AMMUNITION INDUSTRIES (Texas law as of September 1, 2021) By submitting a proposal to this Solicitation, you certify that you agree, when it is applicable, to the following required by Texas law as of September 1, 2021: If (a) company is not a sole proprietorship; (b) company has at least ten (10) full-time employees; (c) this contract has a value of at least $100,000 that is paid wholly or partly from public funds; (d) the contract is not excepted under Tex. Gov’t Code § 2274.003 of SB 19 (87th leg.); and (e) governmental entity has determined that company is not a sole-source provider or governmental entity has not received any bids from a company that is able to provide this written verification, the following certification shall apply; otherwise, this certification is not required. Pursuant to Tex. Gov’t Code Ch. 2274 of SB 19 (87th session), the company hereby certifies and verifies that the company, or association, corporation, partnership, joint venture, limited partnership, limited liability partnership, or limited liability company, including a wholly owned subsidiary, majority-owned subsidiary parent company, or affiliate of these entities or associations, that exists to make a profit, does not have a practice, policy, guidance, or directive that discriminates against a firearm entity or firearm trade association and will not discriminate during the term of this contract against a firearm entity or firearm trade association. For purposes of this contract, “discriminate against a firearm entity or firearm trade association” shall mean, with respect to the entity or association, to: “ (1) refuse to engage in the trade of any goods or services with the entity or association based solely on its status as a firearm entity or firearm trade association; (2) refrain from continuing an existing business relationship with the entity or association based solely on its status as a firearm entity or firearm trade association; or (3) terminate an existing business relationship with the entity or association based solely on its status as a firearm entity or firearm trade association. See Tex. Gov’t Code § 2274.001(3) of SB 19. “Discrimination against a firearm entity or firearm trade association” does not include: “ (1) the established policies of a merchant, retail seller, or platform that restrict or prohibit the listing or selling of ammunition, firearms, or firearm accessories; and (2) a company’s refusal to engage in the trade of any goods or services, decision to refrain from continuing an existing business relationship, or decision to terminate an existing business relationship to comply with federal, state, or local law, policy, or regulations or a directive by a regulatory agency, or for any traditional business reason that is specific to the customer or potential customer and not based solely on an entity’s or association’s status as a firearm entity or firearm trade association.” See Tex. Gov’t Code § 2274.001(3) of SB 19.

  • Evaluation of Tenders 33.1 The Procuring Entity shall use the criteria and methodologies listed in this ITT and Section III, Evaluation and Qualification criteria. No other evaluation criteria or methodologies shall be permitted. By applying the criteria and methodologies, the Procuring Entity shall determine the Lowest Evaluated Tender. This is the Tender of the Tenderer that meets the qualification criteria and whose Tender has been determined to be: a) substantially responsive to the tender documents; and b) the lowest evaluated price. 33.2 Price evaluation will be done for Items or Lots (contracts), as specified in the TDS; and the Tender Price as quoted in accordance with ITT 14. To evaluate a Tender, the Procuring Entity shall consider the following: a) price adjustment due to unconditional discounts offered in accordance with ITT 13.4; b) converting the amount resulting from applying (a) and (b) above, if relevant, to a single currency in accordance with ITT 31; c) price adjustment due to quantifiable nonmaterial non-conformities in accordance with ITT 29.3; and d) any additional evaluation factors specified in the TDS and Section III, Evaluation and Qualification Criteria. 33.3 The estimated effect of the price adjustment provisions of the Conditions of Contract, applied over the period of execution of the Contract, shall not be considered in Tender evaluation. 33.4 Where the tender involves multiple lots or contracts, the tenderer will be allowed to tender for one or more lots (contracts). Each lot or contract will be evaluated in accordance with ITT 33.