Music Studio Evaluations Clause Samples

The 'Music Studio Evaluations' clause establishes the process and criteria for assessing the quality, suitability, or performance of a music studio in relation to a contract or agreement. Typically, this clause outlines who is responsible for conducting the evaluation, the standards or benchmarks to be used, and the frequency or timing of such assessments. For example, it may require periodic inspections of the studio's equipment, acoustics, or compliance with safety regulations. The core function of this clause is to ensure that the music studio consistently meets agreed-upon standards, thereby protecting the interests of the parties involved and maintaining the quality of services provided.
Music Studio Evaluations. 19.4.1 In light of the one-on-one instruction in studio courses in the Faculty of Music, there shall be a specific teaching evaluation form for studio instructors. Using the same format as the University Teaching Evaluations under 19.2, the statements that constitute the basis for the student's evaluation of the instructor shall be the following: (1) This course contributed to my development as a musician. (2) The instructor assigns appropriate repertoire that is suited to my level and needs. (3) The instructor is well-prepared for each lesson. (4) The instructor gives clear explanations. (5) The instructor stimulates my interest in the subject matter. (6) The instructor assists the student in the development of technical skills. (7) The instructor encourages the student's expressive and artistic development. (8) The instructor gives a clear idea of requirements and standards in this course. (9) The instructor displays an interest in and concern for the student. (*) Overall, the instructor is an effective university teacher. 19.4.2 Evaluations for studio instructors in music shall not be on the basis of a course but upon the instructor's studio. In accordance with 19.2.7, the evaluation shall take place in the Master Class of an instructor's studio. The University will not conduct an evaluation using the teaching evaluation form in Master Classes with fewer than five (5) students. 19.4.3 When an evaluation of teaching is required for the purposes of contract renewal or seniority status under this Agreement for instructors with fewer than five students in their studio, the University shall conduct an evaluation under 19.5:
View SourceView Similar (6)
Music Studio Evaluations. 19.4.1 In light of the one-on-one instruction in studio courses in the Faculty of Music, the Parties agree to develop a separate teaching evaluation form for these courses. This questionnaire shall conform to provisions for the University Teaching Evaluations for intramural courses under 19.2.4, 19.2.5, and 19.2.7. and provide for confidentiality of student responses. 19.4.2 The Parties agree that studio courses in the Faculty of Music taught by Members and by full-time faculty shall be evaluated by the same teaching evaluation form. Since the introduction of a new evaluation form affects the terms and conditions of this Agreement and the full-time faculty and librarians agreement, the Parties agree that the bilateral committee under 19.3.2 shall develop a questionnaire and submit its recommendation to the Joint Liaison Committee by February 15, 2005. Any evaluation form for studio instructors in Music shall be subject to the agreement of the Parties before it can be used in the evaluation of any Member. 19.4.3 Only data derived from teaching evaluations which conform to the provisions of this Article, and which have been placed in the Member's Official File can be used in the University's assessment of a CAS Member's teaching performance in Music Studio courses.
View SourceView Similar (2)
Music Studio Evaluations. 19.4.1 In light of the one-on-one instruction in studio courses in the Faculty of Music, there shall be a specific teaching evaluation form for studio instructors. Using the same format as the University Teaching Evaluations under 19.2, the statements that constitute the basis for the student's evaluation of the instructor shall be the following: (1) This course contributed to my development as a musician. (2) The instructor assigns appropriate repertoire that is suited to my level and needs. (3) The instructor is well-prepared for each lesson. (4) The instructor gives clear explanations. (5) The instructor stimulates my interest in the subject matter. (6) The instructor assists the student in the development of technical skills. (7) The instructor encourages the student's expressive and artistic development. (8) The instructor gives a clear idea of requirements and standards in this course. (9) The instructor displays an interest in and concern for the student. (*) Overall, the instructor is an effective university teacher. 19.4.2 Evaluations for studio instructors in music shall not be on the basis of a course but upon the instructor's studio. In accordance with 19.2.7, the evaluation shall take place in the Master Class of an instructor's studio. The University will not conduct an evaluation using the teaching evaluation form in Master Classes with fewer than five (5) students. 19.4.3 When an evaluation of teaching is required for the purposes of contract renewal or seniority status under this Agreement for instructors with fewer than five students in their studio, the University shall conduct an evaluation under 19.5: Professional Development Evaluation. The ▇▇▇▇ shall advise the Member in writing that the evaluation is not for reasons of deficiency of performance but because the Member's Master Class has fewer than five students. Any evaluation shall be at a time mutually agreed upon by the ▇▇▇▇ and the Member. The first evaluation shall occur during the first contract year of the Member's employment, and thereafter there shall be no more than one evaluation in a contract year. Members with seniority status who teach studios with fewer than 5 students per year shall be evaluated under 19.5 every three years. 19.4.4 Only data derived from teaching evaluations which conform to the provisions of this Article, and which have been placed in the Member’s Official File can be used in the University’s assessment of a CAS Member’s teaching performance in Music...
View Source
Music Studio Evaluations. 19.4.1 In light of the one-on-one instruction in studio courses in the Faculty of Music, there shall be a specific teaching evaluation form for studio instructors. Using the same format as the University Teaching Evaluations under 19.2, the statements that constitute the basis for the student's evaluation of the instructor shall be the following: (1) This course contributed to my development as a musician. (2) The instructor assigns appropriate repertoire that is suited to my level and needs. (3) The instructor is well-prepared for each lesson. (4) The instructor gives clear explanations. (5) The instructor stimulates my interest in the subject matter. (6) The instructor assists the student in the development of technical skills. (7) The instructor encourages the student's expressive and artistic development. (8) The instructor gives a clear idea of requirements and standards in this course. (9) The instructor displays an interest in and concern for the student. (*) Overall, the instructor is an effective university teacher. Note: This last question will only be used by the University for assessing student responses within the institution as a whole, and will not be part of the record of the teaching evaluation of an individual instructor.‌ 19.4.2 Evaluations for studio instructors in music shall not be on the basis of a course but upon the instructor's studio. In accordance with 19.2.7, the evaluation shall take place in the Master Class of an instructor's studio. The University will not conduct an evaluation using the teaching evaluation form in Master Classes with fewer than five (5) students.‌ 19.4.3 When an evaluation of teaching is required for the purposes of contract renewal or seniority status under this Agreement for instructors with fewer than five students in their studio, the University shall conduct an evaluation under 19.5:
View Source

Related to Music Studio Evaluations

  • 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.

  • PROGRESS EVALUATION Engineer shall, from time to time during the progress of the Engineering Services, confer with County at County’s election. Engineer shall prepare and present such information as may be pertinent and necessary, or as may be reasonably requested by County, in order for County to evaluate features of the Engineering Services. At the request of County or Engineer, conferences shall be provided at Engineer's office, the offices of County, or at other locations designated by County. When requested by County, such conferences shall also include evaluation of the Engineering Services. County may, from time to time, require Engineer to appear and provide information to the Williamson County Commissioners Court. Should County determine that the progress in Engineering Services does not satisfy an applicable Work Authorization or any Supplemental Work Authorization related thereto, then County shall review same with Engineer to determine corrective action required. Engineer shall promptly advise County in writing of events which have or may have a significant impact upon the progress of the Engineering Services, including but not limited to the following: A. Problems, delays, adverse conditions which may materially affect the ability to meet the objectives of an applicable Work Authorization or any Supplemental Work Authorization related thereto, or preclude the attainment of Project Engineering Services units by established time periods; and such disclosure shall be accompanied by statement of actions taken or contemplated, and County assistance needed to resolve the situation, if any; and B. Favorable developments or events which enable meeting goals sooner than anticipated in relation to an applicable Work Authorization’s or any Supplemental Work Authorization related thereto.

  • 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.

  • JOC EVALUATION If any materials being utilized for a project cannot be found in the RS Means Price Book, this question is what is the markup percentage on those materials? When answering this question please insert the number that represents your percentage of proposed markup. Example: if you are proposing a 30 percent markup, please insert the number "30". Remember that this is a ceiling markup. You may markup a lesser percentage to the TIPS Member customer when pricing the project, but not a greater percentage. EXAMPLE: You need special materials that are not in the RS Means Unit Price Book for a project. You would buy the materials and ▇▇▇▇ them up to the TIPS Member customer by the percentage you propose in this question. If the materials cost you, the contractor, $100 and you proposed a markup on this question for the material of 30 percent, then you would charge the TIPS Member customer $130 for the materials. TIPS/ESC Region 8 is required by Texas Government Code § 791 to be compensated for its work and thus, failure to agree shall render your response void and it will not be considered. Vendor agrees to remit to TIPS the required administration fee or, if resellers are named, guarantee the fee remittance by or for the reseller named by the vendor?

  • Self-Evaluation Each regular faculty member shall provide a self-evaluation. It shall address, among other items, the faculty member's fulfillment of professional responsibilities as referenced in Section 18.2.3 and an assessment of his or her own performance. The faculty member will share the self-evaluation with the Faculty Evaluation Committee and the first-level manager or designee. The self-evaluation will become part of the evaluation report.