№ files_lp_3_process_7_056811
File format: docx
Character count: 3219
File size: 50 KB
Note:
Age
Price: 8 / 10 USD
The file will be delivered to the email address provided at checkout within 12 hours.
The file will be delivered to the email address provided at checkout within 12 hours.
Don’t have cryptocurrency yet?
You can still complete your purchase in a few minutes:- Buy Crypto in a trusted app (Coinbase, Kraken, Cash App or any similar service).
- In the app, tap Send.
- Select network, paste our wallet address.
- Send the exact amount shown above.
The final amount may vary slightly depending on the payment method.
The file will be sent to the email address provided at checkout within 24 hours.
The product description is provided for reference. Actual content and formatting may differ slightly.
Year:
2024-25
Region / city:
Edinburgh
Topic:
Education, Curriculum Development, Diversity, Anti-Racism
Document Type:
Curriculum Rationale
Institution:
Leith Academy
Author:
Not specified
Target Audience:
Students, Educators, School Administrators
Period of Validity:
2024-25
Approval Date:
March 2025
Date of Last Revision:
March 2025
Year:
2023
Region / City:
New South Wales
Topic:
Science Curriculum
Document Type:
Scope and Sequence
Organization:
NSW Education Standards Authority (NESA)
Author:
NSW Department of Education
Target Audience:
Teachers in NSW public schools
Period of Validity:
2023
Approval Date:
2023
Modification Date:
N/A
Year:
2023
Region / city:
New South Wales
Topic:
Science Education, Curriculum Planning
Document Type:
Educational Resource
Organization / Institution:
NSW Education Standards Authority (NESA)
Author:
NSW Department of Education
Target Audience:
Teachers, Educators
Period of Validity:
2023-2024
Approval Date:
2023
Date of Changes:
N/A
Year:
2026
Region / City:
Long Beach, CA
Theme:
Higher education, curriculum changes
Document Type:
Proposal form
Institution:
California State University, Long Beach
Author:
College of Education
Target Audience:
Faculty members, academic departments, program coordinators
Period of Action:
2026-2027 academic year
Approval Date:
Pending
Date of Changes:
N/A
Year:
2017
Region / city:
Washington, D.C.
Subject:
Reliability, Availability, Maintainability, and Cost (RAM-C) Rationale Report
Document Type:
Guidance Report
Organization / institution:
Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Systems Engineering
Author:
Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Systems Engineering
Target Audience:
Department of Defense acquisition programs
Period of Validity:
No specific period indicated
Approval Date:
February 28, 2017
Modification Date:
No changes indicated
Note:
Contextual description
Year:
2014
Region / city:
Mozambique
Subject:
Pesticide regulation
Document type:
Annex to decision
Organ / institution:
Chemical Review Committee
Author:
Chemical Review Committee
Target audience:
Governments, regulatory bodies, international organizations
Period of validity:
Ongoing, since 2014
Date of approval:
15 July 2014
Date of changes:
N/A
Context:
The document is an annex providing a rationale for the decision by the Chemical Review Committee regarding the regulatory actions on iprodione, a pesticide, in Mozambique and the European Union under the Rotterdam Convention.
Year:
2026
Region / City:
Long Beach, California
Topic:
Curriculum Change
Document Type:
Proposal
Organization / Institution:
California State University, Long Beach
Author:
Faculty members
Target Audience:
Faculty, program coordinators, academic administrators
Period of Validity:
Not specified
Approval Date:
Not specified
Date of Amendments:
Not specified
Document Type:
Application guidelines
Subject:
Research project proposal requirements
Page Limit:
4 pages
Submission Format:
Single PDF document
Submitting Body:
Review committee
Sections Required:
Rationale; Background; Sample Information; Project Details
Project Components:
Hypothesis; Methodology; Power and effect size; Data analysis; Sample management; Plans for the next phase
Scope:
Biospecimen-based research projects
Evaluation Condition:
Non-adherence to criteria results in no review
Year:
2026
Region / City:
United Kingdom
Theme:
Pharmaceutical Treatment
Document Type:
Prescribing Information
Organization:
NHS
Author:
Dr. Joanne Ritchie
Target Audience:
Healthcare professionals, specifically specialists and GPs
Period of Validity:
Not specified
Approval Date:
Not specified
Modification Date:
Not specified
Contraindications:
Venous thromboembolic disorder, arterial thromboembolic disease, known thrombophilic disorders, known osteoporosis, headaches with focal neurological symptoms, pregnancy, breastfeeding
Monitoring:
DEXA scan recommended after 1 year of treatment
Special Warnings/Precautions:
Use of non-hormonal contraception for at least 1 month after initiation
Adverse Effects:
Hot flushes, headache
Primary Care responsibilities for continuation:
Prescribe as recommended, seek advice from the specialist if needed
Specialist Service responsibilities for initiation:
Discuss benefits and side effects with the patient, initiate treatment and monitor
Criteria for Discontinuation:
Menopause, increase in migraine frequency, ATE/VTE events, acute liver deterioration
Date of Initiation:
Not specified
Communication:
Contact details for the specialist and hospital pharmacy provided
Year:
2019
Region / City:
CSB/SJU
Topic:
Faculty Development, Post-Tenure Review
Document Type:
Report
Organization / Institution:
CSBSJU
Author:
Dr. Terence Check
Target Audience:
Faculty members, Academic Staff
Period of Action:
Not specified
Approval Date:
Not specified
Date of Changes:
Not specified
Year:
2003–present
Institution:
National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI), National Institutes of Health (NIH)
Program:
Summer Workshop in Genomics (Short Course)
Type of document:
Program overview and evaluation plan
Target audience:
College and university faculty, graduate students
Focus:
Genomic science, ethical, legal, and social implications of genomics, curriculum development
Diversity emphasis:
Underrepresented racial and ethnic groups, students with disabilities, disadvantaged backgrounds
Evaluation:
Participant feedback surveys, feasibility study 2013, curriculum and career impact assessment
Organisation:
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE)
Document Type:
Appendix
Related Document:
Methods review and programme manual for health technology evaluation
Subject:
Health technology evaluation methodology
Key Topics:
Severity modifier; uncertainty; health inequalities; discounting; evidence base; alignment across programmes
Consultation Basis:
Public consultation on proposed changes to evaluation methods
Policy Context:
2019 Voluntary Scheme for Branded Medicines Pricing and Access
Referenced Context:
COVID-19 pandemic
Geographical Scope:
England and Wales
Programme Scope:
Medicines; medical technologies; diagnostics
Note:
Year
Subject:
Literature
Document Type:
Lesson Plan
Target Audience:
Students
Year:
2023
Region / City:
Kentucky
Topic:
Education / School Improvement
Document Type:
Plan
Institution:
Kentucky Department of Education
Author:
Not specified
Target Audience:
Educators, School Administrators
Validity Period:
2023-2025
Approval Date:
Not specified
Amendment Date:
Not specified
Measure of Success:
Increase in proficiency scores in reading, math, and science
Funding:
Local, state, federal funds, and specific grants
Document Purpose:
A detailed plan for improving school performance with specific long-term and short-term goals, strategies, and monitoring processes
Year:
2026
Region / City:
Kentucky, USA
Theme:
Education, School Improvement
Document Type:
Plan
Organization / Institution:
Kentucky Department of Education
Author:
Kentucky Department of Education
Target Audience:
School Administrators, Teachers, Education Stakeholders
Period of Validity:
2025-2026
Approval Date:
May 2025
Date of Changes:
N/A
Year:
2026
Region / City:
England
Topic:
Higher Education, Governance
Document Type:
Form
Institution:
University of Leicester
Author:
University of Leicester
Target Audience:
University Council, Executive Board, Senior Management
Period of Validity:
Annual
Approval Date:
N/A
Date of Changes:
N/A
Year:
2023
Region / City:
United Kingdom
Theme:
Colorectal Cancer Referral Guidelines
Document Type:
Medical Guidelines
Organization:
National Health Service (NHS)
Author:
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG), Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland (ACPGBI)
Target Audience:
Healthcare professionals in primary and secondary care
Effective Period:
From August 2023
Date of Approval:
August 2023
Date of Amendments:
None mentioned
) and join the S1NET. For guides with in depth examinations of performance measure definitions, go to:
https://www.milsuite.mil/book/docs/DOC-129783
Table of Contents (Hyperlinks to Sections):
Developing ‘Significant Duties and Responsibilities’ OER Narratives: Notes, Rules, and Instructions OER Narrative Prohibited Techniques, Inconsistencies, No-Go’s: Negative Comment Rules Referred OERs Narrative Comment Examples Block a. APFT and HT/WT Block b. Overall Performance Block c. Character (to include SHARP comments) Block d. Presence Block e. Intellect Block f. Leads Block g. Develops Block h. Achieves Senior Rater Potential Senior Rater Narrative Examples Senior Rater Narrative Comment Examples (for potential, promotion, school, etc.) Successive Assignments Other SR Comments (explanations of anything unusual about OER) Effective Words for Evaluations JUNIOR OFFICER PLATE (DA FORM 67-10-1) NOTE: 2LTs who have NOT completed BOLC, will not receive an OER until they complete BOLC (AC and ARNG; USAR officers can receive an OER before completing BOLC). The FROM date will be their commissioning date. All time until their BOLC graduation will be NONRATED on their first OER. OER PROFILING: OERs: Rater and Senior Rater Profiles are CONSTRAINED, meaning Officers are only allowed to grant 49% of each rank they rate with either an “EXCELS” (as Rater) or “MOST QUALIFIED” (as Senior Rater). HOWEVER, if you have an immature profile, and have only just begun rating/senior rating Officers of a certain rank, you are allowed a ONE TIME option of giving one of the first two evaluations you make at a particular grade, an “EXCELS” (as Rater) or “MOST QUALIFIED” (as Senior Rater). OER (OER SUPPORT FORM) PART III: Developing ‘Significant Duties and Responsibilities’ (blocks a., b., and c.): Refer to DA PAM 611-21 (https://www.milsuite.mil/book/groups/smartbookdapam611-21
) and DA PAM 600-3 (Commissioned Officer Professional Development and Career Management), to assist in the development of PART III, block d. As a minimum, the duty description will include pr:
- Number of personnel supervised, - Amount of resources under the rated officer’s control, - Scope of responsibilities. 3) Descriptions must be clear and concise with emphasis on specific functions required. 4) Note conditions unique to the assignment; e.g. RA officers assigned to FT support duties with RC units or USAR officers assigned to RA units OER NARRATIVES: Notes, Rules, and Instructions Rater and Senior Rater Narratives: - Requires candor and courage; frank and accurate assessment. - Quantify officer’s value relative to peers and do so in concert with rater/senior rater box check. - Are short; tell a simple story about the quality of officer being evaluated. - Are interesting and compelling. - Are looked at by selection board members when they are looking for in-depth information about a rated officer’s performance and potential. - Numbers; 1-10, write them out (e.g. one, two, ten). 11 or higher, write the number; e.g. 11, 15, 105. Exception, when a 1-10 is WITH an 11 or higher; e.g. “5 tool kits with 20 tools each.” - Fashion the narrative to the officer; double check use of “he/his” vs. “she/hers.” - Awards: Awards and/or special recognition received during the rating period may be cited in evaluation comments (for example, “received the Humanitarian Service Medal” or “named the Instructor of the Year”). - Raters and SR CAN use the officer’s name in the narrative; e.g. “1LT Joe was ….” Rater and Rater Narratives: - Focus on PERFORMANCE; explaining what the rated officer did and how well he/she did it. - Focus on specifics to quantify and qualify performance. - Raters should advocate the rated officer to the SR. - When there is no SR (due to lack of qualifications), rater’s narrative provides the input on both performance and potential. Senior Rater (SR) and SR Narrative (see SR Rater Narrative section for examples): - Focus on POTENTIAL, 3-5 years out (promotions, command, school, & assignments). - Can amplify box checks by using the narrative to clearly send the appropriate message to selection boards. - CANNOT mention Box Check. - Additional information for when SR is also Rater can be found in DA PAM 623-3, pg. 26, “DA Form 67–10–1, part VI: block c—Senior Rater Narrative.” OER Narrative Prohibited Techniques, Inconsistencies, No-Go’s: - School/Course Comments: Bullets about how a Soldier did in a school or course are ONLY allowed if that school did not produce an AER/DA Form 1059. - Narratives are not a laundry list of superlatives – more is not necessarily better. - Brief, unqualified superlatives or phrases, particularly if they may be considered trite. - Excessive use of technical acronyms, or phrases not commonly recognized. - Techniques aimed at making specific words, phrases, or sentences stand out from the rest of the narrative; e.g. excessive use of capital letters; unnecessary quotation marks; repeated use of exclamation points; wide spacing between selected words, phrases, or sentences to include double spacing within a paragraph or between paragraphs. - Inappropriate references to box checks; e.g “Would be TOP BLOCK if profile allowed” or “absolutely far exceeded the standard”. - Trying to quantify (e.g. “top 2% of my captains”) with a small population. - Stay in your lane/level; avoid comments like “Best 1LT in the Army” unless you’re the Army CoS. - Stating “the best ever”; having 10 in the population, 50 in the profile. - Using overused phrases and clichés that are counterproductive or overused; e.g. stellar, historic, “delivered a dazzling performance,” “hit the ground running,” consummate professional, and unlimited potential. - Using specific selection board-type language. Examples of this include, “definitely a 6+ Soldier”. - Don’t exaggerate; “If I could prove it, CPT X is an LTC disguised as a CPT.” - Be mindful of what IS NOT said; it can have the same impact as what is said; e.g. NOT having numbers, or quantifiable points. - Don’t say the sa
Note:
en
Topic:
Officer Evaluation, Narrative Guidelines
Document Type:
Guide
Target Audience:
Raters, Senior Raters
Note:
Year
Organization / Institution:
UN Environment Programme (UNEP)
Target Audience:
Insurance organizations, stakeholders in climate action