Essential Voices: Including Student and Parent Input in Teacher Evaluation

In this paper, we describe the need for student and parent input in teacher evaluation in New York City, summarize research demonstrating the validity and reliability of such measures, describe efforts other states and districts are undertaking to incorporate student and/or parent feedback into their own teacher evaluation systems, and provide recommendations to the DOE

Semi-simplicial Types in Logic-enriched Homotopy Type Theory

The problem of defining Semi-Simplicial Types (SSTs) in Homotopy Type Theory (HoTT) has been recognized as important during the Year of Univalent Foundations at the Institute of Advanced Study. According to the interpretation of HoTT in Quillen model categories, SSTs are type-theoretic versions of Reedy fibrant semi-simplicial objects in a model category and simplicial and semi-simplicial objects play a crucial role in many constructions in homotopy theory and higher category theory. Attempts to define SSTs in HoTT lead to some difficulties such as the need of infinitary assumptions which are beyond HoTT with only non-strict equality types. Voevodsky proposed a definition of SSTs in Homotopy Type System (HTS), an extension of HoTT with non-fibrant types, including an extensional strict equality type. However, HTS does not have the desirable computational properties such as decidability of type checking and strong normalization. In this paper, we study a logic-enriched homotopy type theory, an alternative extension of HoTT with equational logic based on the idea of logic-enriched type theories. In contrast to Voevodskys HTS, all types in our system are fibrant and it can be implemented in existing proof assistants. We show how SSTs can be defined in our system and outline an implementation in the proof assistant Plastic

The effectiveness of refactoring, based on a compatibility testing taxonomy and a dependency graph

In this paper, we describe and then appraise a testing taxonomy proposed by van Deursen and Moonen (VD&M) based on the post-refactoring repeatability of tests. Four categories of refactoring are identified by VD&M ranging from semantic-preserving to incompatible, where, for the former, no new tests are required and for the latter, a completely new test set has to be developed. In our appraisal of the taxonomy, we heavily stress the need for the inter-dependence of the refactoring categories to be considered when making refactoring decisions and we base that need on a refactoring dependency graph developed as part of the research. We demonstrate that while incompatible refactorings may be harmful and time-consuming from a testing perspective, semantic-preserving refactorings can have equally unpleasant hidden ramifications despite their advantages. In fact, refactorings which fall into neither category have the most interesting properties. We support our results with empirical refactoring data drawn from seven Java open-source systems (OSS) and from the same analysis form a tentative categorization of code smells

Geopolymer Mortar Derived From Wood Ash And Fly Ash With Sodium Silicate

Kajian eksperimen ini mempamerkan pembangunan mortar geopolimer beralkali rendah yang berasaskan abu kayu berkandungan kalsium tinggi (HCWA) dan abu arang batu (PFA) The experimental investigation presented the development of low alkalinity geopolymer mortar derived from high calcium wood ash (HCWA) and pulverized fuel ash (PFA

2009 Annual Report to Congress

[Excerpt] Enacted in 2004, Public Law 108-375 also created an Office of the Ombudsman (the Office) and urged the Secretary of Labor to take appropriate action to ensure that it be an independent Office within the Department of Labor (DOL), including independence from the other officers and employees of the DOL engaged in activities related to the administration of the provision of the EEOICPA. See 42 U.S.C. § 7385s-15(d). The Secretary of Labor appointed an Ombudsman in February 2005, and the Office submitted its first report to Congress covering calendar year 2005 on February 15, 2006. When initially created, the duties of the Office only extended to Part E. On October 28, 2009, Public Law 111-84, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010, expanded the authority of the Office to also include Part B of the EEOICPA. The day to day activities of the Office are driven by two goals; 1) to provide information and assistance to claimants and potential claimants regarding the EEOICPA; (2) to provide opportunities for claimants and potential claimants to express their complaints, grievances, and requests for assistance concerning this program. In achieving these goals, the Office: Engages in outreach – We sponsor town hall meetings, as well as attend other meetings, forums and workshops where we discuss the EEOICPA and its requirements. This year, with the assistance of the efforts of a task force comprised of many of the agencies involved with the EEOICPA we were able to attend 20 outreach meetings in 11 different cities. Clarifies/explains documents and procedures – The EEOICPA can be very complicated and decisions are oftentimes based on very technical medical, scientific and/or legal concepts. We are contacted by claimants who find it difficult to comprehend these concepts. In addition, there are a many nuances to this program – for example for many of the “rules” there is at least one exception. Some claimants need assistance “steering the right course” as they proceed with their claim. Receives complaints, grievances and requests for assistance – Individuals with pending claims; individuals whose claims were denied; as well as some individuals whose claims were awarded, contact the Office or attend our town hall meetings, to voice complaints and grievances with this program. We are also contacted on occasion by claimants who have complimentary comments concerning the program – usually complimenting the services provided by individuals associated with the program. Provides assistance – It is rare when we are contacted by an individual who simply wants to voice a complaint. Most individuals contact us because they are seeking assistance with their claim. In some instances, we are asked to explain a word or decision. On other occasions, we are asked to provide assistance locating necessary records, or our input is sought on how to proceed with a claim. Inasmuch as many claimants do not have access to computers, we also frequently provide public information such as copies the Site Exposure Matrices; Site Profiles; listing of the 22 cancers covered for purposes of Special Exposure Cohorts, etc. Within the limits of our authority and resources, we assist claimants however we can. The report that follows is a synthesis of the many e-mails, letters, telephone calls, faxes, and face to face conversations that members of this staff had over the past year

2012 Annual Report to Congress

[Excerpt] Public Law 108-375 not only repealed Part D and established Part E it also created the Office of the Ombudsman (the Office). The law urged the Secretary to ensure the independence of the Office within DOL, including independence from other officers and employees of DOL engaged in activities related to the administration of the provisions of EEOICPA. Public Law 108-375 also contained an express sunset date, terminating the requirement for the Office on October 28, 2007. On October 22, 2007, shortly before the sunset provision was to take effect, former Secretary Chao issued a Memorandum determining that the Department of Labor should continue to have an Office of the Ombudsman in the event that the statutory requirement expired. This Memorandum took effect on October 28, 2007. Subsequently, on January 28, 2008, Section 3116 of the FY08 Defense Authorization Act, Public Law 110-181, effectively reinstated the statutory requirement for the Office by extending the sunset date until October 28, 2012. On October 24, 2012, shortly before the October 28, 2012 sunset date, former Secretary Solis signed a Memorandum continuing the Office under the authority of the previous Memorandum signed on October 22, 2007. EEOICPA outlines three duties for the Office: Provide information about the benefits available under Part B and Part E and on the requirements and procedures applicable to the provision of such benefits; Make recommendations to the Secretary regarding the location of resource centers for the acceptance and development of claims under Part B and E; and Carry out such other duties as the Secretary specifies. See 42 U.S.C. §7385s-15(c). In addition, 42 U.S.C. §7385s-15(e) requires the Office to submit an annual report to Congress setting forth: The number and types of complaints, grievances, and requests for assistance received by the Office during the preceding year, and An assessment of the most common difficulties encountered by claimants and potential claimants during the preceding year

All Employees

Reason for Policy 1.1 The purpose of this Policy is to define the responsibilities for the acquisition, preservation and disposal of capital equipment. Part II Policy Content 2.1 Equipment includes computers, furniture, vehicles, laboratory and other equipment that wa