Internal and External Review. Scientific Advice by the Scientific Committee. Adopted by written procedure on 3 August 2007
|
|
- Annice Robinson
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 The EFSA Journal (2007) 526, 1-15 Internal and External Review Scientific Advice by the Scientific Committee (Question N EFSA-Q ) Adopted by written procedure on 3 August 2007 Proposal for a Review System for EFSA s Scientific Activities SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE MEMBERS Sue Barlow, Andrew Chesson, John D. Collins, Erik Dybing, Albert Flynn, Claudia Fruijtier- Pölloth, Anthony Hardy, Ada Knaap, Harry Kuiper, Pierre Le Neindre, Jan Schans, Josef Schlatter, Vittorio Silano, Staffan Skerfving, Philippe Vannier. SUMMARY The European Food Safety Authority asked its Scientific Committee to develop a proposal for a review system to assess the quality of EFSA s scientific work. The proposal developed by the Scientific Committee is comprised of the following four components: 1. Self-review: During the development of each opinion or other scientific document the compliance with best scientific practice should be checked; 2. Internal scientific review: Before adoption by the relevant Scientific Panel(s) or Committee a sample of EFSA draft opinions or other scientific documents should be reviewed by senior scientific staff not involved in the relevant Scientific Panel or Committee and/or members of a Scientific Panel or Committee, not involved in the preparation or adoption of the opinion; 3. External scientific review: A number of EFSA adopted opinions, or other scientific documents should be reviewed by independent scientists; 4. The appreciation of EFSA s scientific work by the intended users should be assessed. This proposal offers a strategy that should provide EFSA with the means to comprehensively review the quality of its scientific activities, both by internal review and by independent, external review processes, together with additional consultations with institutional and noninstitutional stakeholders. The strategy is designed to give continuing feedback to the Authority about the quality of its work. The strategy should be updated in due course, taking into account the experiences gained with these proposals. Contacts should also be made with other European and international organisations to draw on any experience they may have with similar reviews of their scientific activities. Key words: EFSA, Scientific Committee, Scientific Panels, scientific review, quality of science European Food Safety Authority, 2007
2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Scientific Committee members... 1 Summary... 1 Table Of Contents... 2 Terms of Reference... 3 Acknowledgment... 3 Introduction...4 Proposed Strategy Self-review Internal scientific review Introduction Aim Selection of opinions and other scientific documents to be reviewed Performance and expected outcome of the review Testing of the above procedure 7 3. External scientific review Introduction Aim Structure and timing of the external review Selection of opinions and other scientific documents to be reviewed Performance of the external review Expected outcome of the review Improvements of the procedure 9 4. Appreciation of EFSA s scientific work by the intended users... 9 Conclusion References Annex : Self-Review Template Abbreviations: IRG: Internal review Group ERG: External review Group The EFSA Journal (2007) 526, 2-15
3 TERMS OF REFERENCE The Scientific Committee is asked to develop a proposal for a review system to assess the quality of EFSA s scientific work. Such a proposal should meet present day standards of audit and peer review and the necessity for openness and transparency. It should consider not only the processes that are followed during the development, completion and delivery of EFSA s scientific outputs, but also the appreciation of the output by the intended users. The approach should include both internal and external reviews and be based on principles of best scientific practice. ACKNOWLEDGMENT EFSA wishes to thank the working group members, Sue Barlow, Pierre Le Neindre, Vittorio Silano, Staffan Skerfving for their contributions. The EFSA Journal (2007) 526, 3-15
4 INTRODUCTION The EFSA Founding Regulation (EC 178/2002) states that EFSA shall carry out its tasks in conditions which enable it to serve as a point of reference by virtue of its independence, the scientific and technical quality of the opinions it issues and the information it disseminates. Since its establishment, high quality science has been at the core of EFSA s efforts. However to more objectively assess that this goal is fulfilled, there is a need to develop a system to review the quality, objectivity and utility of scientific information provided by EFSA. Many national and international science-based organisations and advisory bodies consider it appropriate and necessary to open the processes by which scientific advice and information is generated to both internal quality assurance checks and external scientific review. Such scrutiny, conducted in an open and transparent way, helps to ensure that best scientific practices are being followed in order to underpin public confidence that the best scientific advice is being obtained. EFSA asked its Scientific Committee for help in developing and implementing such a quality review system applicable both to its own staff and to members of the Scientific Committee, Panels and their working groups. Such a quality review system is meant to be understood as an evaluation of the conformity of EFSA s scientific work with best risk assessment practices and should not result in a new evaluation of the data. A number of governments and international bodies around the world have published reviews of the operation and effectiveness of scientific advisory committees, guidance documents on scientific analysis, and codes of practice for scientific advisory committees.1 A number of these publications were consulted during the preparation of the present guidance document and consideration was given to approaches that were considered potentially useful for the review of EFSA s scientific work. This document focuses on the internal and external reviews of the work processes and outputs of the Scientific Committee and the nine Scientific Panels, e.g. scientific opinions, reports, guidance documents and statements. It also proposes a possible mechanism for ascertaining the appreciation of EFSA s output by the intended users. The latter should be considered complementary to the independent external evaluation of EFSA s achievements, which has to be commissioned every six years, according to the EFSA founding Regulation (EC, 2002), and which should assess the working practices and the impact of EFSA. 1 Examples include: FAO/WHO Framework for the Provision of Scientific Advice on Food Safety and Nutrition. Final Draft for public comments, FAO/WHO, Rome/Geneva, Food Standards Agency. Review of the Scientific Committees. Food Standards Agency, London, March 2002, FSA/0567/0402. Food Standards Agency. The Governance of Science, Annex 4 Science Checklist. FSA 06/02/07. Paper for the FSA Board 9 February Food Standards Agency, London. Food Standards Australia New Zealand. Science Strategy Available at: Australian Government, Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Annual Report Report on Performance; Scientific Advice. Available at: A Framework for Science and Technology Advice: Principles and Guidelines for the effective use of Science and Technology Advice in Government Decision making. Government of Canada, Available at: Federal Research: Peer Review Practices at Federal Science Agencies Vary. Report to Congressional Requesters, GAO/RCED-99-99, United States General Accounting Office, Washington DC, Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review. Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget, Washington DC, December 16, The EFSA Journal (2007) 526, 4-15
5 For the review of other EFSA scientific activities in the Scientific Cooperation and Assistance Department, e.g. process and output of the Pesticide Risk Assessment Peer Review (PRAPeR), Zoonoses monitoring, data collection and other units, a modified review system might be needed as their modus operandi differ from those of the Scientific Panels and Committee, but in principle, the same approach as proposed below should be applied for the review of EFSA s other scientific activities. This proposal should be read in conjunction with the EFSA document Transparency in risk assessment carried out by EFSA: guidance document on procedural aspects (EFSA, 2006). The Scientific Committee would like to have feedback in due course from the Panels on the utility of the provisional template and the process, once they have had an opportunity use it over some months. The Scientific Committee will then finalise the template in the light of any comments received. PROPOSED STRATEGY The proposed strategy comprises four components which, taken as a whole, would provide a comprehensive overview and regular feedback to EFSA on the quality of its science. 1. Self-review: During the development of each draft opinion, or other scientific documents, compliance with best scientific practice should be checked; 2. Internal scientific review: Before adoption by the relevant Scientific Panel(s) or Committee a sample of EFSA draft opinions or other scientific documents should be reviewed by senior scientific staff not involved in the relevant Scientific Panel or Committee and/or members of a Scientific Panel or Committee, not involved in the preparation or adoption of the opinion; 3. External scientific review: A number of adopted EFSA opinions or other scientific documents should be reviewed by independent scientists; 4. The appreciation of EFSA s scientific work by the intended users should be assessed. The proposed mechanisms for the above reviews are discussed in more detail below. 1. Self-review The Scientific Committee and each Panel should carry out a self-review during the course of the development of the work related to each question or mandate. The purpose of these selfreviews would be to provide a quality assurance check that proper procedures had been followed and to encourage best scientific practice. Such self-reviews would contribute to improving the quality of EFSA s scientific advice and the consistency of EFSA s scientific advice within and between the Scientific Panels and Committee and over time. It is suggested that self-reviews be carried out by the respective secretariats of the Scientific Panels and Committee under the responsibility of the chairs of the Scientific Committee or Panel or their working groups. The mechanism for this process should be decided within each Scientific Panel and Committee. Throughout the process of developing opinions and other scientific documents, the Scientific Panels and Committee should check for proper compliance with best assessment practices as outlined in the Annex. The template in the Annex provides a means to conduct this check and to identify any significant issues. The Scientific Panels and Committee should keep an internal record of the completed self-reviews. The EFSA Journal (2007) 526, 5-15
6 2. Internal scientific review 2.1 Introduction In order to evaluate the conformity of EFSA s scientific work with best risk assessment practices on a regular basis, in addition to self-review, there is a need for a continuous internal scientific review process within the Authority. This review of draft opinions or other scientific documents should be carried out by EFSA senior scientific staff not involved in the relevant Scientific Panel or Committee and/or members of a Scientific Panel or Committee, not involved in the preparation or adoption of the opinion. EFSA should establish an internal review group (IRG) and draft opinions or other scientific documents should be reviewed by one or more persons from within the pool of IRG members. This section sets out the aim of the internal review and provides proposals for the timing/frequency of the review, the selection of opinions and other scientific documents to be reviewed, the procedure to conduct such a review, its expected outcome, and measures to improve it over time Aim The aim of the internal scientific review is to evaluate the conformity of EFSA s scientific work with best risk assessment practices, especially the opinions produced by the Scientific Panels and Committee and other scientific documents. Such a review is intended to contribute to improving the quality, clarity and consistency of the scientific advice provided by EFSA in its opinions and other scientific documents and ensuring that best scientific practice is followed. Summary reports on the main outcomes of the internal review process should be provided periodically to the Executive Director and be made available to the Scientific Panels and Committee so that any useful lessons can be discussed and shared Selection of opinions and other scientific documents to be reviewed The IRG should review a balanced set of draft opinions and other scientific documents produced by EFSA s Scientific Panels and Committee (the aim would be at least 10% of opinions / and other scientific documents produced annually). The selection of opinions/reports to be reviewed should focus on, but not be limited to, complex issues and high-profile public-health aspects and should reflect a balance across the Scientific Panels and Committee Performance and expected outcome of the review To ensure that the internal review process takes account of the practicalities around adoption of opinions and other scientific documents to deadlines and preserves the primacy of the Scientific Panels and Committee in deciding the final advice in their opinions and other scientific documents, the selected draft opinions and other scientific documents should be reviewed in a timely manner. This should be before their adoption by the relevant Scientific Panel(s) or Committee members, so that in their final deliberations they may consider any comments arising from the internal review process. It is recommended that similar elements, as applicable, from the items listed in the template for self review are used for internal-review (see Annex) The EFSA Journal (2007) 526, 6-15
7 The internal review process would result in written IRG reports. The IRG report should identify high quality elements in the draft opinion or other scientific document, alongside any problem areas and deviations from best practice. It should suggest future actions, if any, that might be taken to ensure best scientific practice is followed and provide any suggestions for improvements. The IRG report should be made available for consideration by the relevant Scientific Panel or Committee as soon as possible before the scheduled meeting at which the draft opinion and other scientific documents is due to be adopted. Normally, the Scientific Panel or Committee would be unaware until then that a particular draft opinion or and other scientific document had been selected for internal review Testing of the above procedure The approach proposed above should be tested during the remainder of the current 3 year cycle of the Scientific Panels and Committee ( ) and improvements suggested by practical experience should be carefully considered before a new cycle of internal review is undertaken. Contacts should be made with other European and International Organizations to draw on any experience they may have with similar internal reviews of their scientific activities. 3. External scientific review 3.1. Introduction To ensure that the review of the quality of EFSA s scientific work is robust and credible, and also is seen to be so by the external world, it needs to include the participation of leading scientists independent of EFSA, drawn from the worldwide scientific community. An external scientific review, on whether EFSA s advice was consistent with the best available scientific information, would offer a powerful tool to improve the scientific quality of EFSA s work and to enhance its reliability for decision-making by risk managers. This section provides proposals for the aim of the external review, the selection of opinions and other scientific documents to be reviewed, the procedure to conduct such a review, the timing/frequency of the review and its expected outcome Aim The external scientific review would cover already adopted and published EFSA opinions, and other scientific documents and would result in a written report focussed on whether: best scientific practice was followed with respect to assembling and describing scientific evidence; conclusions and recommendations were adequately supported by the evidence with due attention paid to any uncertainties; and the terms of reference were adequately addressed Structure and timing of the external review Based on the three years appointment of EFSA s Scientific Panels and Committee, a comprehensive cycle of external review of the scientific outputs of the Scientific Panels and Committee should take place every three years. The EFSA Journal (2007) 526, 7-15
8 An external review cycle should ensure a balanced consideration of EFSA s activities in all the different sectors. To this end, the establishment of External Review Groups (ERGs) for each Panel and the Scientific Committee is recommended each 3 years. Each ERG should consist of a small number of independent, highly-reputed scientists with backgrounds relevant to EFSA s work The ERGs would be asked to focus on criteria such as: (i) quality of the scientific evidence description, discussion and interpretation, (ii) treatment of uncertainties, (iii) completeness of data gathering, (iv) appropriateness of the underlying assumptions, and (v) whether the conclusions were adequately supported by the quoted data and/or references. It would not be the purpose of the ERGs to reach their own conclusions on the same set of data. When performing their tasks, ERGs should have access to all available information, including scientific comments, if any, by other parties relating to the published opinions and other scientific documents undergoing review Selection of opinions and other scientific documents to be reviewed Each ERG should be asked to review several opinions and other scientific documents in depth. To avoid possible bias on the part of EFSA, each ERG should select the opinions or other scientific documents to be examined from EFSA s entire portfolio. In practice, EFSA could offer for information of the ERG a list of the opinions and other scientific documents, from which each ERG would select several for detailed scrutiny. Such a list would include, but would not be limited to, opinions and other scientific documents that have addressed complex questions, high profile public health issues and controversial topics where the science is still evolving Performance of the external review The external review should be conducted by independent scientists from academia and public institutions with an international reputation. Scientific bodies at non-european, European or national levels could be approached for advice on the identification of such experts. The database of national experts currently being compiled by EFSA may also be useful for identifying external reviewers. EFSA s Scientific Committee should also be asked to propose names for external reviewers, along with the basis for their proposal. The experts should be selected and formally appointed by EFSA. In order to facilitate the involvement of external experts who have limited time available, it is proposed that the review would start with a one-day initiation meeting of each ERG to choose the opinions or other scientific documents to be reviewed and to agree the work plan. The work would continue by remote working and contacts. Another one-day meeting of each ERG would take place at the end of the review to adopt a consensus report. It can be anticipated that, in total, the work would require about 5 full days, spread over a couple of months. Each ERG would be assisted by a Secretariat provided by EFSA. The EFSA Journal (2007) 526, 8-15
9 The ERG should be provided with: - Remit of the ERG. - A summary description of EFSA s scientific aims and objectives and the way in which it works to deliver those objectives (1-2 pages). - A bibliography of all relevant EFSA s opinions and other scientific documents sorted by Panel. - Reports of internal reviews carried out by EFSA (if available for the selected opinions). - Information on any feedback on EFSA s opinions and other scientific documents from risk managers in the Commission or from risk assessors and risk managers in national food agencies (if available for the selected opinions). - Information on any comments and criticisms on EFSA s scientific opinions and other scientific documents from outside scientific bodies and how EFSA dealt with them (if available for selected opinions). - Access to documents on which the opinion is based (if requested by the ERG) Expected outcome of the review The expected outcome would be a written report to the Executive Director giving an overview of the quality of EFSA s science and suggesting future benchmarks that EFSA might use to ensure best scientific practice, identifying high quality aspects of the scientific output, alongside any problem areas and deviations from best practice, and providing any suggestions for improvements. ERGs should also be invited to comment on the review process itself Improvements of the procedure The approach proposed above should be tested during the remainder of the current 3-year cycle of the Scientific Panels and Committee ( ) and improvements suggested by practical experience should be carefully considered before a new cycle of external review is undertaken. In the meantime, contacts should be made with other European and International Organizations to draw on any experience they may have with similar reviews of their scientific activities. 4. Appreciation of EFSA s scientific work by the intended users It should be noted that, under Article 61 of EFSA s founding Regulation (EC, 2002), there is already a requirement for commissioning an independent external evaluation of EFSA s achievements every 6 years. In addition it would also be useful to consider additional ways for structured consultations of both institutional and non-institutional stakeholders to assess their appreciation of EFSA s scientific work. The more general consultation with non-institutional stakeholders could be conducted via the EFSA Stakeholder Consultative Platform. The EFSA Journal (2007) 526, 9-15
10 CONCLUSION This proposal offers a strategy that should provide EFSA with the means to comprehensively review the quality of its scientific activities, both by internal review and by independent, external review processes, together with additional consultations with institutional and noninstitutional stakeholders. The strategy is designed to give continuing feedback to the Authority about the quality of its work. The strategy should be updated in due course, taking into account the experiences gained with these proposals. Contacts should also be made with other European and international organisations to draw on any experience they may have with similar reviews of their scientific activities. REFERENCES EFSA (European Food Safety Authority), Transparency in risk assessment carried out by EFSA: Guidance document on procedural aspects. Endorsed by the Scientific Committee in April The EFSA Journal 353: European Communities (EC), (2002). Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety. Official Journal of the European Communities, OJ L 31, , 1-24 The EFSA Journal (2007) 526, 10-15
11 ANNEX : SELF-REVIEW TEMPLATE Template for self-review of the work process and output of the Scientific Panels and Committee to be completed during the course of the work process 1 Preparatory steps Checked (date) Significant issues identified Is there a common understanding between the experts and the originator of the request of what is needed and expected (clarity of terms of reference)? Has a realistic time frame been discussed with the originator of the request with respect to the priority and complexity of the question? Have, when necessary, appropriate adhoc experts been involved for addressing the particular question (e.g. composition of working groups)? Have the Declarations of Interests of Scientific Panel and Committee members, working groups or other ad hoc experts been obtained and checked by the secretariat for potential conflicts of interest before their involvement in the Scientific Panel or Committee and/or its working groups? Where potential conflicts of interest have been identified, have correct procedures for dealing with them, as set out in EFSA guidance, been correctly followed? Where data have been provided by outside parties, have the dossiers been checked for completeness and compliance with any relevant guidelines for data submission (e.g. adequacy for addressing the question, compliance with GLP, up-to-date, inclusion of unpublished data and comprehensive literature search)? 1 Depending on the Panel, items listed under the respective headings could be more relevant under another heading The EFSA Journal (2007) 526, 11-15
12 Where primary and/or additional data have been collected by the SC/P or their WGs (e.g. literature searches, consultation of external experts or national authorities, identification of relevant unpublished data, identification of any previous risk assessments on the same or similar topic by EFSA or other expert bodies) how was it ensured that the dataset was comprehensive enough and up-to-date? Have any cross-cutting issues been identified and, if so, have other relevant Panels or internal and external expert groups been appropriately involved? Has any need for external consultation been considered prior to the adoption of the document (especially for guidance documents)? Where necessary, have risk communicators been alerted by the secretariat sufficiently early in the process to ensure appropriate and timely communication? Content of the scientific document: description of the data Have the quality and completeness of the data to be used been considered? Have the data been properly described in the document? Are the sources of information used properly described in the document? Has a check been made that all scientific data have been properly referenced (within the text and in the reference list)? Checked (date) Significant issues identified The EFSA Journal (2007) 526, 12-15
13 Content of the scientific document: quality of the discussion Where relevant, have key studies for the assessment been properly identified and reasons given for their selection as key studies? Have the implications of potentially contradictory/conflicting data been discussed? Have opinions of other expert bodies been discussed and, if relevant, the reasons for any diverging views been explained? Have significant data gaps been identified and discussed? Have the underlying assumptions, limitations and uncertainties in the data been discussed? Have existing relevant EFSA guidance documents on risk assessment practices/methodologies been followed? Is the approach followed broadly in accordance with internationally agreed guidance on risk assessment procedures? Checked (date) Significant issues identified The EFSA Journal (2007) 526, 13-15
14 Content of the scientific document: quality of the conclusion Does the assessment adequately address the terms of reference? Are the conclusions coherent with the main content of the opinion? Are any assumptions, limitations and uncertainties adequately addressed? In the case of any minority opinion, has it been clearly expressed and reported? In the case of any provisional/interim conclusion, is there a clear indication of what further research or information may be needed and a timeline for follow-up? Does the assessment respect the boundaries between risk assessment and risk management? Checked (date) Significant issues identified The EFSA Journal (2007) 526, 14-15
15 Content of the scientific document: quality of the summary Is the summary adequately informative and clear for the target audience? Does the summary adequately reflect the context of the question and the content of the opinion, including the conclusions and any recommendations? Checked (date) Significant issues identified Delivery and follow-up Checked (date) Significant issues identified Has the document been delivered on time? If not, please specify. What means are in place for follow-up of the documents, if relevant? Date Signature by the responsible support unit secretariat If any significant issues have emerged during this best practice check, they should be drawn to the attention of the Scientific Committee/Panel The EFSA Journal (2007) 526, 15-15
The Referencing of the Irish National Framework of Qualifications to EQF
The Referencing of the Irish National Framework of Qualifications to EQF National Qualifications Frameworks in an International perspective Brussels 30 November 2009 Dr Jim Murray National Qualifications
More informationStakeholder Engagement and Communication Plan (SECP)
Stakeholder Engagement and Communication Plan (SECP) Summary box REVIEW TITLE 3ie GRANT CODE AUTHORS (specify review team members who have completed this form) FOCAL POINT (specify primary contact for
More informationReferencing the Danish Qualifications Framework for Lifelong Learning to the European Qualifications Framework
Referencing the Danish Qualifications for Lifelong Learning to the European Qualifications Referencing the Danish Qualifications for Lifelong Learning to the European Qualifications 2011 Referencing the
More informationHigher Education Review (Embedded Colleges) of Navitas UK Holdings Ltd. Hertfordshire International College
Higher Education Review (Embedded Colleges) of Navitas UK Holdings Ltd April 2016 Contents About this review... 1 Key findings... 2 QAA's judgements about... 2 Good practice... 2 Theme: Digital Literacies...
More informationNavitas UK Holdings Ltd Embedded College Review for Educational Oversight by the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education
Navitas UK Holdings Ltd Embedded College Review for Educational Oversight by the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education February 2014 Annex: Birmingham City University International College Introduction
More informationSchool Inspection in Hesse/Germany
Hessisches Kultusministerium School Inspection in Hesse/Germany Contents 1. Introduction...2 2. School inspection as a Procedure for Quality Assurance and Quality Enhancement...2 3. The Hessian framework
More informationH2020 Marie Skłodowska Curie Innovative Training Networks Informal guidelines for the Mid-Term Meeting
H2020 Marie Skłodowska Curie Innovative Training Networks Informal guidelines for the Mid-Term Meeting These guidelines are not an official document of the Research Executive Agency services. June 2016
More informationHigher Education Review of University of Hertfordshire
Higher Education Review of University of Hertfordshire December 2015 Contents About this review... 1 Key findings... 2 QAA's judgements about the University of Hertfordshire... 2 Good practice... 2 Affirmation
More informationMandatory Review of Social Skills Qualifications. Consultation document for Approval to List
Mandatory Review of Social Skills Qualifications Consultation document for Approval to List February 2015 Prepared by: National Qualifications Services on behalf of the Social Skills Governance Group 1
More informationTeaching Excellence Framework
Teaching Excellence Framework Role specification: Subject Pilot and Year Three Panel members and assessors 13 September 2017 Contents Background... 2 Introduction... 2 Application process... 3 Subject
More informationPolicy for Hiring, Evaluation, and Promotion of Full-time, Ranked, Non-Regular Faculty Department of Philosophy
Policy for Hiring, Evaluation, and Promotion of Full-time, Ranked, Non-Regular Faculty Department of Philosophy This document outlines the policy for appointment, evaluation, promotion, non-renewal, dismissal,
More informationAcademic Program Assessment Prior to Implementation (Policy and Procedures)
Academic Program Assessment Prior to Implementation (Policy and Procedures) March 2013 Additional copies of this report may be obtained from: Maritime Provinces Higher Education Commission 82 Westmorland
More informatione-portfolios in Australian education and training 2008 National Symposium Report
e-portfolios in Australian education and training 2008 National Symposium Report Contents Understanding e-portfolios: Education.au National Symposium 2 Summary of key issues 2 e-portfolios 2 e-portfolio
More informationCOMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES RECOMMENDATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL
EN EN EN COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES Brussels, 9.4.2008 COM(2008) 180 final 2008/0070 (COD) RECOMMENDATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on the establishment of the European
More informationInstitutional review. University of Wales, Newport. November 2010
Institutional review University of Wales, Newport November 2010 The Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education 2011 ISBN 978 1 84979 260 8 All QAA's publications are available on our website www.qaa.ac.uk
More informationQuality assurance of Authority-registered subjects and short courses
Quality assurance of Authority-registered subjects and short courses 170133 The State of Queensland () 2017 PO Box 307 Spring Hill QLD 4004 Australia 154 Melbourne Street, South Brisbane Phone: (07) 3864
More informationGuidelines for Incorporating Publication into a Thesis. September, 2015
Guidelines for Incorporating Publication into a Thesis September, 2015 Contents 1 Executive Summary... 2 2 More information... 2 3 Guideline Provisions... 2 3.1 Background... 2 3.2 Key Principles... 3
More informationCAUL Principles and Guidelines for Library Services to Onshore Students at Remote Campuses to Support Teaching and Learning
CAUL Principles and Guidelines for Library Services to Onshore Students at Remote Campuses to Support Teaching and Learning Context The following guidelines have been developed as an aid for Australian
More informationTABLE OF CONTENTS. By-Law 1: The Faculty Council...3
FACULTY OF SOCIAL SCIENCES, University of Ottawa Faculty By-Laws (November 21, 2017) TABLE OF CONTENTS By-Law 1: The Faculty Council....3 1.1 Mandate... 3 1.2 Members... 3 1.3 Procedures for electing Faculty
More informationI set out below my response to the Report s individual recommendations.
Written Response to the Enterprise and Business Committee s Report on Science, Technology, Engineering and Maths (STEM) Skills by the Minister for Education and Skills November 2014 I would like to set
More informationTHE UNIVERSITY OF HONG KONG WORKING PARTY ON THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE REVIEW PANEL ON UNIVERSITY GOVERNANCE. Report of the Working Party
THE UNIVERSITY OF HONG KONG WORKING PARTY ON THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE REVIEW PANEL ON UNIVERSITY GOVERNANCE Report of the Working Party Introduction 1 This is the report of the Working Party on the Recommendations
More informationUniversity of Toronto
University of Toronto OFFICE OF THE VICE PRESIDENT AND PROVOST Governance and Administration of Extra-Departmental Units Interdisciplinarity Committee Working Group Report Following approval by Governing
More informationDelaware Performance Appraisal System Building greater skills and knowledge for educators
Delaware Performance Appraisal System Building greater skills and knowledge for educators DPAS-II Guide for Administrators (Assistant Principals) Guide for Evaluating Assistant Principals Revised August
More informationDocument number: 2013/ Programs Committee 6/2014 (July) Agenda Item 42.0 Bachelor of Engineering with Honours in Software Engineering
Document number: 2013/0006139 Programs Committee 6/2014 (July) Agenda Item 42.0 Bachelor of Engineering with Honours in Software Engineering Program Learning Outcomes Threshold Learning Outcomes for Engineering
More informationTechnical Skills for Journalism
The Further Education and Training Awards Council (FETAC) was set up as a statutory body on 11 June 2001 by the Minister for Education and Science. Under the Qualifications (Education & Training) Act,
More informationInterim Review of the Public Engagement with Research Catalysts Programme 2012 to 2015
Interim Review of the Public Engagement with Research Catalysts Programme 2012 to 2015 A report for Research Councils UK March 2016 FULL REPORT Report author: Ruth Townsley, Independent Researcher Summary
More informationMinutes of the one hundred and thirty-eighth meeting of the Accreditation Committee held on Tuesday 2 December 2014.
SCOTTISH QUALIFICATIONS AUTHORITY ACCREDITATION COMMITTEE 2 DECEMBER 2014 Minutes of the one hundred and thirty-eighth meeting of the Accreditation Committee held on Tuesday 2 December 2014. Members *Ms
More informationHigher Education Review (Embedded Colleges) of Kaplan International Colleges UK Ltd
Higher Education Review (Embedded Colleges) of Kaplan International Colleges UK Ltd June 2016 Contents About this review... 1 Key findings... 2 QAA's judgements about Kaplan International Colleges UK Ltd...
More informationInitial teacher training in vocational subjects
Initial teacher training in vocational subjects This report looks at the quality of initial teacher training in vocational subjects. Based on visits to the 14 providers that undertake this training, it
More informationQuality in University Lifelong Learning (ULLL) and the Bologna process
Quality in University Lifelong Learning (ULLL) and the Bologna process The workshop will critique various quality models and tools as a result of EU LLL policy, such as consideration of the European Standards
More informationAudit Documentation. This redrafted SSA 230 supersedes the SSA of the same title in April 2008.
SINGAPORE STANDARD ON AUDITING SSA 230 Audit Documentation This redrafted SSA 230 supersedes the SSA of the same title in April 2008. This SSA has been updated in January 2010 following a clarity consistency
More informationThe University of British Columbia Board of Governors
The University of British Columbia Board of Governors Policy No.: 85 Approval Date: January 1995 Last Revision: April 2013 Responsible Executive: Vice-President, Research Title: Scholarly Integrity Background
More informationProgramme Specification. BSc (Hons) RURAL LAND MANAGEMENT
Programme Specification BSc (Hons) RURAL LAND MANAGEMENT D GUIDE SEPTEMBER 2016 ROYAL AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY, CIRENCESTER PROGRAMME SPECIFICATION BSc (Hons) RURAL LAND MANAGEMENT NB The information contained
More information5 Early years providers
5 Early years providers What this chapter covers This chapter explains the action early years providers should take to meet their duties in relation to identifying and supporting all children with special
More informationCouncil of the European Union Brussels, 4 November 2015 (OR. en)
Council of the European Union Brussels, 4 November 2015 (OR. en) 13631/15 NOTE From: To: General Secretariat of the Council JEUN 96 EDUC 285 SOC 633 EMPL 416 CULT 73 SAN 356 Permanent Representatives Committee/Council
More informationDOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY BOARD PhD PROGRAM REVIEW PROTOCOL
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY BOARD PhD PROGRAM REVIEW PROTOCOL Overview of the Doctor of Philosophy Board The Doctor of Philosophy Board (DPB) is a standing committee of the Johns Hopkins University that reports
More informationServices for Children and Young People
Services for Children and Young People Learning Difficulties and Disabilities Team TITLE: Services for Young People s Preparing for Adulthood Strategy for Young People with High Needs (14-25) PUBLICATION
More informationWildlife, Fisheries, & Conservation Biology
Department of Wildlife, Fisheries, & Conservation Biology The Department of Wildlife, Fisheries, & Conservation Biology in the College of Natural Sciences, Forestry and Agriculture offers graduate study
More informationM.S. in Environmental Science Graduate Program Handbook. Department of Biology, Geology, and Environmental Science
M.S. in Environmental Science Graduate Program Handbook Department of Biology, Geology, and Environmental Science Welcome Welcome to the Master of Science in Environmental Science (M.S. ESC) program offered
More informationUNIVERSITY OF DERBY JOB DESCRIPTION. Centre for Excellence in Learning and Teaching. JOB NUMBER SALARY to per annum
UNIVERSITY OF DERBY JOB DESCRIPTION JOB TITLE DEPARTMENT / COLLEGE LOCATION Associate Professor: Learning and Teaching Centre for Excellence in Learning and Teaching Kedleston Road JOB NUMBER 0749-17 SALARY
More informationUSC VITERBI SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING
USC VITERBI SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING APPOINTMENTS, PROMOTIONS AND TENURE (APT) GUIDELINES Office of the Dean USC Viterbi School of Engineering OHE 200- MC 1450 Revised 2016 PREFACE This document serves as
More informationConsent for Further Education Colleges to Invest in Companies September 2011
Consent for Further Education Colleges to Invest in Companies September 2011 Of interest to college principals and finance directors as well as staff within the Skills Funding Agency. Summary This guidance
More informationMODERNISATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION PROGRAMMES IN THE FRAMEWORK OF BOLOGNA: ECTS AND THE TUNING APPROACH
EUROPEAN CREDIT TRANSFER AND ACCUMULATION SYSTEM (ECTS): Priorities and challenges for Lithuanian Higher Education Vilnius 27 April 2011 MODERNISATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION PROGRAMMES IN THE FRAMEWORK OF
More informationExhibition Techniques
The Further Education and Training Awards Council (FETAC) was set up as a statutory body on 11 June 2001 by the Minister for Education and Science. Under the Qualifications (Education & Training) Act,
More informationConceptual Framework: Presentation
Meeting: Meeting Location: International Public Sector Accounting Standards Board New York, USA Meeting Date: December 3 6, 2012 Agenda Item 2B For: Approval Discussion Information Objective(s) of Agenda
More informationPREPARED BY: IOTC SECRETARIAT 1, 20 SEPTEMBER 2017
OUTCOMES OF THE 19 th SESSION OF THE SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE PREPARED BY: IOTC SECRETARIAT 1, 20 SEPTEMBER 2017 PURPOSE To inform participants at the 8 th Working Party on Methods (WPM08) of the recommendations
More informationIntroduction 3. Outcomes of the Institutional audit 3. Institutional approach to quality enhancement 3
De Montfort University March 2009 Annex to the report Contents Introduction 3 Outcomes of the Institutional audit 3 Institutional approach to quality enhancement 3 Institutional arrangements for postgraduate
More informationIndividual Interdisciplinary Doctoral Program Faculty/Student HANDBOOK
Individual Interdisciplinary Doctoral Program at Washington State University 2017-2018 Faculty/Student HANDBOOK Revised August 2017 For information on the Individual Interdisciplinary Doctoral Program
More informationDirector, Intelligent Mobility Design Centre
ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART ROLE DESCRIPTION Post: Department: Senior Research Fellow Intelligent Mobility Design Centre Grade: 10 Responsible to: Director, Intelligent Mobility Design Centre Background The Royal
More informationPERFORMING ARTS. Unit 2 Proposal for a commissioning brief Suite. Cambridge TECHNICALS LEVEL 3. L/507/6467 Guided learning hours: 60
2016 Suite Cambridge TECHNICALS LEVEL 3 PERFORMING ARTS Unit 2 Proposal for a commissioning brief L/507/6467 Guided learning hours: 60 Version 1 September 2015 ocr.org.uk/performingarts LEVEL 3 UNIT 2:
More informationTOPIC VN7 PAINTING AND DECORATING
TOPIC VN7 PAINTING AND DECORATING THEME: EDUCATION & TRAINING LEVELS 1 & 2 ISSUED 2013 L E V E L 2 ESSENTIAL SKILLS INSTRUCTIONS WHAT DO I DO? L Theme E V E Template L 2 Use this to help you: plan an Action-based
More informationWelcome to the session on ACCUPLACER Policy Development. This session will touch upon common policy decisions an institution may encounter during the
Welcome to the session on ACCUPLACER Policy Development. This session will touch upon common policy decisions an institution may encounter during the development or reevaluation of a placement program.
More informationProposal for the Educational Research Association: An Initiative of the Instructional Development Unit, St. Augustine
Please send comments to: The Instructional Development Unit Sir Frank Stockdale Building The University of the West Indies St. Augustine Email: caribteachingscholar@sta.uwi.edu The University of the West
More informationCARDIFF UNIVERSITY OF WALES UNITED KINGDOM. Christine Daniels 1. CONTEXT: DIFFERENCES BETWEEN WALES AND OTHER SYSTEMS
CARDIFF UNIVERSITY OF WALES UNITED KINGDOM Christine Daniels 1. CONTEXT: DIFFERENCES BETWEEN WALES AND OTHER SYSTEMS Cardiff is one of Britain s major universities, with its own Royal Charter and a history
More informationREGULATIONS FOR POSTGRADUATE RESEARCH STUDY. September i -
REGULATIONS FOR POSTGRADUATE RESEARCH STUDY September 2013 - i - REGULATIONS FOR POSTGRADUATE RESEARCH STUDY Approved by CIT Academic Council, April 2013 - ii - TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION: THE RESEARCH
More informationVTCT Level 3 Award in Education and Training
VTCT Level 3 Award in Education and Training Operational start date: 1st April 2014 Credit value: 12 Total Qualification Time (TQT): 120 Guided learning hours (GLH): 48 Qualification number: 601/2758/2
More informationHDR Presentation of Thesis Procedures pro-030 Version: 2.01
HDR Presentation of Thesis Procedures pro-030 To be read in conjunction with: Research Practice Policy Version: 2.01 Last amendment: 02 April 2014 Next Review: Apr 2016 Approved By: Academic Board Date:
More informationCORE CURRICULUM FOR REIKI
CORE CURRICULUM FOR REIKI Published July 2017 by The Complementary and Natural Healthcare Council (CNHC) copyright CNHC Contents Introduction... page 3 Overall aims of the course... page 3 Learning outcomes
More informationProgramme Specification. MSc in Palliative Care: Global Perspectives (Distance Learning) Valid from: September 2012 Faculty of Health & Life Sciences
Programme Specification MSc in Palliative Care: Global Perspectives (Distance Learning) Valid from: September 2012 Faculty of Health & Life Sciences SECTION 1: GENERAL INFORMATION Awarding body: Teaching
More informationPlanning a Dissertation/ Project
Agenda Planning a Dissertation/ Project Angela Koch Student Learning Advisory Service learning@kent.ac.uk General principles of dissertation writing: Structural framework Time management Working with the
More informationAn APEL Framework for the East of England
T H E L I F E L O N G L E A R N I N G N E T W O R K F O R T H E E A S T O F E N G L A N D An APEL Framework for the East of England Developing core principles and best practice Part of the Regional Credit
More informationResearcher Development Assessment A: Knowledge and intellectual abilities
Researcher Development Assessment A: Knowledge and intellectual abilities Domain A: Knowledge and intellectual abilities This domain relates to the knowledge and intellectual abilities needed to be able
More informationTHE WEB 2.0 AS A PLATFORM FOR THE ACQUISITION OF SKILLS, IMPROVE ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE AND DESIGNER CAREER PROMOTION IN THE UNIVERSITY
THE WEB 2.0 AS A PLATFORM FOR THE ACQUISITION OF SKILLS, IMPROVE ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE AND DESIGNER CAREER PROMOTION IN THE UNIVERSITY F. Felip Miralles, S. Martín Martín, Mª L. García Martínez, J.L. Navarro
More informationCode of Practice on Freedom of Speech
Code of Practice on Freedom of Speech Rev Date Purpose of Issue / Description of Change Equality Impact Assessment Completed 1. October 2011 Initial Issue 2. 8 th June 2015 Revision version 2 28 th July
More informationBILD Physical Intervention Training Accreditation Scheme
BILD Physical Intervention Training Accreditation Scheme The BILD Physical Intervention Training Accreditation Scheme (PITAS) has long been seen as an indicator of quality and good practice for those providing
More informationSTUDENT AND ACADEMIC SERVICES
STUDENT AND ACADEMIC SERVICES Admissions Division International Admissions Administrator (3 posts available) Full Time, Fixed Term for 12 months Grade D: 21,220-25,298 per annum De Montfort University
More informationAustralia s tertiary education sector
Australia s tertiary education sector TOM KARMEL NHI NGUYEN NATIONAL CENTRE FOR VOCATIONAL EDUCATION RESEARCH Paper presented to the Centre for the Economics of Education and Training 7 th National Conference
More informationProcedures for Academic Program Review. Office of Institutional Effectiveness, Academic Planning and Review
Procedures for Academic Program Review Office of Institutional Effectiveness, Academic Planning and Review Last Revision: August 2013 1 Table of Contents Background and BOG Requirements... 2 Rationale
More informationWMO Global Campus: Frequently Asked Questions and Answers, July 2015 V1. WMO Global Campus: Frequently Asked Questions and Answers
WMO Global Campus: Frequently Asked Questions and Answers The following FAQ and answers have arisen since September 2013 during discussions related to the proposal for a WMO Global Campus. As the WMO Global
More informationPractice Learning Handbook
Southwest Regional Partnership 2 Step Up to Social Work University of the West of England Holistic Assessment of Practice Learning in Social Work Practice Learning Handbook Post Graduate Diploma in Social
More informationRegional Bureau for Education in Africa (BREDA)
United Nations Education, Scientific and Cultural Organization Regional Bureau for Education in Africa (BREDA) Regional Conference on Higher Education in Africa (CRESA) 10-13 November 2008 Preparatory
More informationPRINCE2 Foundation (2009 Edition)
Foundation (2009 Edition) Course Overview PRINCE2 is a world recognised process based project management method that is easily tailored and scaleable for the management of all types of projects within
More informationUnit 3. Design Activity. Overview. Purpose. Profile
Unit 3 Design Activity Overview Purpose The purpose of the Design Activity unit is to provide students with experience designing a communications product. Students will develop capability with the design
More informationOverview. Contrasts in Current Approaches to Quality Assurance of Universities in Australia, the United Kingdom and New Zealand
Contrasts in Current Approaches to Quality Assurance of Universities in Australia, the United Kingdom and New Zealand Presentation to Australian International Education Conference, 9 October 2008 by Greg
More informationIndiana Collaborative for Project Based Learning. PBL Certification Process
Indiana Collaborative for Project Based Learning ICPBL Certification mission is to PBL Certification Process ICPBL Processing Center c/o CELL 1400 East Hanna Avenue Indianapolis, IN 46227 (317) 791-5702
More informationb) Allegation means information in any form forwarded to a Dean relating to possible Misconduct in Scholarly Activity.
University Policy University Procedure Instructions/Forms Integrity in Scholarly Activity Policy Classification Research Approval Authority General Faculties Council Implementation Authority Provost and
More informationPractice Learning Handbook
Southwest Regional Partnership 2 Step Up to Social Work University of the West of England Holistic Assessment of Practice Learning in Social Work Practice Learning Handbook Post Graduate Diploma in Social
More informationProgramme Specification 1
Programme Specification 1 1. Programmes: Programme Title UCAS GU Code Code MA Film & Television Studies P390 P390-2000 2. Attendance Type: Full Time 2.1 SCQF Level: 10 2.2 Credits: 480 3. Awarding Institution:
More information2015 Academic Program Review. School of Natural Resources University of Nebraska Lincoln
2015 Academic Program Review School of Natural Resources University of Nebraska Lincoln R Executive Summary Natural resources include everything used or valued by humans and not created by humans. As a
More informationVOCATIONAL QUALIFICATION IN YOUTH AND LEISURE INSTRUCTION 2009
Requirements for Vocational Qualifications VOCATIONAL QUALIFICATION IN YOUTH AND LEISURE INSTRUCTION 2009 Regulation 17/011/2009 Publications 2013:4 Publications 2013:4 Requirements for Vocational Qualifications
More informationState of play of EQF implementation in Montenegro Zora Bogicevic, Ministry of Education Rajko Kosovic, VET Center
State of play of EQF implementation in Montenegro Zora Bogicevic, Ministry of Education Rajko Kosovic, VET Center XXV meeting of the EQF Advisory Group 4-6 June 2014, Brussels MONTENEGRIN QUALIFICATIONS
More informationReport of External Evaluation and Review
Report of External Evaluation and Review Ashton Warner Nanny Academy Highly Confident in educational performance Highly Confident in capability in self-assessment Date of report: 15 August 2014 Contents
More informationPosition Statements. Index of Association Position Statements
ts Association position statements address key issues for Pre-K-12 education and describe the shared beliefs that direct united action by boards of education/conseil scolaire fransaskois and their Association.
More informationProductive partnerships to promote media and information literacy for knowledge societies: IFLA and UNESCO s collaborative work
Productive partnerships to promote media and information literacy for knowledge societies: IFLA and UNESCO s collaborative work Dr. Maria-Carme Torras IFLA Governing Board Member; library director, Bergen
More informationTU-E2090 Research Assignment in Operations Management and Services
Aalto University School of Science Operations and Service Management TU-E2090 Research Assignment in Operations Management and Services Version 2016-08-29 COURSE INSTRUCTOR: OFFICE HOURS: CONTACT: Saara
More informationP920 Higher Nationals Recognition of Prior Learning
P920 Higher Nationals Recognition of Prior Learning 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Peterborough Regional College is committed to ensuring the decision making process and outcomes for admitting students with prior
More informationPresentation Advice for your Professional Review
Presentation Advice for your Professional Review This document contains useful tips for both aspiring engineers and technicians on: managing your professional development from the start planning your Review
More informationSOCRATES PROGRAMME GUIDELINES FOR APPLICANTS
SOCRATES PROGRAMME GUIDELINES FOR APPLICANTS The present document contains a description of the financial support available under all parts of the Community action programme in the field of education,
More informationEducation and Training Committee, 19 November Standards of conduct, performance and ethics communications plan
Education and Training Committee, 19 November 2015 Standards of conduct, performance and ethics communications plan Executive summary and recommendations Introduction At its meeting in September 2015,
More informationINCOMING [PEGASUS]² MARIE SKŁODOWSKA-CURIE FELLOWSHIPS 1
INCOMING [PEGASUS]² MARIE SKŁODOWSKA-CURIE FELLOWSHIPS 1 Guidelines for Applicants These guidelines are valid for INCOMING [PEGASUS]² Marie Skłodowska-Curie (MSCA) fellowships. Applicants must read these
More informationTen Easy Steps to Program Impact Evaluation
Ten Easy Steps to Program Impact Evaluation Daniel Kluchinski County Agricultural Agent and Chair Department of Agricultural and Resource Management Agents Introduction Despite training efforts and materials
More informationSpecification. BTEC Specialist qualifications. Edexcel BTEC Level 1 Award/Certificate/Extended Certificate in Construction Skills (QCF)
Specification BTEC Specialist qualifications Edexcel BTEC Level 1 Award/Certificate/Extended Certificate in Construction Skills (QCF) Supplementary information For first teaching September 2010 Edexcel,
More informationAssessment Pack HABC Level 3 Award in Education and Training (QCF)
www.highfieldabc.com Assessment Pack HABC Level 3 Award in Education and Training (QCF) Version 1: December 2013 Contents Introduction 3 Learner Details 5 Centre Details 5 Achievement Summary Sheet 6 Declaration
More informationIndiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis Chief Academic Officer s Guidelines For Preparing and Reviewing Promotion and Tenure Dossiers
Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis Chief Academic Officer s Guidelines For Preparing and Reviewing Promotion and Tenure Dossiers 2018-2019 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction 4 Distinctions between
More informationCambridge NATIONALS. Creative imedia Level 1/2. UNIT R081 - Pre-Production Skills DELIVERY GUIDE
Cambridge NATIONALS Creative imedia Level 1/2 UNIT R081 - Pre-Production Skills VERSION 1 APRIL 2013 INDEX Introduction Page 3 Unit R081 - Pre-Production Skills Page 4 Learning Outcome 1 - Understand the
More informationOECD THEMATIC REVIEW OF TERTIARY EDUCATION GUIDELINES FOR COUNTRY PARTICIPATION IN THE REVIEW
OECD THEMATIC REVIEW OF TERTIARY EDUCATION GUIDELINES FOR COUNTRY PARTICIPATION IN THE REVIEW JUNE 2004 CONTENTS I BACKGROUND... 1 1. The thematic review... 1 1.1 The objectives of the OECD thematic review
More informationAUTHORITATIVE SOURCES ADULT AND COMMUNITY LEARNING LEARNING PROGRAMMES
AUTHORITATIVE SOURCES ADULT AND COMMUNITY LEARNING LEARNING PROGRAMMES AUGUST 2001 Contents Sources 2 The White Paper Learning to Succeed 3 The Learning and Skills Council Prospectus 5 Post-16 Funding
More information(2) "Half time basis" means teaching fifteen (15) hours per week in the intern s area of certification.
16 KAR 7:010. Kentucky Teacher Internship Program. RELATES TO: KRS 156.101, 161.028, 161.030, 161.048, 161.095 STATUTORY AUTHORITY: KRS 161.028(1)(a), 161.030 NECESSITY, FUNCTION, AND CONFORMITY: KRS 161.030(5)
More informationFRESNO COUNTY INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS (ITS) PLAN UPDATE
FRESNO COUNTY INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS (ITS) PLAN UPDATE DELIVERABLE NO. 1 PROJECT PLAN FRESNO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Prepared for Fresno Council of Governments 2035 Tulare Street, Suite 201 Fresno,
More informationPearson BTEC Level 3 Award in Education and Training
Pearson BTEC Level 3 Award in Education and Training Specification BTEC Specialist qualification First teaching September 2013 Issue 3 Edexcel, BTEC and LCCI qualifications Edexcel, BTEC and LCCI qualifications
More information