zilongwang/ReadingBank huggingface dataset:
EPA Region 8 Drinking Water Unit Finished Water Storage Tank Inspection/ Cleaning Checklist Fill out one checklist per storage tank & submit labeled photos of each tank component with this form PWS Name: PWS ID: Tank Name: Tank ID: Proposed Inspection Date: Actual Inspection Date: Name of Person Filling Out Form: Title of Person Filling Out Form: I certify that this information is complete and accurate: Date: Inspector Qualifications (answer to all questions must be “yes”) Name and contact information of inspector (if water system personnel) or inspection company: Yes No Has the inspector completed confined space training? Yes No Did the inspector have a confined space entry permit? Overall Tank Condition Significant Deficiency Required Correction Proposed Completion Date Actual Completion Date Yes No Does the tank appear to be structurally sound? If no, what repairs are suggested by the tank inspector? Yes No Are there any unprotected openings in the tank (breaches, leaks, daylight coming through tank in spots, etc) If yes, indicate type of breach and how it should be repaired. Air Vent Significant Deficiency Required Correction Proposed Completion Date Actual Completion Date Above Ground Tanks (Ground Level or Elevated) Check if NA Yes No NA Does the tank have a vent separate from the overflow? If no, indicate proposed correction*: Yes No NA Downturned vent: Is the vent at least 24” above the roof? If no reconfigure vent to provide proper air gap. Yes No NA Non-downturned vent: Is there a solid cover down to the bottom of the vent screen? If no, indicate deficiency and proposed correction: Yes No NA Non-downturned vent: Is the screen at least 8” above the roof surface? What is the height of the start of the screening above the tank? If no, indicate deficiency and proposed correction: Yes No Is the vent covered with #24 mesh corrosion resistant screening (some exceptions apply)? Mesh Size: If no, indicate deficiency and proposed correction*:
How do you plan to get there? What happened to you after you arrived? To receive at least a “B” you must include these supplemental items when you hand in your short story… A map with your journey plotted out with a key. A timeline of events and experiences from your story A short supply list of items you needed to bring with you. AND…in order to receive an “A” on this assessment, you must complete a MONOLOGUE. A monologue would include you presenting your story to the class by getting up, in character, and telling your story. You would basically be telling us who you were, why you were going, and what happened to you. You would be delivering your monologue as if you were actually the character you developed for your story. This means you should use props, including costume, to make it more authentic. A checklist is attached and should be read over carefully before you begin your adventure. Good luck on your “Road Trip” out West!! Name _________________ Hour________ The Story of Westward Expansion Evaluation Checklist Your Evaluation Criteria Mr. J’s Evaluation _____ / 29 Short Story (70% grade level) Story is related to topic; reader can learn much about the topic; _____ / 29
accuracy of story; requirements (length, mechanics) are met _____ / 4 Artifacts (80% grade level) Map – route is plotted with key; Timeline/Supply List – contribute to understanding _____ / 4 _____ / 5 Monologue (90% grade level) Monologue was prepared, rehearsed; performance was enthusiastic, generated interest; props were used accurately, add to performance _____ / 5 Total Score _____ / 39 Total Score _____ / 39
WALT: Incorporate features of a newspaper report (catchy headline, quotes, captions, byline etc.) Self-Assessment I have Give yourself a 1 – I tried 2 – I think I did quite well 3 – I’m sure I did this. Included a catchy headline 2 Written an introductory paragraph 3 Included facts 1 Included quotes 2 Ensured articles include who, what, where, when 3 Organized information into subheadings 1 Included a picture with captions 3 Included a byline 2 Written in the third person 2 Used a variety of sentence types 2 Used interesting descriptive language 2 Improved my writing target 2 What I did well: In writing who, what, where, when My target for the next piece of writing: Include subheadings Teacher reflection on my target: (highlight) Excellent! Okay. Not concise enough. Irrelevant – think again!
In addition, tank tightness testing may be used to investigate a suspected release. Tank Tightness Testing How Does The Release Detection Method Work? Tightness tests, also referred to as precision tank tests, include a variety of methods. These methods are divided into two categories: volumetric and nonvolumetric. Volumetric test methods generally involve precisely measuring in milliliters or thousandths of an inch the change in product level in a tank over time. Additional characteristics of this category of tank tightness testing include: Changes in product temperature also must be precisely measured in thousandths of a degree at the same time as level measurements, because temperature changes cause volume changes that interfere with finding a leak. The product in the tank must be at a certain minimum level before testing. This often requires adding product from another tank on site or purchasing additional product. A net decrease in product volume, which you find by subtracting out volume changes caused by temperature, over the time of the test indicates a leak. A few of these methods measure properties of product that are independent of temperature, such as mass, and so do not need to measure product temperature. There are many nonvolumetric test methods. These methods can be distinguished by what they test or which areas of the UST system they test. The methods: Involve acoustics that interpret an ultrasonic signal. Use vacuum or pressure decay with gain or loss of pressure, respectively, to determine whether there is a hole in the tank. Test either the wetted portion of the tank, which contains product, or the ullage, which is the unfilled portion of the tank. Involve tracer compounds circulated through the UST system, which test strategically placed sampling ports outside the UST system. Except for tracer compounds used for both volumetric and nonvolumetric test methods, the following generally apply:
Royal Society for the Protection of Birds Nature conservation All South East Rivers Trust Angling / Nature conservation All South East Water Water industry All Southern Water Water industry All Stour Fisheries Association Angling Upper Stour Lower Stour White Cliffs Countryside Partnership Nature conservation/community Dour North and South Streams Wild Trout Trust Angling All Wye Parish Council Local Authority Upper Stour APPENDIX B List of Operational Catchment groups: Operational Catchment Group Status Upper Stour Ashford Water Group Active – lacks community involvement Ashford Environment and Nature Conservation Forum Lower Stour (part) Canterbury Riverside Group Active Lower Stour Lakes Friends of Stodmarsh ? Lakes Science Group ? Dour Dour Partnership Active Little Stour and River Wingham Little Stour and Nailbourne River Management Group Active Oyster Coast Brooks Oyster Coast Partnership North & South Streams Stour Marshes IDB agreed to lead APPENDIX C Overall Waterbody Classifications. Listed as a separate Doc Appendix D Summary Ongoing and Future Projects. Listed as a separate Doc
Chair East Kent Catchment Improvement Partnership Jon Shelton Partnership Manager Kentish Stour Countryside Partnership Ashford Highways Office 4 Javelin Way Henwood Ashford TN24 8DH Direct Dial: 03000 410 900 Mobile: 07740 185224 jon.shelton@kent.gov.uk East Kent Catchment Co-ordinator Barrie Neaves Kent & South London Environment Agency Orchard House, , London Road, Addington, West Malling, Direct Dial: 01732 223242 : 07802 331469 Figure 1 The Stour Management Catchment showing the Operational Catchments within it Introduction The Water Framework Directive (WFD) takes an integrated approach to managing our waters; looking at the water within the wider ecosystem and taking into account the movement of water through the hydrological cycle. It requires EU Member States to put in place River Basin Management Plans (RBMPs). Each RBMP must apply to a “River Basin District (RBD)”. The river basin planning process involves setting environmental objectives for all groundwater and surface waters (including estuaries and coastal waters) within the RBD, and devising Programmes of Measures (PoM) to meet those objectives. Each RBD is sub-divided into Management Catchments. There are 87 catchments across England (plus 6 cross-border catchments with Wales). The RBD that includes the Stour Catchment is the South East RBD.
River Stour Riverfly Monitoring Initiative Group Angling / Nature conservation Upper Stour Lower Stour Little Stour and River Wingham River Stour (Kent) Internal Drainage Board Drainage All Royal Society for the Protection of Birds Nature conservation All South East Rivers Trust All South East Water Water industry All Southern Water Water industry All Stour Fisheries Association Angling Upper Stour Lower Stour Little Stour and River Wingham Stour Marshes White Cliffs Countryside Partnership Nature conservation Dour North and South Streams Wild Trout Trust Angling All APPENDIX B List of Operational Catchment groups: Operational Catchment Group Status Upper Stour Ashford Water Group Active – lacks community involvement Ashford Environment and Nature Conservation Forum Lower Stour (part) Canterbury Friends of the River Stour Formed Lower Stour Lakes Friends of Stodmarsh Active Lakes Science Group ? Dour Dour Partnership Active Little Stour and River Wingham Little Stour and Nailbourne River Management Group Active Oyster Coast Brooks Oyster Coast Partnership Discussions started North & South Streams Stour Marshes APPENDIX C
MONDAY TUESDAY WEDNESDAY THURSDAY FRIDAY 1 CHICKEN NUGGETS CHIPS RAVIOLI/BAKED BEANS MAND. ORANGE MILK 2 RIB PATTY LOADED MASHED POTATO CORN PEACHES MILK 3 MEATLOAF SANDWICH CHIPS MACARONI SALAD TROP. FRUIT MILK 4 PIZZA ITALIAN SALAD PEARS ICE CREAM MILK 5 6 7 CHICKEN NACHO BEANS FRUIT COCKTAIL COOKIE MILK 8 BBQ PULLED PORK SANDWICH TATER TOTS CARROTS PEARS MILK 9 CORN DOG CHIPS & CHEESE MIXED VEGGIE MAND. ORANGE MILK 10 WALKING TACO CHIPOTLE SALAD PEACHES COOKIE MILK 11 PIZZA CORN FRUIT SALAD ICE CREAM MILK 12 13 14 HOT DOG CHIPS BAKED BEANS FRUIT DESSERT MILK NO SALAD BAR 15 TRACK & FIELD BBQ (CHEESEBURGER) NO SALAD BAR 16 NACHO SUPREME CORN MAND. ORANGE COOKIE MILK NO SALAD BAR 17 LAST DAY!! SACK LUNCH (PB&J OR HAM N CHEESE SANDWICH) NO SALAD BAR 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31
NAME TYPE OF GOVERNOR APPOINTED TERM OF OFFICE COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP SPECIAL ROLES OR CHAIRING RESPONSIBILITIES OTHER EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS AT WHICH A GOVERNOR BUSINESS INTERESTS AND DATE NOTIFIED RELATIONSHIP TO ANY MEMBER OF THE SCHOOL STAFF MEETING ATTENDANCE OVER THE PREVIOUS ACADEMIC YEAR Catherine Wilson Trust BDAT 13/05/15 - 12/05/19 School Improvement Business Chair of LGB None Member Schofield Sweeney LLP 12/8/15 None LGB 16/7/15 SI 15/6/15 Gaby Young Trust BDAT 1/11/12 – 31/10/16 School Improvement Business Vice Chair of Business Vice Chair of School Improvement None None None LGB 20/11/14, 26/3/15, 22/5/15 SI 11/9/14 B 10/3/15, 16/4/15, 25/6/15 Pam Burton Trust BDAT 23/01/15 – 22/01/19 School Improvement Interim Chair of LGB None Chair Brighter Futures MAT, Calderdale 20/9/15 None LGB 26/3/15, 22/5/15, 14/7/15 SI 15/6/15
Alison Lesurf Trust BDAT 01/11/12 – 31/10/16 School Improvement None Nightingale Primary Academy, Leeds None None LGB 26/3/15, 22/5/15, SI 11/9/14 B 25/615 Helen Smith Non - Teaching Staff BDAT 01/11/12 – 31/10/16 School Improvement Business Chair of Business None PPA Teacher and Lead RE Teacher in School 28/8/15 None LGB 20/11/14, 26/3/15, 22/5/15, 14/7/15 SI B 27/11/14, 10/3/15, 16/4/15, 25/6/15 Susan Hart Trust BDAT 18/03/15 - 17/03/19 School Improvement None None None None LGB 26/3/15, 14/7/15 B 16/4/15, 25/6/15
Sostein Frank Kuyeli Parent Parents 01/11/12 – 31/10/16 School Improvement None None Park Homes Ltd 28/7/15 None LGB 26/3/15, 22/5/15 Andrew Chadwick Headteacher Ex Officio Ex Officio School Improvement Business None None Director Exceed Alliance Ltd Trustee Exceed Alliance 1/9/15 None LGB 20/11/14, 26/3/15, 22/5/15, 14/7/15 SI 11/9/14, 15/6/15 B 27/11/14, 10/3/15, 16/4/15, 25/6/15 Lynn Wiggan Trust BDAT 01/11/12 – 31/10/16 School Improvement Business None None None None LGB 20/11/14, 26/3/15, 22/5/15, 14/7/15 SI 11/9/14, 15/6/15 B 27/11/14, 10/3/15,
16/4/15, 25/6/15 Stephen Treasure Trust BDAT 01/11/12 – 31/10/16 School Improvement Chair of School Improvement All Saints CE Primary, Bradford Vicar of St Oswald’s and All Saint’s Churches 17/7/15 None LGB 26/3/15, 22/5/15, 14/7/15 SI 11/9/14, 15/6/15 B 27/11/14 Caroline Hegney Staff Staff 01/09/13 – 31/08/17 School Improvement None None Staff Member None LGB 20/11/14, 26/3/15, 22/5/15, 14/7/15 SI 11/9/14, 15/6/15 Miftahur Rehman Parent Parents 1/11/12 - 31/10/16 School Improvement None None None None LGB 20/11/14 LGB denotes Local Governing Body SI denotes School Improvement Committee B denotes Business Committee
7 min LECTURE An assessment item must be created for each objective to determine whether or not students have acquired the skill or attitude stated in the objective. The assessment item must reflect the exact behavior stated in the objective and must provide the same conditions (givens) and criteria. Questions to ask: Does the assessment item require the same behavior of the student as was specified in the performance objective? Does the assessment item provide the same conditions (givens) as was specified in the performance objective? Remember, our instructional goal: Convert fractions to percentages. Our performance objective was: Given a proper or an improper fraction, the student will correctly convert it into a percentage in writing. Our assessment item is: Convert the following fractions into percentages: 9/12 =____ 15/3 =____ Does the assessment item have the same behavior as was specified in the performance objective? Yes! Does the assessment item provide the same conditions (givens) as was specified in the performance objective? Yes!
Business Contact Details AUDIT TRAINING PLEASE SPECIFY TRAINING ATTENDED BY YOU RELATED TO AUDITING SERVICES Training organization Training topics Reference (national / international standards) Year of training Level of training (basic/intermediate/ advanced) Certificate awarded AUDITING EXPERIENCE Auditing organization Type of audit projects (healthcare facilities/other organizations) Name of audited organization Title (auditor/lead auditor/observer/expert) Year of the audit project Duration of the audit project What language do you prefer in training? English Arabic French Computer skills Microsoft office Excel/SPSS Power point PURPOSE OF APPLICATION EXPLAIN WHY YOU ARE INTERESTED IN GATES SURVEYOR PROGRAM:
_____________________________________________________________________
CONTRACT DATA Sub-Clauses of Conditions of Contract 1.1 Employer’s Drawings, if any (To be listed by the Employer) 1.2 The Employer means Port Qasim Authority, Bin Qasim Karachi 1.3 The Contractor means ___________________________________ 1.4 Commencement Date means to date of issue of Engineer’s Notice to commence which shall be issued within fourteen (14) days of the signing of the Contract Agreement.
In addition the CFV ‘where to look’ packs illustrate spending opportunities in relation to admissions and primary care prescribing including the values attached to that. To summarise, the suggested actions for consideration are: Improvement in ensuring patients are more physically active – Stoke on Trent and Cannock Chase CCGs Increased smoking cessation support and treatment for patients – Stoke on Trent, North Staffs, East Staffs CCGs Increase identification of patients who are obese or overweight – North Staffs CCG Increase identification of patients with hypertension – East Staffs CCG Increase identification of patients with diabetes – Stafford and Surrounds CCG Greater participation in the national diabetes audit – East Staffs CCG Increase identification of patients over 65 years with dementia – East Staffs and Stafford and Surrounds CCGs Increased management for patients with CKD (looking at BP management and/or treatment and/or record of albumin-creatinine) – South East Staffs and Seisdon, East Staffs, Stafford and Surrounds CCGs and Cannock Chase CCG for BP management Improvement in the number of adults and children with asthma admitted as an emergency – North Staffs and Stafford and Surrounds CCG (Cannock Chase CCG for child admissions) Improvement in the number of adults with COPD admitted as an emergency – Stoke-on-Trent and Cannock Chase CCGs Increase identification of patients with COPD – Stoke-on-Trent and Stafford and Surrounds CCGs Increase anticoagulation and anti-platelet prescribing for AF patients to reduce stroke risk – Opportunity for all CCGs
days 1 – 30 days 31 - 34 day 35 Days 36-38 days 39 – 90 days 91 – over Free $15,00 per TEU / day $20,00 per TEU/day $30,00 per TEU / day $60,00 per TEU /day $35,00 per TEU /day OOG Containers days 1 – 3 days 4 - over Free $90,00 per container / day Containers with Dangerous cargo days 1 – 20 days 21 - 24 day 25 days 26-28 days 29 – 80 days 81 – over Free $20,00 per TEU / day $25,00 per TEU/day $45,00 per TEU / day $70,00 per TEU /day $45,00 per TEU /day Reefer Containers days 1 – over $50,00 per box / day DETENTION Standard DV/GP 20’ containers start date = empty pick up, end date = loading onboard / calendar days days 1 – 21 days 22 – over ( AET ) days 22 – over ( TAT / IET ) Free 3,00 usd per cont / day 2,50 usd per cont / day
OBSERVATION________ EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT RATINGS FOR DOMAINS 2 AND 3 RELATED COMPONENTS OBSERVER’S SIGNATURE __________________________________________________ DATE____________________ STUDENT TEACHER’S SIGNATURE _________________________________________ DATE____________________
OBSERVATION________ EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT RATINGS FOR DOMAINS 2 AND 3 RELATED COMPONENTS OBSERVER’S SIGNATURE __________________________________________________ DATE____________________ STUDENT TEACHER’S SIGNATURE _________________________________________ DATE____________________
OBSERVATION________ EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT RATINGS FOR DOMAINS 2 AND 3 RELATED COMPONENTS OBSERVER’S SIGNATURE __________________________________________________ DATE____________________ STUDENT TEACHER’S SIGNATURE _________________________________________ DATE____________________
OBSERVATION________ EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT RATINGS FOR DOMAINS 2 AND 3 RELATED COMPONENTS OBSERVER’S SIGNATURE __________________________________________________ DATE____________________ STUDENT TEACHER’S SIGNATURE _________________________________________ DATE____________________
Offering education to everyone with the drive to succeed, supported by intensive tutorial (which was also commended by the QAA in 2016). Exceeding the benchmark for alternative providers in 3 categories in the National Student Survey, NSS 2017. Section 2 “Learning opportunities” St.Patrick’s scored 4% above the sector average in learning opportunity by students, with 88% for St.Patrick’s, compared with 84% for England. Section 3 “Assessment and feedback” St.Patrick’s scored above the sector average with 77%, compared to 74% for England. Also, there is an increase from 2016 internal survey of 8%. 2016 average was 69% for this category. Section 7 “Learning Community” St.Patrick’s scored 1% above the sector average with 78% compared to 77% for England. Recognising innovation, diversity, and individual success. A number of our students have or aspire to have their own businesses, and our vocational courses are designed to support these ambitions. Aspiring to be a model of good equality and diversity practice. Our student profile is very different from the young, white, undergraduate norm in established universities and is a matter of great pride. In 2016-17, 53% of our students were between 30-49 years old, 52% were female, and 48% were male. The student population made up of a diverse ethnicity with groups self-identifying as BME background is 48%, while the remaining student population is drawn from a diverse ethnic backgrounds. Future The College will continue to build its existing portfolio by investing in new programmes to further diversify our student profile, providing greater support and opportunity at entry level to strengthen our accessibility. This will be coupled with new fields of study to attract a yet wider range of students and new progression opportunities (for example, top-up degrees) to enhance our students’ educational and employment outcomes.
This may be on-site, but increasingly is off-site in storage managed by specialist companies, owing to the amount of space required. Microfilming An analogue system where documents are photographed and stored in miniature on microfiche, a sheet of film. Requires a reader to magnify the documents in order to read them. Files are indexed but have to be searched for manually. Time consuming having to photograph all the documents. Requires very little space as many files can be stored on the sheets of film. Allows instant access to files rather than going through a procedure to request and find them. Digital archiving systems Allows paper documents to be scanned and stored electronically. All electronic files can be converted to a format by which all can be centrally indexed, searched, sorted and managed. There are many organisations offering this service as a business solution to file storage. Picture archiving and communication systems (PACS) Largely in use in the medical industry for electronic sharing and storage of images, e.g. scans. ‘Electronic picture archiving and communication systems have been developed in an attempt to provide economical storage, rapid retrieval of images, access to images acquired with multiple modalities, and simultaneous access at multiple sites.’ Choplin, R. (1992). Picture archiving and communication systems: an overview. Radiographics January 1992, 12:127–129. Document destruction If files are no longer required, then they may be destroyed, usually by shredding. There are organisations that specialise in the disposal of bulk confidential material. File retention policy This is the policy that states how long files must be retained before they are moved to archive or destroyed. States the procedures for doing so. There may be legal restrictions on the length of time files are kept, depending on their content. Information systems Organisations’ records
EVENT SUMMARY 31/03/2015 UNCLASSIFIED EVENT TYPE ISSUE [FILE NO.] Single Touch Payroll Implementation and Transition Advisory Committee meeting Video Conference Brisbane - L14.04 - 55 Elizabeth St, Brisbane, QLD, Melbourne - L9.704 - 747 Collins St, Docklands, VIC, National Office - Gnabra/Kembery - L7.N16- 21 Genge St, Canberra, ACT, Newcastle - L4 VC1 - 266 King St, Newcastle, NSW, Sydney - Latitude East - 12.710- 52 Goulburn St, Sydney, NSW. FORMAT Meeting 31 March 2015 2:00 pm 2:55 pm Rowan Fraser Mwaniki Wa-Gichia 02 9374 2135 ATO: Rowan Fraser, Lesley Slevin, Chris Thorne, Camilla Mules (for Michael Heath), Philip Hind, Adhir Singh, Kate French External Partners: Vincent Ellaway - PricewaterhouseCoopers, Michelle Whitmore – PricewaterhouseCoopers, Joy Hooper (Oracle Corporation) - Australian Business Software Industry Association (ABSIA), Nicholas Perrott (Attache Software) - Australian Business Software Industry Association (ABSIA), Graham Coutts – ADP Employer Services Sarah O’Brien – Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia representative Mark Morris – CPA Australia Peter Strong – COSBOA Maureen Martin - The Association for Payroll Specialists Tracy Angwin – Australian Payroll Association
PAYEVNTEE84 Super Guarantee Amount Y Set to a non-negative value which may have been derived from SBR taxonomy. We need to confirm whether this is correct. PAYEVNTEE61 OTE Amount Y PAYEVNTEE111 Reportable Employer Super contribution Y WAGE AND TAXATION ITEM Tuple WageItem Tuple LumpSumPayments Tuple LumpSumPaymentA PAYEVNTEE53 Payee Lump Sum Payment A Type Y PAYEVNTEE52 Payee Lump Sum Payment A Y PAYEVNTEE54 Payee Lump Sum Payment B Y PAYEVNTEE55 Payee Lump Sum Payment D Y PAYEVNTEE56 Payee Lump Sum Payment E Y Tuple Taxable PAYEVNTEE125 Payee RFB Taxable Amount Y Tuple Exempt PAYEVNTEE126 Payee RFB Exempt Amount Y Tuple OtherSpecifiedPaymentSummary PAYEVNTEE122 Payee Other Specified Gross Payments Y PAYEVNTEE116 Payee Total Other Specified Payments PAYGW Amount Y Tuple VoluntaryAgreementPaymentSummary PAYEVNTEE57 Payee Voluntary Agreement Gross Payment Y PAYEVNTEE115 Payee Total Voluntary Agreement PAYGW Amount Y
Kensington Past and Present Members: $5.00 +tax Non-Members: $7.00 +tax Item# BK1 On the Road of Life Members: $5.00 +tax Non-Members: $7.00 +tax Item#BK2 Earthquake Exodus Members: $5.00 +tax Non-Members: $7.00 +tax Item# BK3 Homeowner Haiku Members: $8.00 +tax Non-Members: $12.95 Item# BK4 The Promise Members & Non-Members: $19.95 +tax Item# BK5 Rags to Real Estate Members & Non-Members: $19.95 +tax Item# DSHC1 Rags to Real Estate (Soft Cover) Members & Non-Members: $15.95 +tax Item# DSSC2 The Great Moving Adventure DVD Members: $5.00 Non-Members: $6.95 Item# DGMA Sign Rider Hanging Tools Steel Spring Clips Members: $.55 +tax Non-Members: $.65 +tax Item# LTM25 S Hooks Members: $.40 +tax Non-Members: $.45 +tax Item# LTM24 To verify if any items are in stock please contact us or if you have any questions you may call the office at 510-848-4288 Ask for Roger – Store Manager Thank You
NA Single Touch Payroll Working Group Workshop 189 Queen Street, the Adina Apartment Hotel Melbourne 9 June 2015 10 June 2015 09:30 08:30 18:00 16:30 Martin Mane Stephanie Lillywhite Kate French 02 4923 1134 0439 422 952 Day 1 9:30-10:00 Arrival tea/coffee 1 10:00-10:15 Welcome and introductions Key messages from last meeting and action items Michael Heath Martin Mane 2 10:15-10:30 Process and expected outcomes for the workshops Stephanie Lillywhite 3 10:30-12:30 On-boarding Retail flow Gordon Stewart/ Brendan Kee 12:30-1:15 Lunch 4 1:15-3:15 On-boarding Wholesale flow Gordon Stewart/ Brendan Kee 3:15-3.30 Break 5 3:30-5:30 Payroll Event flow Gordon Stewart/ Brendan Kee 6 5:30-6:00 Next steps and close 8:30-9:00 Arrival tea/coffee
1 9:00-9:15 Recap of Day 1 Stephanie Lillywhite/ Martin Mane 2 9:15-11:15 Amendments Processing flow Gordon Stewart/ Brendan Kee 11:15-11:30 Break 3 11:30-1:00 Amendments Processing flow (cont) Gordon Stewart/ Brendan Kee 1:00-1:45 Lunch 4 1:45-3:45 Pilot concepts Stephanie Lillywhite 5 3:45-4:15 Next steps 6 4:15-4:30 Close
Sandstone Trail Social Booking Wednesday 29 November 2017 Name Main Course Dessert Payment Lamb / Chicken Tikka / Risotto Brownie / Cheesecake / Ice Cream £15 / £7.50 Lamb / Chicken Tikka / Risotto Brownie / Cheesecake / Ice Cream £15 / £7.50 Lamb / Chicken Tikka / Risotto Brownie / Cheesecake / Ice Cream £15 / £7.50 Lamb / Chicken Tikka / Risotto Brownie / Cheesecake / Ice Cream £15 / £7.50 Total Paid by: BACS / Cheque to Deeside Orienteering Club sent to Bob Elmes Please mark your choices from main and dessert, and specify how you are paying. Send completed form to Bob Elmes () or 4 Erindale Crescent, Frodsham WA6 6DZ.
Element 3.3.1 Element 3.3.1 requires: ‘Sustainable practices are embedded in service operations’. The Panel considered the findings of the Ratings Review Panel decision STR0002, relating to the notion of what constitutes ‘embedded practice’. The Panel discussed the meaning of the term ‘embedded’, concluding that it does set a high benchmark. The Panel discussed the service’s environmental sustainability policy and agreed that it appears to reflect some of the practices of the service. The Panel noted the information in the initial decision and at first tier review, and agreed that these show positive examples of sustainable practice. For example, use of recycled/junk materials in craft experiences, children using the recycling bin, water tank near the sand pit, food scrap recycling and vegetable garden. The Panel also noted the comments of the Regulatory Authority at first tier review, and questioned the weight applied to what is described as a lack of evidence of a commitment to environmental sustainability embedded in the service operations – specifically, in the service philosophy, policies and procedure documents. The Panel considered the samples of programming documentation and copies of staff meeting and committee meeting minutes provided at second tier review, agreeing that these supported the service’s claims that sustainable practices are embedded in their operations. The Panel did however note opportunities for the service’s environmental sustainability policy document to be tailored and localised. The Panel considered the service’s outdoor environment and its range of natural features in its consideration of this element, including the grass, natural soft fall material, trees and garden areas, and discussed how the service’s investment in maintaining natural elements is evidence of a service which cares actively for its environment. The Panel concluded that this element should be amended to ‘met’. The Panel noted that by amending this element, the service met all elements under standard 3.3. The Panel briefly considered whether there was evidence to support a rating of ‘Exceeding National Quality Standard’ for the standard and concluded that the evidence supported a rating of ‘Meeting National Quality Standard’ for standard 3.3.
centre. The provider also points out that there are two digital frames in the foyer for parents to see what happens daily at the service. The regulatory authority rated this standard as ‘Meeting NQS’. The Panel considered that to achieve a rating level of ‘Exceeding NQS’ for standard 6.1, the provider would need to demonstrate that it provides comprehensive information to families and a range of opportunities to not only be involved with the service, but to significantly contribute to the service’s decisions and communication, consultation and collaboration that actively direct the enrolment and orientation process. The Panel agreed that the additional information submitted by the provider does not demonstrate Exceeding practice. The Panel noted that no information was provided regarding the suggestions that are made, and whether the service acts upon feedback provided through the suggestion box. The Panel also noted that while families are invited to be involved with the service, there is no evidence of them being involved in the decision making process. The Panel concluded that the rating level for standard 6.1 should remain unchanged as ‘Meeting NQS’. Standard 6.2 Standard 6.2 is that: Families are supported in their parenting role and their values and beliefs about child rearing are respected. In making its claim for a rating of Exceeding the NQS, the provider refers to having a parents’ communication book in which the educational leader discusses issues with families, a range of communications including pamphlets and photos of a parent making Greek biscuits, Arabic eggplant dip and a photo of parents celebrating their child’s birthday. The regulatory authority rated this standard as ‘Meeting NQS’. The Panel considered that to achieve a rating level of ‘Exceeding NQS’ for standard 6.2, the provider would need to demonstrate that information about community services and resources is available to families in a variety of accessible forms, and the expertise of families is actively sought.
‘Approved provider’ and NSW Department of Education and Communities [2013] ACECQARRPstr0005 (21 November 2013) Applicant: ‘Approved provider’ Regulatory authority: NSW Department of Education and Communities Decision date: 21 November 2013 Application reference: STR0005 Decision The Ratings Review Panel (the Panel) by consensus has decided to confirm that elements 2.1.4 and 7.2.2 are assessed as ‘not met’. The Panel decided by consensus to confirm that the rating levels for standards 2.1 and 7.2 are ‘Working Towards NQS’; As a result, the Panel has confirmed that the rating levels for Quality Areas 2 and 7 are ‘Working Towards NQS’ and the overall rating for the service is ‘Working Towards NQS’. Issues under review The approved provider sought a review of the following, on the grounds that the regulatory authority failed to take into account or give sufficient weight to facts existing at the time of the rating assessment: Quality Area 2, standard 2.1 (element 2.1.4) Quality Area 7, standard 7.2 (element 7.2.2) After the initial assessment, the service was rated as ‘Working Towards’ for standards 1.2, 2.1, 7.2 and 7.3. The approved provider applied for first tier review on the basis that the regulatory authority’s assessment of some elements conflicted with its assessment of other elements. Regulatory authority’s view At first tier review, the regulatory authority amended its assessment of Standards 1.2 and 7.3 from ‘Working Towards’ to ‘Meeting NQS’. However, the ratings for Standards 2.1 and 7.2 remained at ‘Working Towards’. All other ratings remained unchanged. Consequently, the amendments did not change the service’s overall rating of ‘Working Towards’. Applicant’s view
Section 151 of the National Law states ‘Following a review, the Ratings Review Panel may: (a) confirm the rating levels determined by the Regulatory Authority; or (b) amend the rating levels.’ Information on the application of the National Quality Standard is available in the Guide to the National Law and Regulations and the Guide to the National Quality Standard available on ACECQA’s website. The facts The assessment and rating visit took place on 8 and 9 September 2014. Two authorised officers were present during the visit. The provider received the assessment and rating decision on 6 November 2014. The provider applied for first tier review on 19 November 2014 and received a decision on 9 January 2015. The service is an outside school hours’ care service with 60 approved places. Review of rating levels The Panel considered each standard and element under review in turn. Standard 1.1 Standard 1.1 ‘An approved learning framework informs the development of a curriculum that enhances each child’s learning and development’. It is made up of six separate elements, one of which is under review. Element 1.1.3 Element 1.1.3 requires that: ‘The program, including routines, is organised in ways that maximise opportunities for each child’s learning’. Within the evidence collected during the assessment visit, the authorised officers sighted routines for the before and after school care program and noted that ‘the children appeared to be familiar with the routines of the service and move between the events’. The authorised officer observed that ‘routine events were minimised to avoid children having to wait for extended periods’ but ‘when children were required to sit down for group time the educator continued to repeat “sssshhh” and
know blue cards screening. Notification for families e.g. at the entrance of the service is a sign notifying of a student and the AO visiting. Parent handbook, enrolment pack. Each room send out daily emails. Information about events. Facebook page, emails and verbal communications. The regulatory authority noted that the provider’s evidence was provided to demonstrate that an effective enrolment and orientation process is in place that supports families, and current information about the service is provided to families in an accessible format. However, the regulatory authority noted insufficient evidence was provided in support of statements that indicated families are offered a range of opportunities to be actively involved in the service and significantly contribute to service decisions. The regulatory authority states in its first tier review considerations that while the evidence considered as part of the first tier review reflects aspects of both meeting and exceeding practice, overall, the evidence of practice for Standard 6.1 reflects ‘Meeting NQS’. ACECQA advises the panel that the decision outcome letter lists standard 6.1 under both ‘Meeting NQS’ and ‘Exceeding NQS’ but the deliberation document has standard 6.1 listed as ‘Meeting NQS’. Applicant’s view In the cover letter for its application for second tier review the provider noted the regulatory authority mentioned only six of 33 points of evidence it submitted, and feels that this means 27 points were not taken into account. The provider states that evidence was available to show families are offered a range of opportunities to be actively involved in the service and significantly contribute to service decisions. The provider identifies that there are many examples of this in the authorised officer’s comments and the feedback the provider has given. The provider further states that, ‘our relationships with families and input from families are definite strengths of ours, and our families are constantly involved, consulted and listened to’. The provider states ‘we believe there is significant evidence provided above to support how we exceed the National Quality Standard in standard 6.1 in relation to how we offer families a range of opportunities to be actively involved in the service, and significantly contribute to service decisions. There is abundant further evidence available in our response to draft and first tier review about how we exceed the rest of the elements in standard 6.1’. The provider states the service does not just enrol a child, it enrols a family and the director and educators show understanding and interest in each child and their family. Educators encourage children to share things with friends that
Standard 1.2 Standard 1.2 is that: Educators and co-ordinators are focused, active and reflective in designing and delivering the program for each child. The Panel noted that to achieve a rating of Exceeding NQS for this standard, it may expect to see evidence of the following: Regulatory authority’s view The final Assessment and Rating Report identifies the following as being Meeting NQS level: The service has developed an education, curriculum and learning policy to support all educators’ curriculum development and implementation. Each child has an individual portfolio with samples of work, photographs of them engaged in the program and a developmental summary completed by their educator. Although each educator is programming and documenting at different levels, records show a consistent link between planned experiences, reflection of learning and future planning for each child. Educators revisit experiences for children to reflect and build on prior learning. For example, an educator is telling the story of the 3 little pigs with puppets and props. The children know the story enough to be a character and call out different lines, ‘not by the hair on my chinny chinny chin chin’, ‘then I’ll huff and I’ll puff till I blow your house down’. Educators use thought provoking words including ‘what’ and ‘how’ to encourage children to hypothesise. “What happens next?” “Who comes along?” Educators extend children’s ideas by joining in and supporting their play. An educator uses open ended questions and verbal guidance to prompt and support children’s problem solving enabling them to complete a puzzle. Educators use a variety of methods to assist their reflection on children’s experiences, thinking and learning. Educators use anecdotal observations, children’s comments and conversations, samples of work, learning stories and photographs.
Facilities are designed or adapted to ensure active participation by every child in the service and promote flexible use and interaction between indoor and outdoor space at all times. Regulatory Authority’s view At first tier review the regulatory authority noted: Practices referred to by the approved provider are those recorded by the officer in the Assessment Evidence Summary and are consistent with practices that Meet the Standard. The evidence supplied by the approved provider does not demonstrate how all outdoor and indoor spaces, buildings, furniture, equipment, facilities and resources provide a stimulating learning and care environment for children or how the learning environment is enhanced by safe, clean and well maintained premises and furniture. Similarly, evidence was not provided to show how the flexible use and interaction between indoor and outdoor space is promoted at all times. The regulatory authority concluded that while the service demonstrated practice that is Meeting the National Quality Standard, there was insufficient evidence in the documents presented for the review to support an overall higher rating for Standard 3.1. Applicant’s view Draft Report and First Tier Review The approved provider submitted that the service is Exceeding the standard based on the following examples, practice and evidence: All outdoor and indoor spaces, buildings and resources were built to stimulate learning and a caring environment for the children. The Regulatory Authority’s Assessment Evidence Summary states: ‘enhance the learning environment for the children’. ‘Activities and experiences are placed thoughtfully in both the indoor and outdoor environments with consideration given to space and resources needed’ ‘Lots of resources are available to children with open shelving and bathroom facilities easily accessed by children in both the indoor and outdoor environments.’ ‘During morning block of free play children can access both the indoor and outdoor environments.’ The approved provider submitted the following as supporting evidence:
The centre director has weekly meetings with the room leaders. These discussions are recorded in the weekly director’s report. Meal times are unhurried and consist of small groups. The provision of learning experiences is reflective of children's interests, strengths and levels of learning. Educators communicate daily with families through verbal conversations at arrival and departure times. Daily reflections include photos, observations and interesting events that are shared with families daily and distributed electronically. Daybooks record events that unfold each day and offer an insight to reflecting on the learning occurring. Families are invited to contribute. First tier review At first tier review, the provider disagreed with the inference in the quality improvement notes in the Outcome Summary that older children did not serve themselves and submitted that all children serve themselves during mealtimes and use real cutlery and crockery. The provider submitted that the evidence recorded by the authorised officer in the Evidence Summary shows this happens. For example, the Evidence Summary states: Educators wear gloves and use tongs when handling and serving food. The older children use tongs to serve themselves morning and afternoon tea. The younger children are encouraged to use tongs and educators assist in this process. (This evidence was recorded under Standard 2.1). Children can choose what to eat and how much to eat for afternoon tea. A boy wanted more fruit and this was provided. An educator asked another educator inside to cut up more fruit. The provider submitted that the service is known for providing an authentic meal experience with a focus on independent serving. At first tier review, the regulatory authority considered the approved provider’s claim that all children serve themselves during mealtimes, and reviewed the evidence recorded by the officer in the Evidence Summary about this practice. The regulatory authority discussed the officer’s observations and noted those that illustrate children having age appropriate opportunities to serve themselves and demonstrate independence at meal times, including: Morning and afternoon tea is served on wooden serving platters with tongs.
Ratings review panel’s considerations The panel’s discussion focussed on whether the available evidence demonstrated the service was using routines to maximise children’s learning. The panel found there was limited evidence within the assessment and rating report that routines were being used as learning experiences, and the evidence that was recorded by the authorised officer indicated narrow opportunities for children to make choices. The panel found the evidence indicated activities were not focused on individual children’s needs but that the program, particularly routines, were adult directed, with educators observed interrupting activities and leaving children to undertake other tasks, ignoring opportunities for spontaneous learning and flexibility. While the service contested these observations, the panel did not believe there was enough evidence to support the service’s claims that routines were appropriately child-led and allowed the exercise of choice. The panel also found the claim for special circumstances (given the attendance of a special guest and attendance by the weekly “Learn and Grow” team and music teacher) was not warranted, observing that weekly classes should not unduly disturb the service’s procedures. The panel found the authorised officer’s observations for the element to be thorough, including the citing of multiple examples from the evidence where activities were interrupted and learning opportunities were missed, and where children were asked to do something but then elsewhere against their wishes. The panel concluded there was not evidence that the program is organised to maximise children’s learning and that the element should remain at not met. Given the panel decided that Element 1.1.3 is Not met, a rating of Exceeding for Standard 1.1 could not be considered. The rating for Standard 1.1 and Quality Area 1 remains at Working towards NQS. Standard 3.1 Standard 3.1 is that: The design and location of the premises is appropriate for the operation of a service. This standard is comprised of three elements, one of which – 3.1.1 – is under review. Element 3.1.1 Element 3.1.1 is that: Outdoor and indoor spaces, buildings, furniture, equipment, facilities and resources are suitable for their purpose.
Are assumptions made by the health economy consistent with the challenges identified in a Call to Action? Can the plan on a page elements be identified through examining the activity and financial projections covered in operational and financial templates? Improvement interventions Please list the material transformational interventions required to move from the current state and deliver the five year vision. For each transformational intervention, please describe the : Overall aims of the intervention and who is likely to be impacted by the intervention Expected outcome in quality, activity, cost and point of delivery terms e.g. the description of the large scale impact the project will have Investment costs (time, money, workforce) Implementation timeline Enablers required for example medicines optimisation Barriers to success Confidence levels of implementation The planning teams may find it helpful to consider the reports recently published or to be published imminently including commissioning for prevention, Any town health system and the report following the NHS Futures Summit. Intervention One Overall description [CCG to comment] Expected Outcome [CCG to comment with particular emphasis on the impact on the outcome ambitions or the six characteristics] Investment costs Financial costs [CCG to comment] Non-Financial costs [CCG to comment] Implementation timeline [CCG to comment] Enablers required [CCG to comment] Barriers to success [CCG to comment] Confidence levels of implementation [CCG to comment]
For Office use only: Section One: Respondents Details All respondents should complete Part A. If you are an Agent please complete Part’s A & B Part A: Respondent Title / Name: Job Title (if applicable): Organisation / Company (if applicable): Address: Postcode: Tel No: E-mail: Part B: Agents – Please complete details of the client / company you represent Client / Company Name: Address: Postcode: Tel No: E-mail:
5. (6, 3) M1 and o.e. or a drawing used correctly [2] 6. (y =) 2x – 3 o.e. B2 B1 for mx – 3 or 2x + c where m and c are integers with m ≠ 0 and c ≠ 3 [2] 7. (k =) 8 M1 for 0 = 2 × 4 – k or better [2] 8. (a) y = 2x – 6 2 W1 2x + c or W1 mx – 6 (b) (3, 0) 1ft For y = 2x + k only, allow (–k/2, 0) [3] 9. (a) or 4 –1.5x o.e. 2* M1 any 2 operations completed correctly SC1 (3x – 8)/–2 (b) –3/2 or – 1.5 1√ from their equation in (a) (c) (0, 4) 1√ from their equation in (a) [4]