Report on the Iowa Department of Human Rights for the year ended June 30, 2011

Report on the Iowa Department of Human Rights for the year ended June 30, 2011

Report on the Iowa Department of Human Rights for the year ended June 30, 2012

Report on the Iowa Department of Human Rights for the year ended June 30, 2012

The european higher education area at work: Lights and shadows defining continuous assessment

The aim of this paper is to analyse how learning assessment, particularly the Continuous Assessment system, has been defined in the Public Administration and Management Diploma Course of the University of Barcelona (Spain). This course was a pioneering experiment at this university in implementing the guidelines of the European Higher Education Area (EHEA), and thus represents a good case study for verifying whether one of the cornerstones of the EHEA has been accomplished with success. Using data obtained from the Teaching Plans elaborated by the lecturers of each subject, we are able to establish that the CA system has been progressively accepted to such an extent that it is now the assessment formula used by practically all of the lecturers, conforming in this way to the protocols laid down by the Faculty of Law in which this diploma course is taught. Nevertheless, we find that high dispersion exists in how Continuous Assessment is actually defined. Indeed, it seems that there is no unified view of how Continuous Assessment should be performed. This dispersion, however, seems to diminish over time and raises some questions about the advisability of agreement on criteria, considering the potential which CA has as a pedagogical tool. Moreover, we find that the Unique Assessment system, which students may also apply for, is an option chosen only by a minority, with lecturers usually defining it as merely a theoretical and/or practical test, of little innovation in relation to traditional tests.

Human Rights Performance Report, FY2011

Agency Performance Report

Human Rights Performance Report, FY2011

Agency Performance Report

Department of Human Rights Agency Performance Plan, FY2011, January 6, 2012

Annual Report, Agency Performance Plan

Department of Human Rights Agency Performance Plan, FY13, December 16, 2013

Annual Report, Agency Performance Plan

Department of Human Rights Division of Central Administration Performance Plan, FY2005

This report provides valuable information about Central Administration’s coordination and provision of quality administrative, personnel, and financial services for all DHR divisions. Information is being provided in accordance with the Accountable Government Act to improve decision-making and increase accountability to stakeholders and citizens of Iowa. This report includes performance information for the division’s core function - resource management. The two services, products, and activities provided by the division – financial services and human resources services - also are reviewed. The division is comprised of seven full-time employees. The division’s FY2005 operating budget was $ 604,888 of which $292,660 was from the State General Fund. The additional $ 312,228 was received via intra-state transfers from the non-state funded programs administered by the Department of Human Rights. Central Administration oversaw expenditures of $ 66,868,806 for the entire department, and coordinated the personnel and payroll transactions of 56 FTEs. As we review the results from this year’s report we will continue to refine how we measure our successes and modify plans to improve results.

Department of Human Rights Agency Performance Plan, FY2014

Annual Report, Agency Performance Plan

Iowa Department of Human Rights Strategic Plan, 2012-2014

The Iowa Department for Human Rights Strategic Plan.

The european higher education area at work: Lights and shadows defining continuous assessment

The aim of this paper is to analyse how learning assessment, particularly the Continuous Assessment system, has been defined in the Public Administration and Management Diploma Course of the University of Barcelona (Spain). This course was a pioneering experiment at this university in implementing the guidelines of the European Higher Education Area (EHEA), and thus represents a good case study for verifying whether one of the cornerstones of the EHEA has been accomplished with success. Using data obtained from the Teaching Plans elaborated by the lecturers of each subject, we are able to establish that the CA system has been progressively accepted to such an extent that it is now the assessment formula used by practically all of the lecturers, conforming in this way to the protocols laid down by the Faculty of Law in which this diploma course is taught. Nevertheless, we find that high dispersion exists in how Continuous Assessment is actually defined. Indeed, it seems that there is no unified view of how Continuous Assessment should be performed. This dispersion, however, seems to diminish over time and raises some questions about the advisability of agreement on criteria, considering the potential which CA has as a pedagogical tool. Moreover, we find that the Unique Assessment system, which students may also apply for, is an option chosen only by a minority, with lecturers usually defining it as merely a theoretical and/or practical test, of little innovation in relation to traditional tests.

The european higher education area at work: Lights and shadows defining continuous assessment

The aim of this paper is to analyse how learning assessment, particularly the Continuous Assessment system, has been defined in the Public Administration and Management Diploma Course of the University of Barcelona (Spain). This course was a pioneering experiment at this university in implementing the guidelines of the European Higher Education Area (EHEA), and thus represents a good case study for verifying whether one of the cornerstones of the EHEA has been accomplished with success. Using data obtained from the Teaching Plans elaborated by the lecturers of each subject, we are able to establish that the CA system has been progressively accepted to such an extent that it is now the assessment formula used by practically all of the lecturers, conforming in this way to the protocols laid down by the Faculty of Law in which this diploma course is taught. Nevertheless, we find that high dispersion exists in how Continuous Assessment is actually defined. Indeed, it seems that there is no unified view of how Continuous Assessment should be performed. This dispersion, however, seems to diminish over time and raises some questions about the advisability of agreement on criteria, considering the potential which CA has as a pedagogical tool. Moreover, we find that the Unique Assessment system, which students may also apply for, is an option chosen only by a minority, with lecturers usually defining it as merely a theoretical and/or practical test, of little innovation in relation to traditional tests.

Report on the Iowa Department of Human Rights for the year ended June 30, 2013

Report on the Iowa Department of Human Rights for the year ended June 30, 2013