Sentences with phrase «effectiveness rating under»

More than half (53.6 %) of the teachers had a different effectiveness rating under the alternative model.

Not exact matches

Important factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those reflected in such forward - looking statements and that should be considered in evaluating our outlook include, but are not limited to, the following: 1) our ability to continue to grow our business and execute our growth strategy, including the timing, execution, and profitability of new and maturing programs; 2) our ability to perform our obligations under our new and maturing commercial, business aircraft, and military development programs, and the related recurring production; 3) our ability to accurately estimate and manage performance, cost, and revenue under our contracts, including our ability to achieve certain cost reductions with respect to the B787 program; 4) margin pressures and the potential for additional forward losses on new and maturing programs; 5) our ability to accommodate, and the cost of accommodating, announced increases in the build rates of certain aircraft; 6) the effect on aircraft demand and build rates of changing customer preferences for business aircraft, including the effect of global economic conditions on the business aircraft market and expanding conflicts or political unrest in the Middle East or Asia; 7) customer cancellations or deferrals as a result of global economic uncertainty or otherwise; 8) the effect of economic conditions in the industries and markets in which we operate in the U.S. and globally and any changes therein, including fluctuations in foreign currency exchange rates; 9) the success and timely execution of key milestones such as the receipt of necessary regulatory approvals, including our ability to obtain in a timely fashion any required regulatory or other third party approvals for the consummation of our announced acquisition of Asco, and customer adherence to their announced schedules; 10) our ability to successfully negotiate, or re-negotiate, future pricing under our supply agreements with Boeing and our other customers; 11) our ability to enter into profitable supply arrangements with additional customers; 12) the ability of all parties to satisfy their performance requirements under existing supply contracts with our two major customers, Boeing and Airbus, and other customers, and the risk of nonpayment by such customers; 13) any adverse impact on Boeing's and Airbus» production of aircraft resulting from cancellations, deferrals, or reduced orders by their customers or from labor disputes, domestic or international hostilities, or acts of terrorism; 14) any adverse impact on the demand for air travel or our operations from the outbreak of diseases or epidemic or pandemic outbreaks; 15) our ability to avoid or recover from cyber-based or other security attacks, information technology failures, or other disruptions; 16) returns on pension plan assets and the impact of future discount rate changes on pension obligations; 17) our ability to borrow additional funds or refinance debt, including our ability to obtain the debt to finance the purchase price for our announced acquisition of Asco on favorable terms or at all; 18) competition from commercial aerospace original equipment manufacturers and other aerostructures suppliers; 19) the effect of governmental laws, such as U.S. export control laws and U.S. and foreign anti-bribery laws such as the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and the United Kingdom Bribery Act, and environmental laws and agency regulations, both in the U.S. and abroad; 20) the effect of changes in tax law, such as the effect of The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (the «TCJA») that was enacted on December 22, 2017, and changes to the interpretations of or guidance related thereto, and the Company's ability to accurately calculate and estimate the effect of such changes; 21) any reduction in our credit ratings; 22) our dependence on our suppliers, as well as the cost and availability of raw materials and purchased components; 23) our ability to recruit and retain a critical mass of highly - skilled employees and our relationships with the unions representing many of our employees; 24) spending by the U.S. and other governments on defense; 25) the possibility that our cash flows and our credit facility may not be adequate for our additional capital needs or for payment of interest on, and principal of, our indebtedness; 26) our exposure under our revolving credit facility to higher interest payments should interest rates increase substantially; 27) the effectiveness of any interest rate hedging programs; 28) the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting; 29) the outcome or impact of ongoing or future litigation, claims, and regulatory actions; 30) exposure to potential product liability and warranty claims; 31) our ability to effectively assess, manage and integrate acquisitions that we pursue, including our ability to successfully integrate the Asco business and generate synergies and other cost savings; 32) our ability to consummate our announced acquisition of Asco in a timely matter while avoiding any unexpected costs, charges, expenses, adverse changes to business relationships and other business disruptions for ourselves and Asco as a result of the acquisition; 33) our ability to continue selling certain receivables through our supplier financing program; 34) the risks of doing business internationally, including fluctuations in foreign current exchange rates, impositions of tariffs or embargoes, compliance with foreign laws, and domestic and foreign government policies; and 35) our ability to complete the proposed accelerated stock repurchase plan, among other things.

In the cost - effectiveness analysis (GiveWell estimate of Living Goods cost effectiveness (November 2014)-RRB-, in all Sheets except for «U5MR (Jake's assumptions),» we use 5q0, or the probability of a child dying before his or her 5th birthday expressed in deaths per 1,000 live births assuming constant mortality rates throughout childhood, instead of the under - 5 mortality rate (under 5 deaths per person per year), because the original report on the RCT we received from Living Goods reported outcomes in terms of 5q0.

About 1971, however, there was a major turn in my pilgrimage as I gradually became painfully aware of the so - called outcome studies reporting the dubious effectiveness of average psychotherapy, whose cure rates barely match spontaneous remission, coupled with the frightening spectre of client deterioration (i.e., patients finding their condition worsening under the care of professional psychotherapists).

So here is a brief accounting of Gotham's status in two output areas: rating teacher effectiveness and student academic growth, particularly children from historically under - served cohorts.

On this note, and «[i] n sum, recent research on value added tells us that, by using data from student perceptions, classroom observations, and test score growth, we can obtain credible evidence [albeit weakly related evidence, referring to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation's MET studies] of the relative effectiveness of a set of teachers who teach similar kids [emphasis added] under similar conditions [emphasis added]... [Although] if a district administrator uses data like that collected in MET, we can anticipate that an attempt to classify teachers for personnel decisions will be characterized by intolerably high error rates [emphasis added].

Among those who changed effectiveness ratings, some moved only moderately, but 8.1 % of those teachers identified as «more» or «most» effective under the alternative model are identified as «less» or «least» effective in the L.A. Times model, and 12.6 % of those identified as relatively ineffective under the alternative model are identified as effective by the L.A. Times model.

Among those who did change effectiveness ratings, some moved only moderately, but 1.4 % of those teachers identified as effective under the alternative model are identified as ineffective in the L.A. Times model, and 2.7 % would go from a rating of ineffective under the alternative model to effective under the L.A. Times model.

Under the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act of 2006, states are provided with funding to develop the technical skills of secondary and postsecondary students who elect to enroll in CTE programs.46 Currently, 12.5 million high school and college students are enrolled in CTE programs.47 These programs help keep students in school; the graduation rate of CTE students is about 90 percent, 15 percentage points higher than the national average.48 However, research on their effectiveness is still in the preliminary stages.49 The best and most effective CTE programs are linked to and supported by local business or industry; provide real - world experiences or work opportunities; give students tangible outcomes such as an industry credential or college credit; and create pathways for pursuing college or career after graduation.50