Performance Task and Constructed-response Scoring Clause Samples

Performance Task and Constructed-response Scoring. ETS will score Performance Task and constructed-response student responses (including mathematics responses in Spanish) to maximize validity and reliability while incorporating efficiencies wherever possible. Table 16 represents the division of labor between ETS and MI. Grade 3 ETS MI - ETS ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ Grade 4 ETS MI - ETS ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ Grade 5 ETS MI ETS ETS ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ Grade 6 MI ETS - ETS ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ Grade 7 MI ETS - ETS ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ Grade 8 MI ETS ETS ETS ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ Grade 9 - - - ETS ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ Grade 10 - - - ETS ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ Grade 11 ETS ETS ETS ETS ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ The procedures ETS proposes for California include: careful recruiting of raters utilizing ETS best practice hiring process extensive training of all levels of scoring leadership, not only on the prompts, rubrics, and related scoring material but on how best to monitor the quality of the scoring rigorous training of the raters in appropriately applying the rubric for each prompt type, following the generic sample responses that exemplify the quality required for each score point so that every prompt is scored on the same general criteria requiring new raters to demonstrate their accuracy by passing a “certification” test before being assigned to score a specific assessment and then by passing a shorter, more focused “calibration” test before each new prompt type using scoring leaders to read behind and monitor raters; scoring leaders have the option of evaluating responses a rater previously scored, with or without the knowledge of the score he or she gave (“informed” versus “blind” back rating) using scoring system’s live operational data to identify (and, for scoring leaders, then counsel) raters who are reading at unusually slow (or overly fast) rates using content scoring leaders to monitor the scoring leaders and their virtual teams including pre-scored validity responses (sometimes called monitor papers) within each rater’s set of assigned responses in order to evaluate ongoing accuracy while scoring regularly analyzing inter-rater reliability (IRR) statistics to verify that raters are scoring consistently (scoring system produces real-time IRR and validity response scoring statistics)
View Source

Related to Performance Task and Constructed-response Scoring

  • Performance Testing (a) All performance tests of the Project, including any Initial Performance Test required in Section 2 of Appendix VIII, will be performed in accordance with the test procedures set forth in Appendix VIII (“Performance Test”), including additional procedures and protocols related to Performance Testing as mutually agreed between Buyer and Seller (“Test Procedures”). Seller shall bear all costs and receive all revenues, if applicable, associated with all Performance Tests. (b) After the Initial Delivery Date and during the Delivery Term, Buyer will have the right to conduct a Performance Test (“Buyer Performance Test”) no more than once a calendar year to demonstrate whether the Project is capable of delivering the Distribution Services at the Contract Capacity. Within 30 calendar days following a Buyer Performance Test, Seller will have the right to retest the Project with a Performance Test (“Seller Retest”). For the avoidance of doubt, the results of any Seller Retest will supersede the results of the preceding Buyer Performance Test. (i) If a Buyer Performance Test or, if a corresponding Seller Retest has occurred, a Seller Retest demonstrates the Project is capable of delivering Distribution Services at or above ninety-nine percent (99%) of the Initial Contract Capacity, the Contract Capacity will remain the Initial Contract Capacity; (ii) If a Buyer Performance Test or, if a corresponding Seller Retest has occurred, a Seller Retest demonstrates the Project is capable of delivering Distribution Services at more than or equal to eighty-five (85%) of the Initial Contract Capacity, but less than ninety-nine percent (99%) of the Initial Contract Capacity (“Testing Band”), the Contract Capacity will be automatically adjusted (upwards or downwards) to the capacity commensurate with the amount of Distribution Services the Project delivered during the Performance Test within the Testing Band. (iii) If a Buyer Performance Test or, if a corresponding Seller Retest has occurred, a Seller Retest demonstrates the Project is not capable of delivering Distribution Services of at least eighty-five percent (85%) of the Initial Contract Capacity, an Event of Default shall occur in accordance with Section 7.1(a)(viii).

  • Performance Tests Contractor shall perform Performance Tests in accordance with Section 11.2 of the Agreement and Attachment S.

  • Benchmarks for Measuring Accessibility For the purposes of this Agreement, the accessibility of online content and functionality will be measured according to the W3C’s Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0 Level AA and the Web Accessibility Initiative Accessible Rich Internet Applications Suite (WAI-ARIA) 1.0 for web content, which are incorporated by reference.

  • STATEWIDE ACHIEVEMENT TESTING When CONTRACTOR is a NPS, per implementation of Senate Bill 484, CONTRACTOR shall administer all Statewide assessments within the California Assessment of Student Performance and Progress (“CAASPP”), Desired Results Developmental Profile (“DRDP”), California Alternative Assessment (“CAA”), achievement and abilities tests (using LEA-authorized assessment instruments), the Fitness Gram, , the English Language Proficiency Assessments for California (“ELPAC”), and as appropriate to the student, and mandated by LEA pursuant to LEA and state and federal guidelines. CONTRACTOR is subject to the alternative accountability system developed pursuant to Education Code section 52052, in the same manner as public schools. Each LEA student placed with CONTRACTOR by the LEA shall be tested by qualified staff of CONTRACTOR in accordance with that accountability program. ▇▇▇ shall provide test administration training to CONTRACTOR’S qualified staff. CONTRACTOR shall attend LEA test training and comply with completion of all coding requirements as required by ▇▇▇.

  • Project/Milestones Taxpayer provides refrigerated warehousing and logistic distribution services to clients throughout the United States. In consideration for the Credit, Taxpayer agrees to invest in a new refrigeration and distribution facility in the ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ Park area of Sacramento, California, and hire full-time employees (collectively, the “Project”). Further, Taxpayer agrees to satisfy the milestones as described in Exhibit A (“Milestones”) and must maintain Milestones for a minimum of three (3) taxable years thereafter. In the event Taxpayer employs more than the number of full-time employees, determined on an annual full-time equivalent basis, than required in Exhibit A, for purposes of satisfying the “Minimum Annual Salary of California Full-time Employees Hired” and the “Cumulative Average Annual Salary of California Full-time Employees Hired,” Taxpayer may use the salaries of any of the full-time employees hired within the required time period. For purposes of calculating the “Minimum Annual Salary of California Full-time Employees Hired” and the “Cumulative Average Annual Salary of California Full-time Employees Hired,” the salary of any full-time employee that is not employed by Taxpayer for the entire taxable year shall be annualized. In addition, the salary of any full-time employee hired to fill a vacated position in which a full-time employee was employed during Taxpayer’s Base Year shall be disregarded.