Download My Results

Note: 2023 student data files, summary data files, and preliminary student performance reports (SPRs) were made available to districts in June; finalized SPRs and school- and district-level reports were made available in July. Districts and schools may share confidential individual student performance reports with parents and may use aggregated and individual student level results internally for informational and planning purposes as soon as they are received.

The RFI results make it clear: America needs to produce more semiconductors. Congress must pass funding for domestic semiconductor production, such as the U.S. Innovation and Competition Act, to solve our supply challenges for the long term.

Download My Results

Download 🔥 https://urloso.com/2y4ND1 🔥

MCAS test results from the last six years are available below. Click on the year to view results and interpretive materials. To view results from prior years, browse School and District Profiles or contact Student Assessment Services at mcas@doe.mass.edu .

The results of this exploratory consultation gave us a direction on where to dig deeper and engage in a thorough reflection on how to unleash the Single Market for digital networks and make our connectivity more secure and future-proof.

The structure of the excel file is similar to the published results. The questions are in row 4, while the individual contributions are in the rows below it. The contributions are split into 3 worksheets (Content, Content 1 and Content 2), each containing one third of the responses. The worksheets are not linked, therefore if you change the order of the rows by sorting the responses by certain conditions, this will only affect one worksheet.

This document describes the definitions for results data elements submitted to ClinicalTrials.gov for interventional studies (clinical trials) and observational studies. These definitions are mostly adapted from 42 CFR Part 11.Data element entries are annotated with symbols to indicate generally what information is required to be submitted and under which circumstances. The responsible party must ensure that the information provided complies with any applicable laws, regulations, or policies. For more information about various requirements and definitions of regulatory terms under 42 CFR Part 11, see Support Materials.Note: The term "clinical study" is used to refer to both interventional and observational studies. The term "participant" is used to refer to a human subject.

Delay Results Type [*] : Select one Certify Initial Approval: Trial studies an FDA-regulated drug product (including a biological product) or device product that was not approved, licensed or cleared by FDA for any use before the Primary Completion Date of the trial, and the sponsor intends to continue with product development and is either seeking, or may at a future date seek, FDA approval, licensure, or clearance of the drug product (including a biological product) or device product under study. Certify New Use: Trial studies an FDA-regulated drug product (including a biological product) or device product that previously has been approved, licensed, or cleared, for which the manufacturer is the sponsor of the trial and for which an application or premarket notification seeking approval, licensure, or clearance of the use being studied (which is not included in the labeling of the approved, licensed, or cleared drug, product (including a biologic product) or device product) has been filed or will be filed within one year with FDA. Extension: Request, for good cause, an extension of the deadline for submitting results information Note: If a responsible party who is both the manufacturer of the drug product (including a biological product) or device product studied in an applicable clinical trial and the sponsor of the applicable clinical trial submits a certification under "Certify New Use," that responsible party must submit such a certification for each applicable clinical trial that meets the following criteria: (1) the applicable clinical trial is required to be submitted in an application or premarket notification seeking approval, licensure, or clearance of a new use; (2) the applicable clinical trial studies the same drug product (including a biological product) or device product for the same use as studied in the applicable clinical trial for which the initial certification was submitted. [42 U.S.C. 282 (j)(3)(E)(v)(II) and 42 CFR 11.44(b)(3)]

Requested Submission Date [*] (Required when Delay Results Type is "Extension.")

Definition: Estimate of the date on which the clinical study results information will be submitted, if the Delay Results Type is "Extension".

Explanation [*] (Required when Delay Results Type is "Extension.")

Definition: Description of the reason(s) why clinical study results information cannot be provided according to the deadline, with sufficient detail to justify good cause for the extension and to allow for the evaluation of the request. Such detail includes reason(s) for the extension and proposed requested submission date, steps that will be taken to meet the requested submission date, a description of mitigating steps to avoid future delay, and any other information needed to address the criteria in Section III of the NIH Good Cause Extension Request Process and Criteria document. Note that "pending publication" and delays in data analysis without sufficient explanation are not considered good cause for an extension.

Limit: 999 characters.

Appeal Justification [*] ( Required for a responsible party to file an appeal regarding an NIH decision to deny a request to extend the deadline for submitting results information [for good cause] or grant an earlier deadline than specified in the extension request )

Definition: An explanation of the reason(s) why the initial decision to deny the GCE request or grant the GCE request with a shorter deadline than requested should be overturned or revised, with sufficient detail to allow for the evaluation of the appeal. Only provide further elaboration of the grounds for the request or highlight factors that justify an extension and why the initial decision was incorrect. Note that new bases for an extension request should not be presented for the first time in an appeal and will not be considered.

Limit: 999 characters.

Loss projections for the CBES scenarios are based on the balance sheets of participants as they stood at the end of 2020. So they represent an expectation of losses that might materialise if banks and insurers do not act to reduce the climate risks they face. This design feature makes interpretation of the results more straightforward and allows a clear, separate focus on specific actions that participants might take in response to the scenarios. But it is also likely to push projected losses upwards, as over the thirty year horizon of the CBES participants would likely be able to adjust their business models, and may reduce or mitigate some of the risks they face.

The Bank will help the banks and insurers it regulates to use the results of the CBES to improve their climate risk management capabilities, both through individual firm supervisory dialogue and by sharing and discussing key thematic findings with the banking and insurance industry more broadly (including through the Climate Financial Risk Forum (CFRF)).

The NAA scenario also results in significant costs for banks and insurers during the scenario horizon, as the intensification of physical risks leads to higher losses on lending and insurance activities, and lowers the return on financial assets.

The aggregate results show that, for life and general insurers, the NAA scenario would be likely to have a more significant impact than either of the transition scenarios, even within the 30-year window of the exercise. For life insurers, this was because forward-looking asset price impacts are greatest at the end of that scenario with an overall impact worth just over 15% of total market value. Such falls in asset prices would of course affect all holders of assets and participants in these markets. For general insurers, the key way that losses materialised was via a build-up in physical risks, which resulted in higher claims for perils such as flood and wind-related damage. UK and international general insurers, respectively, projected a rise in average annualised losses of around 50% and 70% by the end of the NAA scenario. Staff analysis on UK insurance losses suggests increases could be as much four times higher than firms submitted. Insurers reported that the impact of these increased domestic and international insurance claims would fall, ultimately, on households and businesses through higher insurance premiums or through lower availability of insurance cover.

The Bank will help the banks and insurers it regulates to use the results of the CBES to improve their climate risk management capabilities, both through individual firm supervisory dialogue, and by sharing and discussing key thematic findings with the banking and insurance industry more broadly (including through the Climate Financial Risk Forum (CFRF)).

Life insurers faced many of the same issues as banks in modelling corporate exposures, and like banks, life insurance firms varied in the overall strength of their approaches to modelling losses on their assets and their ability to validate their results. Although life insurers also relied heavily on third-party modelling, some are now investing in their own in-house capability or alternative tools, to replace or test these models.

Google uses structured data to understand the content on the page and show that content in a richer appearance in search results, which is called a rich result. To make your site eligible for appearance as one of these rich results, follow the guide to learn how to implement structured data on your site. If you're just getting started, visit Understand how structured data works. e24fc04721