The results of standardized assessments are often reported in terms of standard deviations away from the norm, age equivalents, or grade level equivalents. Which of these manners of reporting assessment results do you think would be the most useful in terms of communicating the results to families and informing educational decisions for the child? Why? (1 page) Standardized assessment tools frequently require a substantial amount of sustained attention from the child being assessed. Without obtaining an appropriate amount of child attention to the assessment tasks, the assessment results could be invalid. What are some ways to increase student engagement in the assessment tasks to obtain results that are more indicative of the child’s true abilities?
horizontal direct effect to Treaty articles the Court focused on their content as opposed to who the Treaty articles were addressed to and logically the same argument should be used for directives. The Court in Defrenne has identified that the Community is not purely an economic union. In the process of economic integration, it generated by-products and the judicial protection of the individual’s rights was one of them and horizontal direct effect would conform to this. Since Monist and Dualist approaches are both present, horizontal direct effect of directives would help bridge the disparity as it would allow the individuals, irrespective of which Member State they belong to, to be on equal ground in terms of their rights irrespective to the manner in which their State interprets international law. The Court has recognised the contradictory nature of the “no horizontal direct effect rule” and it is visible in its proceedings. The Court compensates by broadening the scope of vertical direct effect using the Foster test, which as seen in Marshall can create an unjust system for those employed by private parties at times. The development of the principle of indirect effect in Marleasing and cases such as CIA Security and Unilever Italia show that the Court ruled in favour of horizontal direct effect. Irrespective of its focus on a ‘substantial procedural effect’ in both the above cases, the Court did indeed impose an obligation on the defendant to forfeit their national right on the basis of a directive. The Courts efforts to use other methods to compensate for horizontal direct effect only makes the situation more complicated and less ‘legally certain’. It is fitting to conclude that the textual interpretation of the TFEU, legal certainty, the estoppel argument and the distinction between Regulations and Directives are the rationales behind The Court’s decision to establish the “no horizontal direct effect rule” The TFEU is not clear when it comes to this. The very fact that complicated case law and legal exceptions exist is indicative of the soundness of this rule. In light of this we must consider that this debate could be a product of a basic linguistic confusion and is indeed the best way to guarantee effective application of directives. As AJ Jacobs concluded “it might well be conducive to greater legal certainty, and to a more coherent system, if the provisions of a directive were held in appropriate circumstances to be directly enforceable against individuals”>GET ANSWER