Sentences with phrase «accountability uses of test»

Not exact matches

Over the period 2008 to 2011, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) of the United States received 6,307 reports of health problems (identified as adverse events) from use of dietary supplements containing a combination of ingredients in manufactured vitamins, minerals or other supplement products, [72] with 92 % of tested herbal supplements containing lead and 80 % containing other chemical contaminants.

Critics of NCLB's testing and accountability requirements have a litany of complaints: The tests are inaccurate, schools and teachers should not be responsible for the test performance of unprepared or unmotivated students, the measure of school inadequacy used under NCLB is misleading, the tests narrow the curriculum to what is being tested, and burdens imposed upon teachers and administrators are excessively onerous.

First and foremost, most of the tests we use for accountability purposes are multiple choice assessments that require very little thinking.

It is a travesty and an outrage that the few rotten apples in this study may be used by opponents of educational accountability, like the reforms of the No Child Left Behind Act, to charge that testing should be eliminated because the pressure it brings causes cheating.

The overwhelming majority of teachers (68 %) indicated support for this testing program when it is used as a diagnostic instrument, and even as a accountability tool when similar schools and / or school districts are being compared.

The measures used in the NEPC report — whether schools make AYP, state accountability system ratings, the percentage of students that score proficient on state tests, and high - school graduation rates — are at best rough proxies for the quality of education provided by any school.

, Uses and misuses of data in accountability testing.

In some quarters, parents decry the over-testing of their children, for example, whereas others point out the need for testing for accountability over the use of public funds.

As noted above, one of the benefits of the analysis presented here is that it relies on student performance on NAEP, which should be relatively immune from such test - score «inflation» since it is not used as a high - stakes test under NCLB or any other accountability system.

Thus, while Koretz has reason to be concerned about the perils of test - based accountability, evidence from DCPS suggests that it can work — when «it» is a nuanced system that uses more than tests alone to evaluate schools and teachers (more on this below).

He is currently directing studies that will explore new methods for evaluating gains in scores on high - stakes tests and evaluate the use of value - added models in educational accountability systems.

Those who are already skeptical about using tests to judge schools and educators will find a lot to like, while those in favor of the practice will be challenged by the evidence presented that test - based accountability can lead schools to engage in unproductive practices.

These annual volumes make assertions about empirical facts («students» scores on the state tests used for NCLB are rising»; or «lack of capacity is a serious problem that could undermine the success of NCLB») and provide policy recommendations («some requirements of NCLB are overly stringent, unworkable, or unrealistic»; «the need for funding will grow, not shrink, as more schools are affected by the law's accountability requirements»).

Koretz uses this precept to frame the discussion of test - based accountability efforts as well as more in - depth discussion in later chapters about some of the more pernicious corruptions of test - based accountability: artificial test - score inflation, undesirable types of test preparation, and outright cheating.

For example, ESSA only slightly broadens the focus from test scores, does nothing to confront Campbell's Law, * doesn't allow for reasonable variations among students, doesn't take context into account, doesn't make use of professional judgment, and largely or entirely (depending on the choices states» departments of education make) continues to exclude the quality of educators» practice from the mandated accountability system.

[16] The federal government is paying for the creation of national assessments and encouraging states to use them to fulfill NCLB requirements for testing and accountability.

One of the basic critiques of using test scores for accountability purposes has always been that simple averages, except in rare circumstances, don't tell us much about the quality of a given school or teacher.

Schools should be permitted to use multiple, locally created assessments instead of «one shot» tests to measure student progress for accountability purposes, according to a report released last week by a panel of experts convened by the Forum on Educational Accountability, a group that includes some of the most vocal critics of the 5 - year - old No Child Leaccountability purposes, according to a report released last week by a panel of experts convened by the Forum on Educational Accountability, a group that includes some of the most vocal critics of the 5 - year - old No Child LeAccountability, a group that includes some of the most vocal critics of the 5 - year - old No Child Left Behind Act.

The heart of an accountability system lies not in the words of standards documents but in the tests and other assessments that are used to determine whether the standards have been met.

Expand the use of «accountability indexes» to include measures beyond test scores and to give schools credit for students well above and below the proficient level.

The future of accountability — and of using test scores to improve our schools — will depend on one thing: does the public care enough to advocate for the «eat - your - vegetables,» common - sense annual tests and the associated accountability?

Not to mention that the data emerging from the same tests used for school accountability have powered a revolution in education research that has allowed scholars to dramatically improve the relevance and rigor of their work.

If California wants to simply identify underperforming schools on the state's dashboard, as its accountability plan suggests, or if Arizona wants to allow schools to use any standardized test that fits their needs rather than a statewide test, as ESSA's pilot option also allows, DOE should move out of the way of these state laboratories.

Secretary of Education Arne Duncan has said that much of the criticism about testing «is merited,» and he has agreed to wait until 2017 before using test information to evaluate teachers, putting accountability on hold until the next administration comes into office.

On the «managing by results» side, there has been the big battle over the use of test data for accountability purposes (CompStat for schools), culminating in the fight over value - added measurement of teacher performance.

Many educators were proud of this, but it had some of the same problems as the first year, primarily an inability to be «transparent» to the standardized test — based accountability system in use by the school district.

But some of the uses of assessments are less popular; voters seem to be wary of using state tests for either school or teacher accountability (at least relative to other potential measures).

But in the case of private - school accountability, it doesn't have to be the Common Core — aligned tests that states will be using for their district and charter schools (some of which also need «alternative» accountability arrangements).

This doesn't mean, though, that they've ever supported the actual tests, the particular materials that would be introduced, the specific recommendations for classroom instruction, or the use of the resulting test results for school accountability or teacher evaluation.

The discovery that teachers in some schools may have kept copies of last year's exams and used them to help students prepare for this year's tests, which ask the same questions, knocks off track, at least temporarily, state efforts to raise student achievement through greater school accountability.

I advocate for a national writing test and use of the Collegiate Learning Assessment and PISA tests for accountability purposes.

To take just one example, one of the most disturbing negative effects of test - based accountability is that many young teachers have been trained specifically to use bad test prep — test prep that generates bogus gains in scores rather than true improvements in learning.

* The state Education Department plans to apply for a federal pilot program, which may give it the opportunity to use a new assessment system in place of state tests for accountability purposes, Politico New York reports: http://goo.gl/696SoR * SUNY presses ahead with tuition increase plan, the Poughkeepsie Journal reports: http://pojonews.co/1J1tzen * Roberts Wesleyan updates...

Because accountability depends greatly on the proper use of high - quality assessment, you should also visit The Case against High - Stakes Testing and The Case for Authentic Assessment.

SMARTER will continue to use one test at the end of the year for accountability purposes, but will create a series of interim tests used to inform students, parents, and teachers about whether students are on track.

One study suggests that the inappropriate reliance on high - stakes testing likely exacerbates the consistent problem of the exclusion of low achieving and special education students from state assessments used for school and district accountability.

In Smith's model, as it was refined over time, curriculum standards serve as the fulcrum for educational reform implemented based on state decisions; state policy elites aim to create excellence in the classroom using an array of policy levers and knobs — all aligned back to the standards — including testing, textbook adoption, teacher preparation, teacher certification and evaluation, teacher training, goals and timetables for school test score improvement, and state accountability based on those goals and timetables.

In recent years there have been increasing efforts to use accountability systems based on large - scale tests of students as a mechanism for improving student achievement.

So - called accountability measures in Louisiana, including the statewide testing mandate, ironically enough may have discouraged high - quality providers from entering the market, thereby narrowing the options available to parents of students using the scholarships.

States may count recently arrived English learners in participation rate calculations if that student is included in the accountability system by using an exception where they take the state's ELP test instead of its English language arts assessment.

A series of excellent papers by economists Thomas Kane, Douglas Staiger, and Dale Ballou (see «Randomly Accountable,» Education Next, Spring 2002, and «Sizing Up Value - Added Assessment,» this issue) scrutinize the error built into value - added test - score measures, many of which are used in state accountability systems.

This plan, announced in September last year, sought to place Australian students amongst the top five highest performing nations in rigorous international performance tests through a combination of additional, targeted funding using a model mirroring the Gonski proposal, new initiatives in teacher training and accountability, personalised student learning plans, greater school autonomy, and a raft of other Commonwealth initiatives.

Creighton and WestEd used four major improvement strategies: 1) refining the curriculum and aligning staff training and student tests to that curriculum; 2) improving instructional practices, including those for English language learners, who comprise a large share of the district's students; 3) developing and using tests during the school year, other than those used for accountability, to assess what students had learned; and 4) implementing a system of individualized instruction based on student needs.

With the first set of problems, tests now used for student accountability are designed in a way that ignores some types of student achievement and some student characteristics.

Allow me to elaborate: Typically, to protect both the state and the testing company, an assessment contract that includes the use of an assessment created for the intent and purpose of college admission, not state accountability, would include a clause requiring that the test items be reviewed and approved for use by a content committee from the client state.

Across both studies, teachers supported the new assessments, even in terms of encouraging reluctant teachers to change; however, they did not support the use of test results for accountability.

Roy Pea, a professor of education and learning sciences at Stanford University, who was not part of the commission, agreed that tests developed for accountability purposes «largely ignore» the need for formative diagnostic tests used to improve instruction.

There are numerous measures used to determine the quality of the education that a child is receiving, including standardized test scores, graduation rates, or accountability ratings.

In contrast, summative tests provide a snapshot of student achievement at a specific point and are more commonly used for accountability.

There are a number of indicators we use to judge our schools, such as test scores, graduation rates, and accountability ratings.