Sentences with phrase «behind holds schools accountable»

As a result, No Child Left Behind holds schools accountable but, when a school fails, tenure and seniority assured by statute and / or collective bargaining agreements allow lemons to dance on to the school down the street.

Not exact matches

No Child Left Behind was championed as a way for parents to hold schools accountable for the quality of education they deliver.

I draw the comparison because Moyle, like Hughes (and unlike the hucksters behind the countless failed high - school romps of the past two decades), has empathy for his young characters — though Hughes was less reluctant to hold them accountable for their angst, marking Moyle as the bigger suck - up — and because he leans towards having an aesthetic, especially in Empire Records, that favours, as Hughes's does, quarantining close - ups and medium close - ups.

The No Child Left Behind law — the 2002 update of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act — effectively scaled up the federal role in holding schools accountable for student outcomes.

Adequate yearly progress (AYP) is the measure by which schools, districts, and states are held accountable for student performance under Title I of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB), the current version of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.

«Growth models» are being held out as a better way to hold schools accountable than the method the No Child Left Behind Act uses now.

After the report appeared, stimulating a variety of reform efforts, public evaluations of their local schools climbed steadily to an all - time high of 51 % in 2000, just prior to the national debate over the passage of the federal No Child Left Behind Act, which held schools accountable for low performance.

In light of widespread efforts to hold schools accountable for student learning, a push highlighted by the passage of No Child Left Behind in 2001, we were interested in seeing how much emphasis programs placed on assessment and accountability within the core curriculum.

When Congress passed the No Child Left Behind Act in 2001, it rewrote much of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, increasing the amount of testing required and demanding that states hold schools accountable for results on those tests.

Though support for No Child Left Behind is dwindling, Americans continue to believe that schools should be held accountable through national standards and tests.

The six states that now have federal approval to change the way they hold schools accountable under the No Child Left Behind Act will use six different ways to distinguish between schools with minor problems and those that need total overhauls.

While many in state capitols and Washington, D.C. are placing bets against state and national accountability systems that range from No Child Left Behind to Common Core State Standards, the public remains faithful to its long - standing commitment to hold schools, students and teachers accountable.

The latest is known as No Child Left Behind, which provides additional resources to states and districts to improve their education systems and holds schools accountable for their academic progress.

President George W. Bush's No Child Left Behind reforms — signed into law in 2002 — attempted to tie federal funding to academic progress to hold schools accountable for student outcomes.

Under the Obama administration's education policies, thousands of elementary and secondary schools are being held accountable for the academic performance of students who had been «invisible» under No Child Left Behind, the Bush - era federal education law, Education Secretary Arne Duncan said Thursday.

The No Child Left Behind Act was still around the corner, but a growing education reform movement, which insisted that holding schools more accountable for student test scores would increase performance, had already pushed many states to expand standardized testing.

When Congress passed No Child Left Behind in 2001, it was a bipartisan effort to hold schools accountable to parents and taxpayers and a federal commitment to attack student achievement gaps.

ESSA was «designed to let states determine for themselves how to hold schools accountable,» writes Jessica R. Towhey in the NH Journal, but it «may leave more children behind if states are allowed to skirt federal requirements through waivers.»

Under the No Child Left Behind law, passed by Congress in 2001, states were held accountable for failing schools.

President Obama wants to raise standards and give educators more freedom to innovate without abolishing the premise of No Child Left Behind that students should be tested every year and schools held accountable for failure.

No, it won't walk away from holding schools accountable for subgroups of students that weren't supposed to be left behind: racial and ethnic minorities, economically disadvantaged students, special - needs students and English learners.

In trying to reverse those trends, he faces the same decentralized educational system and resistance to change that hampered Bush's No Child Left Behind law, which required annual testing to hold schools accountable for closing achievement gaps.

Prior to the No Child Left Behind law, only a handful of states calculated these rates and held schools accountable for their performance.

The No Child Left Behind Act was still around the corner, but a growing education reform movement, which insisted holding schools more accountable for student test scores would increase performance, had already pushed many states to expand standardized testing.

Passage of the No Child Left Behind legislation in 2001 put into motion an accountability system that held school districts accountable for reading and mathematics proficiency.

But No Child Left Behind — a reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act — was the first law to hold schools and districts accountable for the achievement of their English language learner students.

Linda Darling - Hammond, a professor at Stanford's Graduate School of Education and senior research advisor to Smarter Balanced, said that the inclusion of the more in - depth questions makes up for some of what was lost after the passage of the federal No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, which emphasized using standardized test scores to hold schools accountable for student learning.

More recently, the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act sought to hold students and schools accountable to achieve high academic standards measured by high - stakes testing.

The culmination of this effort was No Child Left Behind, which required states to hold schools accountable for meeting standards and to impose an escalating series of consequences on schools that failed to do so.

Although schools were already held accountable for demonstrating these students» academic growth under No Child Left Behind, some believe the move to Title I emphasizes English learners as a priority.

Their Race to the Top program was, in essence, No Child Left Behind II: It invited states to compete for $ 5 billion in funds by holding teachers accountable for test scores, adopting national standards, opening more charter schools, and closing low - scoring public schools.

The Improving America's Schools Act — the 1994 reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, or ESEA — cemented accountability as a strictly academic notion.4 The No Child Left Behind Act, or NCLB — the 2001 reauthorization of ESEA — strengthened this premise and required districts and schools that failed to make academic progress to take specific improvement actions.5 NCLB also required states to hold schools accountable for an academic indicator other than student achievement in reading anSchools Act — the 1994 reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, or ESEA — cemented accountability as a strictly academic notion.4 The No Child Left Behind Act, or NCLB — the 2001 reauthorization of ESEA — strengthened this premise and required districts and schools that failed to make academic progress to take specific improvement actions.5 NCLB also required states to hold schools accountable for an academic indicator other than student achievement in reading anschools that failed to make academic progress to take specific improvement actions.5 NCLB also required states to hold schools accountable for an academic indicator other than student achievement in reading anschools accountable for an academic indicator other than student achievement in reading and math.

(Schools and districts were held accountable for CCSS based on a waiver of the No Child Left Behind accountability requirements granted by the U.S. Department of Education.)