Sentences with phrase «nclb holds schools accountable»

NCLB holds schools accountable for performance of subgroups — major racial and ethnic groups, students with disabilities, and English - language learners.

NCLB held schools accountable for every subgroup that had a sufficient number of students (called the minimum «n - size»).

Not exact matches

What Times readers were not told, however, was that before NCLB, North Carolina, like almost every state, did not hold schools accountable for the performance of various subgroups, like minorities and special - needs students.

In Texas, and under NCLB nationwide, holding schools accountable for the performance of every student subgroup has proven to be a mixed blessing.

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.

, Holding NCLB Accountable: Achieving Accountability, Equity, and School Reform.

In any case, the NCLB - era strategies — centered on setting standards, administering assessments, and holding everybody «accountable» for the results on those tests — have yielded only modest gains, especially in the high school years.

There is an odd tension running through many of NCLB's accountability provisions between creating serious consequences that hold educators and schools accountable and the law's goal of improving student achievement.

NCLB only holds schools accountable for basic skills like math and reading rather than important skills like citizenship, responsibility, developing character, science, history, and appreciation for the arts to name a few.

While Duncan is technically right that more schools are held accountable for more subgroups of students, he is also letting more schools avoid NCLB's consequences.

Up until now, NCLB has held schools accountable but has expected nothing directly from students.

For example, the commission properly grapples with the need to revise NCLB's flawed mechanism for holding schools accountable.

Separate and apart from NCLB, which focuses on the performance of schools and districts, the public strongly supports reforms designed to hold individual students accountable for their performance on state tests.

After more than a decade of resistance to NCLB by the education establishment, I find something disingenuous about the argument that schools ought not to be held accountable to the standards states themselves set for grade - level student achievement.

It's worth noting that it was the utter failure of every state to hold schools accountable that led to the passage of the original NCLB.

Here's the deal: Tennessee schools were held accountable under NCLB for hitting TCAP benchmarks.

Several years ago, the Obama administration recognized the reality that this goal was not going to be attained; and since the Congress could not agree on an alternative, the federal Department of Education granted the states permission to test and hold schools accountable in different ways than the original NCLB had done.

In response to this fear, the authors of NCLB focused on ensuring that schools were being held accountable for disadvantaged student populations.

Even critics of the law admit that one of the NCLB law's greatest achievements has been shining a light on individual groups of students and holding schools accountable for speeding up their progress.

ESSA still requires state - wide achievement testing at the same frequency as NCLB, but now states will be responsible for holding schools accountable.

While educators almost universally recognize that schools need to be held more publicly accountable for their results, NCLB's original metrics are not the right approach to accomplishing that goal.

For example, he said that even as the administration has called for wrap - around supports beyond schools — in areas like health and social services — to help children succeed academically, the president's blueprint for overhauling the NCLB law «holds schools accountable for identical results, whether or not they have these [supports].

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 law was passed in December 2015 to replace the flawed NCLB, which went into effect in 2002 and dictated the use of English language arts and math standardized test scores to hold schools accountable for student achievement.

By requiring the states to set high standards, pairing them with assessments that measured whether students were achieving those standards, and holding schools accountable if students failed to do so, NCLB, in the eyes of its sponsors, would close achievement gaps and make America's schools the envy of the world.

Unlike NCLB, ESSA reduces the specificity of federal requirements while increasing the ability of States and school systems to define how school boards individual schools are held accountable for student achievement.

Bush signed NCLB in early 2002, and it did what no ESEA reauthorization had done before: It forced states to test all children and held schools accountable when low scores stayed low.

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.