Sentences with phrase «accountability systems»

Arne Duncan has estimated that hundreds of thousands of students were invisible to state accountability systems because of n - size issues.

Our statistical analysis includes all states that have relevant NAEP data, and we explicitly allow for the timing of states» introduction of their accountability systems.

Assessing the impact of state accountability systems is clearly complicated.

We looked at differences among the states in terms of their placement rates into special education — often one way to exclude students from state tests — and at whether these differences were related to the introduction of state accountability systems.

Existing district - federal relationships are based on grants, not accountability systems.

Arne Duncan has also espoused the wisdom of looking at progress over time, yet his ESEA waiver rules require state accountability systems to take proficiency rates into account — those are expected to be the drivers in identifying «focus» and «priority» schools.

So by focusing so specifically on reading and math tests, our accountability systems can actually diminish the value of reading and math tests.

Other rigorous studies have been carried out of accountability systems within states and school districts.

There were a few other fresh approaches to having stakeholders inform accountability systems.

Modernizing state accountability systems is not only good policy for district or multi-district online schools, but all of public education would greatly benefit from the next generation of school accountability frameworks.

Most of today's K — 12 accountability systems are, themselves, persistently underperforming.

It would require state accountability systems to designate schools and districts based on their performance against these targets (so there would be a bit more flexibility than NCLB or waivers).

In many states, these systems are quite young; in 1996, just ten states had active accountability systems.

If states shrewdly take advantage of ESSA's flexibility, there's a real chance that they can create accountability systems that more fully and fairly assess schools.

Common Core attempted to transform largely symbolic accountability systems into something tougher, which is precisely why it failed.

Critics also pointed out that the new accountability systems under the waivers may hide deficiencies in the performance of children in previously closely watched sub-groups and may weaken incentives to improve performance of those children.

States now have more flexibility than at any time since 2001 to develop accountability systems.

Understanding the sources of these differences is likely to be particularly useful as policymakers discuss the future design and implementation of school - accountability systems.

The statement includes a list of these developments: the US Supreme Court ruled scholarships constitutional; numerous studies showed these programs benefit needy kids; families empowered with this choice express great satisfaction; urban districts continue to struggle despite great effort; chartering hasn't created enough high - quality seats; and smart accountability systems can ensure only high - quality private schools participate in these programs.

Education officials are already experimenting with new systems, and hopefully by the time Congress decides to move forward with a reauthorized ESEA (Elementary and Secondary Education Act), there will be strong competency - based accountability systems to incorporate, particularly at the high school level.

And under ESSA, states appear to be making their accountability systems both clearer and fairer: clearer by using A — F grades, five - star ratings, and the like; and fairer by focusing much more heavily on student - level growth, which credits schools for the progress that all kids make while under their tutelage.

Further, it is unlikely that district authorizers will move beyond the regulatory - driven, compliance - based accountability systems that are the hallmark of public education or the troubling hit - and - miss formation of new schools that is raising questions about the ability of charter schools to deliver improvement on the scale that our country needs.

Broader deregulation efforts to form charter schools and create accountability systems have been slowed by such barriers as state lawmakers» reliance on mandates, equity questions, and the lack of credible...

They rail against state standards and accountability systems, but offer few practical alternatives for ensuring that all public schools perform at a high level.

One interpretation of the emphasis on developing the common core curriculum is that these debates provide a convenient diversion from potentially more intractable fights over bigger reform ideas like using improved teacher evaluations for personnel decisions, expanded school choice, or enhanced accountability systems.

• The big issues the Department of Education will face when issuing regulations • How states might think fresh about their accountability systems, teacher evaluations, and interventions in low - performing schools • The timeline for the coming two years

Heather Hough, executive director of the research partnership between the CORE Districts and Policy Analysis for California Education, and President of the California State Board of Education Michael Kirst shared the logic behind California's dashboard with us in our Winter 2017 forum on state accountability systems.

NCLB dramatically expanded the law's scope by requiring that states introduce school - accountability systems that applied to all public schools and students in the state.

State accountability systems emphasize in - state comparisons between suburban and urban districts, which give impressions of relatively high achievement in more affluent suburban districts.

At this same moment, ESSA is inviting states to create new accountability systems.

Testifying before the Senate in February, she articulated her vision for accountability systems:

One of ESSA's key innovations was the allowance of non-test indicators in state accountability systems.

Both of these studies suggest that NCLB - style accountability provisions may increase student achievement and also demonstrate how state - level NAEP data can be used to evaluate accountability systems.

For one thing, in getting a waiver from the federal No Child Left Behind Act, Indiana (like other states) promised the Obama administration it would adopt standards that met federal criteria; align curricula and teaching; select, pilot, and administer new tests aligned to the standards; and integrate the standards into both school - and teacher - accountability systems.

The Princeton Review, a for - profit company best known for preparing students to take college - entrance exams, has ranked state testing and accountability systems.

These are the schools that standards, standardized assessments, and state accountability systems are designed to identify and fix.

Our best school districts may look excellent alongside large urban districts, the comparison state accountability systems encourage, but that measure provides false comfort.

There is broad agreement that states» current accountability systems are overly dependent on standardized tests that do not (and can not) capture all the skills that students need to acquire, and that have sometimes encouraged teachers to engage in harmful curriculum narrowing and «test prep.»

But the standards are not the source of flaws in state accountability systems; the culprits are the state tests.

While there's still plenty about the accountability systems of many states to criticize — and implementation challenges lie ahead for all of them — the school ratings at least represent more of an improvement on NCLB - era systems than a repudiation of them.

Given all these gains, can anyone be seriously unhappy, considering how many states have made their accountability systems fairer to more kids, fairer to high poverty schools, and clearer to parents, taxpayers and educators?

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.

Pooling data across years and grades may provide an opportunity to include students in accountability systems in cases where subgroup size is otherwise too small.

Nationally, we are going through a once - in - a-generation shift in our public school accountability systems as we transition to the Common Core State Standards.

When they set unrealistic goals and propose ill - defined accountability systems, will you be silent?

And 37 states instituted their own testing and accountability systems before NCLB was adopted.

The most significant changes relate to state accountability systems.

Alternatively, it could be argued that NCLB should not be viewed as in effect until the 2003 — 04 academic year, when new state accountability systems were more fully implemented as well as more informed by guidance from and through negotiations with the U.S. Department of Education.

Currently, he is examining the design and evaluation of test - focused educational accountability systems.

For states with such accountability systems in place before 2002, NCLB's most important components may have created some logistical headaches but were largely irrelevant.