Sentences with phrase «bubble kids»

«Harvard psychometrician and NAGB member Andrew Ho expressed concern that «unrealistically high short - term goals are a risk» that creates the incentive to focus on the «bubble kids» in a bid to meet those goals.»

Much of the country is also doing better at signaling that every child counts, not just the «bubble kids» near the proficiency cut - off.

Further, instead of merely using proficiency rates, which encourage schools to focus on the «bubble kids» (i.e., those just above or below the proficiency threshold) states should use average test scores (like Nebraska) or a «performance index» (like Ohio).

In our ESSA Accountability Design Competition in February, all of our participants urged states to avoid the NCLB - era «bubble kids» problem.

Parents worried that the drive to increase performance on state tests came at the cost of an ever - narrowing curriculum and that the focus on getting the «bubble kids» from slightly below proficient to slightly above proficient came at the cost of teaching kids who were way behind or ahead.

If schools intent on meeting minimum competency benchmarks practice educational triage, they dedicate a disproportionate amount of their limited resources to «bubble kids,» students who might otherwise perform just below the proficiency threshold.

You should focus your attention on the yellow kids, the bubble kids.

They might also want to give partial credit for getting kids to the basic level so that we don't repeat NCLB's mistake of encouraging schools to focus only on the «bubble kids» just below the proficiency cutoff.

The risk in de-emphasizing growth is that it might push schools and teachers back to focusing on how many kids pass the tests, which incentivizes focusing on «bubble kids» at or near the passing line.

That's because everyone is aware of NCLB's unintended consequence: encouraging schools to pay attention only to the «bubble kids» whose performance is close to the proficiency line.

Whereas yesterday's incentives caused programs and practitioners to focus on the «bubble kids» who could be nudged over the only achievement bar that mattered to a school's rating, tomorrow must employ some sort of value - added calculus that causes every child's progress (or lack thereof) to count, including both those far below the bar and those who easily cleared it.

Since ESSA requires the use of proficiency rates, one design objective is a combination of measures on academic achievement to reduce both the short - term gaming around «bubble kids» (both real and perceived) and also the long - term incentive to lowball cut - scores for various achievement bands on statewide tests.

This is a huge improvement on NCLB - era systems, which encouraged a focus on «bubble kids,» those just below or above states» proficiency cutoffs, to the detriment of other students.

• Encouraging schools to focus their attention on students close to the proficiency cut (the «bubble kids») as opposed to all students, including high - and low - achievers.

It also seeks to avoid the perverse incentives that were baked into NCLB, especially a narrow focus on «bubble kids» just above or below the proficiency line.

Now, many affluent families have grown disappointed with bland school offerings and pressure generated from adequate yearly progress to narrow the curriculum, concentrate on «bubble kids,» and expand test preparation.

For example, instead of using data to bump achievement levels for «bubble kids,» we are now seeing data practices focused more on achieving equitable outcomes for all students.

So you start thinking not of that gimmick — our bubble kids got a few more points and all we had to do was destroy our arts and sports programs.

We used results from an online practice test to identify «bubble kids» who were close to proficient on the state assessment, as well as specific standards to reinforce in our instruction.

One study found that teachers under high - stakes testing spent more time teaching «bubble kids» who were close to passing, at the expense of students elsewhere on the bell curve.

This faulty thinking also leads to misguided intervention decisions, such as focusing school resources primarily on the «bubble kids» who are slightly below proficient.

Unfortunately, the way many learning organizations in the United States got serious was to look at their high - stakes student achievement results and focus their plans on the lowest - scoring subject area or subgroups of students or on the bubble kids.

In one urban middle school, conversations about improving student achievement focused mostly on sending «bubble kids» (whose results fell just below cut scores for proficiency levels) to tutoring or after - school programs (Horn, Kane, & Wilson, 2015).

One of the most troubling aspects identified in the report is the focus on the so - called «bubble kids» — those students on the threshold of passing the test who are given a disproportionate share of individual attention — at the expense of other students who may be in greater need of extra instruction.