Sentences with phrase «consequences for schools»

As designed, however, these regulations carry unintended negative consequences for our schools and students that simply can not be ignored.

State assessments, on the other hand, clearly have important consequences for schools and in a number of states they also have significant consequences for individual students» and now teachers.

School certification would depend on student performance and there would be consequences for schools that consistently failed.

Unlike previous federal efforts, it combined specific performance goals for all students and high - stakes consequences for schools and districts for failing to meet those goals.

Chu says there are potential accreditation consequences for schools that blatantly ignore the state's basic teacher evaluation plan requirements.

The bipartisan congressional supercommittee's failure to negotiate a national deficit reduction plan triggers automatic, across - the - board spending cuts that will have devastating consequences for schools and students already reeling from deep education cuts at the state level.

There are many consequences for schools that do not show adequate progress.

So we'll continue to get information on how student sub-groups — such as minority populations, dual language learners, and students with learning disabilities — are performing, but we aren't tying those tests to harsh consequences for schools and teachers.

If Congress listens to the voice of teachers and students who support them, though, we can create a better bill and do what must be done to repair the unintended consequences for schools, teachers and students caused by No Child Left Behind (NCLB).

High stakes testing has only had horrible consequences for schools with disproportionate number of Black and Latino students.

Schools must meet performance goals based on student achievement results yearly, with swift consequences for schools that fail to meet expectations.

In other words, states may trigger some meaningful consequences for schools that test less than 95 percent of their students, but they may not.

It's no secret that many educators and researchers have long been leery of giving them too much weight in gauging student learning and meting out consequences for schools, students, and teachers.

In fact, a major report just issued by the National Research Council raised questions about the value of tying consequences for schools, teachers, and students to test results.

An Assembly committee hearing this week witnessed several of the state's most prominent education groups calling for a delay in the new testing, or at least its consequences for schools and teachers.

The Every Student Succeeds Act replaces No Child Left Behind, which emphasized standardized testing and had major consequences for schools failing scores.

Lawmakers are considering a bill that removes the most punitive consequences for schools and makes clear that states do not have to use test scores to evaluate teachers.

We focused on 48 schools that had to be «restructured» under NCLB, the last phase of consequences for schools not sufficiently raising their test scores.

Upon reflecting on what each of these experts said, the good news is that the core principles of accountability that have guided progress in our schools are still widely agreed to: setting high standards, assessing regularly to those standards, measuring improvement, and providing supports for students and consequences for schools that don't improve.

of the nation's children be «proficient» in reading and math by 2014, with mandated consequences for schools that missed the bar.

The secretary will have virtually no authority to enforce the meager «requirements» that remain, and the federal government will have no power whatsoever to require any consequences for schools that fail to lift student achievement or close achievement gaps.

While this is a reasonable approach, given the high percentages of students from low - income families in CEP schools, such a policy tends to conflict with the heavy emphasis placed by the ESEA on measuring achievement gaps between students from low - income families and other students in establishing performance consequences for schools.

In particular, there must be consequences for schools where gaps in the achievement of students from low - income families, compared to other students, are especially high.

The consequences for some schools were debts of # 1 million to # 2 million.

Examples of such initiatives include the No Child Left Behind legislation in the United States, which required schools to demonstrate that they were making adequate yearly progress and provided escalating negative consequences for schools that were unable to do this; the creation and publication of league tables of «value - added» measures of school performance in England; proposals to introduce financial rewards for school improvement and performance pay tied to improved test results in Australia; and the encouragement of competition between schools under New Zealand's Tomorrow's Schools program.

The U.S. Department of Education is planning to expand a pilot initiative that would flip the order of key consequences for schools» low academic performance under the No Child Left Behind Act.

Informed choice that is accompanied by financial consequences for schools will create a marketplace for schooling that will evolve toward greater responsiveness to what parents want, will be more innovative, and will become more productive.

It also told us that the implications of this could lead to devastating consequences for schools, as almost half of teachers are considering leaving their profession as a result.

Research is only now emerging that explores the social and productive consequences for schools of introducing the status differences associated with NBCTs into the egalitarian ethos of public school teaching.

This partially reflects the fact that most states had accepted the ideas that schools should be held responsible for student performance and that results from standardized tests should play a large role in determining consequences (to view the consequences for schools failing to make adequate yearly progress, see Figure 2).

Unfortunately the consequences for schools and particularly for minority students will be nothing short of disastrous if actually implemented.

Notable recently were the Gates Foundation's call for a two - year moratorium on tying results from assessments aligned to the Common Core to consequences for teachers or students; Florida's legislation to eliminate consequences for schools that receive low grades on the state's pioneering A-F school grading system; the teetering of the multi-state Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC) assessment consortium (down from 24 to 15 members, and with its contract with Pearson to deliver the assessments in limbo because of a lawsuit that alleges bid - rigging); and the groundswell of opposition from parents, teachers, and political groups to the content of the Common Core.

The consequences for schools that failed to meet their performance targets were progressively severe — after one year, districts would be required to offer public school choice to all the students in a school; after several years, districts would be required to replace school staff, convert the school into a public charter school, or hand the school over to a private contractor.

As political scientist Josh Dunn wrote when the letter emerged, «the consequences for schools and particularly for minority students will be nothing short of disastrous if actually implemented.

Moreover, even small differences in measured effectiveness can have practical consequences for schools and teachers, depending on how these assessments are used.

The new standards won't actually have consequences for schools and teachers in most states until 2014 - 15.

While many states had already introduced some form of test - based accountability by 2001, NCLB both made this mandatory for all states and introduced a very specific structure to accountability that importantly included consequences for schools that did not perform well.

The Department of Education is again inviting states to take part in a pilot initiative that would reverse the order of key consequences for schools that miss academic - performance targets under the No Child Left Behind Act.

These political trends had real consequences for schools, teachers, and students, and ESSA was a response to all of that.

High - stakes tests generally have consequences for schools as well as for the students themselves — for example, monetary support may be withdrawn from schools that fail to raise scores.

The requirements of No Child Left Behind - which include, for the first time, real consequences for schools that do not show academic progress for all students - are beginning to break the stranglehold that entrenched interests have had on our schools for far too long.

If that fight had taken place during a regular - season game, then the consequences for both schools would have been the same — a likely forfeit of the next game with that many players having to sit out a one - game suspension.

In a report commissioned by the Coalition for Marriage, which asked him to assess the likely knock - on legal consequences of any proposed gay marriage legislation, he writes that any decision to redefine marriage will have far - reaching consequences for schools, hospitals, foster carers and public buildings.

It helps when they understand the consequences for the school or group — such as program cuts or out - of - pocket money required — if the fundraising is not successful.

While many schools have been identified as needing improvement under NCLB, only a small percentage have failed to make progress for long enough — six years — to be subject to restructuring, the most serious consequence for schools under the law (see Figure 1).

Throughout the book, Osborne returns to a collection of principles called «the seven Cs» — including parental choice, serious consequences for school failure, school - level control of operations, and the separation of rowing and steering — that define new public education systems.

Advo - cates of discipline reform contend that exclusionary discipline may have adverse consequences for school climate.

But all of them evade a simple explanation for why education standards with regular assessments of student progress, transparency for results, consequences for school failure, and choices for families have always been under fire.

If many authorizers are not tracking these data or willing to meaningfully hold charter schools accountable (i.e. threaten to revoke or non-renewal) for persistent violations related to special education, what in practice is the real consequence for schools failing students with disabilities?

In the 1990s, when the idea of serious consequences for school performance was only starting to develop in states, the achievement gaps between whites and students of color actually grew in some key areas.