Pennsylvania's proposed indicators for federal accountability include a greater emphasis on academic growth, career readiness benchmarks, chronic absenteeism, and extended - year graduation
rates for federal accountability purposes.
That's the scenario that the California State Board of Education has been bracing for and why the Brown administration has so vigorously fought off efforts by the U.S. Department of Education to use the
results for federal accountability purposes.
In response to this limitation, several states created their own accountability systems — which were used within the state and
not for federal accountability purposes — to measure other factors that were critical to their visions for school success and student learning.3 Nonetheless, states still based these systems primarily on academic proficiency.
Back in 2007, the USDE authorized the use of modified achievement standards for up to 2 percent of special education
students for federal accountability purposes when it published final regulations in April of that year.
Last spring, the state won a hard - fought waiver to set aside the test
scores for federal accountability purposes largely because of the widely held belief that with all the new content, a huge number of students statewide will fail to pass the CAASPP.
This means: students who do not participate in required state testing, for any reason, including required opt - outs in response to a request by a parent or guardian, count «against» proficiency
rates for federal accountability purposes.