Not exact matches
As explained in a guest blog this year by by FairTest's Lisa Guisbond, these measures use student
standardized test scores to track the
growth of individual students as they progress
through the grades and see how much «value» a teacher has added.
Though
testing is not part of our class curriculum, our school is still accountable to show student
growth and proficiency
through standardized tests.
The discrepancies underline the difficulty educators at the local and state level face in tracking students» academic
growth through high school, especially when the only
standardized tests students take cover narrow subject areas.
They also, along with others troubled by New York's — particularly NYC's — notorious achievement gaps, yearned to release school leaders from the muzzle of LIFO, which requires that teachers be laid off by seniority, not effectiveness, and change old - school subjective teacher evaluations to reflect student academic
growth, measured in part
through standardized test scores.
The direct instruction (DI) model proved to be eminently trainable to teachers under experimental conditions, effective in promoting student engagement in classroom tasks as demonstrated
through classroom observations, and statistically significantly related to
growth in pupil achievement as measured on
standardized tests (Myer, 1988).
The student
growth component is measured
through standardized testing.
Building on research presented during the Kinder Institute's October KIForum, Reardon's working paper uses a measure of educational opportunity meant to track student
growth from grades three
through eight utilizing
standardized test scores for roughly 45 million students in more than 11,000 school districts across the country.
First, they would have to embrace the comprehensive use of
test score
growth data (
through Value - Added Measurement)-- and ultimately, the
standardized tests they loathe — in evaluating districts, teachers, and school leaders.