Sentences with phrase «made accountability tests»

Yet because NCLB has made accountability tests the tail that wags the dog of the whole education system — threatening remediation and state takeover for schools that fall short — what's not tested often isn't taught.

Not exact matches

Among them: determining what constitutes acceptable state tests; establishing criteria by which to approve a state's school accountability plan; defining «qualified» teachers; and deciding how broadly to interpret a clause that lets schools avoid sanctions if their students make lesser gains than those required under the bill's «adequate yearly progress» provision.

Education policy should focus on making sure that every student makes great progress, rather than accountability for test scores or teacher performance pay.

This past March, NBC News leaked details of a classified investigation by the Government Accountability Office that showed homemade bomb - making materials sailing through security at all 21 airports tested.

Absent persuasive evidence on the impact of efforts to raise the bar, some people have speculated that the rise of test - based accountability associated with NCLB and the ongoing push to establish more - rigorous teacher evaluation systems have made teaching less attractive and thereby contributed to further decline in the quality of the teaching corps.

And what of the concern that test - based accountability policies are making teaching less attractive to talented individuals?

I refuse to pretend that it's caused no mischief in our schools — narrowing curriculum, encouraging large amounts of ill - conceived test prep, and making school a joyless grind for too many teachers and students alike — but neither can any fair - minded analyst deny that there have been real if modest gains in our present era of test - driven accountability, especially for low - income black and Hispanic children, particularly in the early grades.

The measures used in the NEPC report — whether schools make AYP, state accountability system ratings, the percentage of students that score proficient on state tests, and high - school graduation rates — are at best rough proxies for the quality of education provided by any school.

We analyzed the test - score improvements made between each student's first 3rd - grade year and the following year on both the state's own accountability exam and the Stanford - 9, a nationally normed exam administered at the same time as the FCAT but not used for accountability purposes.

18, no. 2), Dan Goldhaber takes aim at my new book, The Testing Charade: Pretending to Make Schools Better, in which I argue that test - based accountability has failed on balance and that it is time to explore alternatives.

To evaluate the claim that No Child Left Behind and other test - based accountability policies are making teaching less attractive to academically talented individuals, the researchers compare the SAT scores of new teachers entering classrooms that typically face accountability - based test achievement pressures (grade 4 — 8 reading and math) and classrooms in those grades that do not involve high - stakes testing.

Yet there are surprisingly few studies that make this link explicitly, and none that ask whether schools that respond to accountability pressure by increasing students» test scores also make those students more likely to attend and complete college, to earn more as adults, or to benefit in the long - run in other important ways.

But with The Testing Charade: Pretending to Make Schools Better, excerpted here, Koretz firmly documents what he considers to be the failures of test - based accountability.

These annual volumes make assertions about empirical facts («students» scores on the state tests used for NCLB are rising»; or «lack of capacity is a serious problem that could undermine the success of NCLB») and provide policy recommendations («some requirements of NCLB are overly stringent, unworkable, or unrealistic»; «the need for funding will grow, not shrink, as more schools are affected by the law's accountability requirements»).

And progress won't be fast; it will take quite some time simply to repair the damage that test - based accountability has produced, let alone to make the sizable improvements we want.

For example, ESSA only slightly broadens the focus from test scores, does nothing to confront Campbell's Law, * doesn't allow for reasonable variations among students, doesn't take context into account, doesn't make use of professional judgment, and largely or entirely (depending on the choices states» departments of education make) continues to exclude the quality of educators» practice from the mandated accountability system.

In our balanced budget I proposed a comprehensive strategy to help make our schools the best in the world — to have high national standards of academic achievement, national tests in 4th grade reading and 8th grade math, strengthening math instruction in middle schools, providing smaller classes in the early grades so that teachers can give students the attention they deserve, working to hire more well - prepared and nationally certified teachers, modernizing our schools for the 21st century, supporting more charter schools, encouraging public school choice, ending social promotion, demanding greater accountability from students and teachers, principals and parents.

Moreover, summative assessment sat at the core of many of the policy reforms that the leaders described: additional accountability levers such as teacher evaluation systems and statewide school report cards draw on data coming out of these summative tests to make determinations and comparisons regarding teacher and school - level performance.

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.

In this forum, Joshua Starr, superintendent of schools in high - performing Montgomery County, Maryland, makes the case for a three - year hiatus from high - stakes accountability testing while new standards and tests are implemented.

Moreover, states differ in many ways other than their accountability provisions — ways that can make it difficult to isolate the impact of high - stakes testing.

The NCLB accountability system divides schools into those in which a sufficient number of students score at the proficient level or above on state tests to meet Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) benchmarks («make AYP») and those that fail to make AYP.

«The Accountability Plateau,» by Mark Schneider, just published by Education Next and the Fordham Institute, makes a big point: that «consequential accountability,» à la No Child Left Behind and the high - stakes state testing systems that preceded it, corresponded with a significant one - time boost in student achievement, particularly in primary and middlAccountability Plateau,» by Mark Schneider, just published by Education Next and the Fordham Institute, makes a big point: that «consequential accountability,» à la No Child Left Behind and the high - stakes state testing systems that preceded it, corresponded with a significant one - time boost in student achievement, particularly in primary and middlaccountability,» à la No Child Left Behind and the high - stakes state testing systems that preceded it, corresponded with a significant one - time boost in student achievement, particularly in primary and middle school math.

If the school adopted that dubious approach under a results - based accountability regime, the student's current ability level would need to be assessed and the school would be required to demonstrate that the child was making adequate yearly progress as determined by an annual assessment using the same testing accommodations.

Today, it's more accurate to say that educators are fine with national but don't like testing when it's used for results - based accountability, and conservatives are all for accountability (and the test scores that make it possible) but don't want anything mandated by Washington.

Alexander indicated that he was strongly influenced by the recommendation made at a hearing last week by Professor Marty West of Harvard University that the federal government continue to require annual tests but that it leave the design of accountability systems up to the states.

by Brett Wigdortz, founder and CEO, Teach First; Fair access: Making school choice and admissions work for all by Rebecca Allen, reader in the economics of education at the Institute of Education, University of London; School accountability, performance and pupil attainment by Simon Burgess, professor of economics at the University of Bristol, and director of the Centre for Market and Public Organisation; The importance of teaching by Dylan Wiliam, emeritus professor at the Institute of Education, University of London; Reducing within - school variation and the role of middle leadership by James Toop, ceo of Teaching Leaders; The importance of collaboration: Creating «families of schools» by Tim Brighouse, a former teacher and chief education officer of Oxfordshire and Birmingham; Testing times: Reforming classroom teaching through assessment by Christine Harrison, senior lecturer in science education at King's College London; Tackling pupil disengagement: Making the curriculum more engaging by David Price, author and educational consultant; Beyond the school gates: Developing children's zones for England by Alan Dyson, professor of education at the University of Manchester and co-director of the Centre for Equity in Education, Kirstin Kerr, lecturer in education at the University of Manchester and Chris Wellings, head of programme policy in Save the Children's UK Programme; After school: Promoting opportunities for all young people in a locality by Ann Hodgson, professor of education and director of the Learning for London @IOE Research Centre, Institute of Education, University of London and Ken Spours, professor or education and co-director of the Centre for Post-14 Research and Innovation at the Institute of Education, University of London.

Federalists will often make the case that we should let a thousand flowers bloom, sit back, and wait for the cross-pollination to occur: if states, districts, or schools apply test - based accountability and it works, then others will willingly adopt those best practices.

In a series of important posts, Jay Greene made a strong case against accountability systems that lean too heavily on test scores.

So if Kress and others want to use these data to say: «Don't mess with NCLB's accountability framework because it's working» — well, to me, the evidence shows that NCLB and test - based accountability had their day in the sun, and made a big difference, but now it's time to try something else if we want to see progress continue.

In theory, test - based accountability was a mechanism for ensuring that schools were performing, making it possible to reduce micromanagement, slash regulation, and boost school autonomy.

In fact, with a new Department of Education seemingly more inclined to abide by what ESSA actually says and less inclined to make things up as it goes along (see: Obama ED's adventures with «supplement not supplant»), states have big opportunities when it comes to testing, accountability, school improvement, and more — and the responsibility to take advantage of them.

With respect to the research on test - based accountability, Principal Investigator Jimmy Kim adds: «While we embrace the overall objective of the federal law — to narrow the achievement gap among different subgroups of students — NCLB's test - based accountability policies fail to reward schools for making progress and unfairly punish schools serving large numbers of low - income and minority students.

Minnesota moved its testing regimen from February to April in the wake of accountability standards, while Colorado legislators have proposed moving their testing window from March into April, with advocates suggesting that the increased time for instruction would make meeting performance requirements under No Child Left Behind more feasible for struggling schools.

Teachers will remain caught between ideologies of short - term economic efficiencies and the findings of educational research — between bottom lines and holistic student development; caught in the rough - edged cogs of funding formulae about resources and student achievement; caught by the Gonskis in the public - private funding debate; stuck between the so - far - disappointing results of national, standardised testing and teacher accountability (more effort is made to hold teachers accountable than trust them!).

Many Obama supporters thought he would de-emphasize test scores, but instead his administration made them even more important for «accountability» purposes, and teachers found themselves in the crosshairs of unreasonable evaluation systems, sometimes being assessed by the scores of students they didn't have and / or subjects they didn't teach.

California 8th graders will be required to take Algebra 1 and be tested on it as part of the state's accountability system, under a controversial decision made by the state board of education last week after last - minute pressure from Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.

A federally mandated system of test - based accountability for U.S. education can be made even better.

The second Bush administration made testing and accountability the federal agenda with passage of its No Child Left Behind legislation.

ESSA makes it clear that each state can now have much stronger control of testing, accountability, and policy than under NCLB.

For over a decade now, test - based accountability has acted as a sort of insurance policy to make sure disadvantaged and struggling students are not ignored.

But then it's up to the states, which will be in the testing - and - accountability driver's seat, to figure out how to do this and to insist on tests that make it possible.

Whereas social scientists have bent themselves out of shape studying the effects of, say, test - based accountability, charter schools, and other «structural» reforms — and have produced some reasonably solid findings about what works for whom under what circumstances — curriculum is relatively little studied and what's learned almost never makes the New York Times (or even Education Week).

A reauthorized ESEA may completely eliminate the federal interventions that are in the current version of ESEA and is likely to give individual states much more decision - making authority when it comes to accountability and testing mandates.

In addition, the main thrust of the report's criticism, that the state's ESSA plan is not sufficiently similar to what it would have been had No Child Left Behind remained in effect, assumes the test - based accountability strategy that these reviewers have made their careers pursuing had been effective, which it has not; and therefore, when coupled with the false claim that California has high - quality academic standards and assessments, which... Read More

In addition, the main thrust of the report's criticism, that the state's ESSA plan is not sufficiently similar to what it would have been had No Child Left Behind remained in effect, assumes the test - based accountability strategy that these reviewers have made their careers pursuing had been effective, which it has not; and therefore, when coupled with the false claim that California has high - quality academic standards and assessments, which it doesn't (California's standards being based on the Common Core, which leaves American students 2 - 3 years behind their peers in East Asia and northern Europe), California's families remain well advised to opt out of state schooling wherever and whenever possible, until the overreach from both the federal and state capitals is brought to an end and local schools that want to pursue genuinely world - class excellence can thrive.

So here's a glimpse into what next - to - nothing accountability for a publicly - funded school voucher program looks like: current law only requires private schools with more than 25 voucher students to make public their annual standardized test results.

Through more than 20 years of No Child Left Behind (NCLB), we have lived with a uniform definition of accountability, that of a standardized test used to make determinations of student learning and school and district progress.

While NPR's Westervelt criticizes Kane for making a «pretty scathing and strong indictment» of America's education system, what Kane does not understand writ large is that the very solutions for which Kane advocates — using VAM - based measurements to fire and hire bad and good teachers, respectively — are really no different than the «stronger accountability» measures upon which we have relied for the last 40 years (since the minimum competency testing era) within this alleged «echo chamber.»

Policymakers and the public must immediately engage in an open and transparent community decision - making process about the best ways to use test scores and to develop accountability systems that fully support a broader, more accurate definition of college, career, and citizenship readiness that ensures equity and access for all students.