Sentences with phrase «of subgroup accountability»

As Richard Whitmire and I proposed earlier this year, simply requiring gender to be measured as part of subgroup accountability would do plenty to force states and districts into dealing seriously with this problem.

If only the Obama administration would stop forcing states to continue some form of subgroup accountability and allow for more «race - neutral» approaches, then there could be more innovation in accountability that may further systemic reform.

Not exact matches

Both NCLB and its successor, the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), left the choice of minimum subgroup size at the school level (n - size) for accountability purposes to the states.

[1] The subgroup requirements for accountability in NCLB were designed to reveal underperformance of disadvantaged groups that could otherwise be hidden — inadvertently or not — in aggregate averages.

«Ensuring Equity in ESSA: The Role of N - Size in Subgroup Accountability.»

The subgroup requirements for accountability in the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) were designed to reveal underperformance of disadvantaged groups that could otherwise be hidden in aggregate averages.

Hence, it is of particular interest to understand the effect of NCLB accountability on specific student subgroups.

In its analysis of the eleven waiver applications, the Center on Education Policy found that nine state applicants will base almost all accountability decisions on the achievement of only two students groups; i.e., all students and a «disadvantaged» student group or «super subgroup.»

CAP has praised states in the past for lowering their n - sizes, but their plan to have fewer students «count» toward a school's accountability rating would mean less attention on important subgroups of students.

Dee and Jacob convincingly show that certain subgroups of children attending schools in states with weak accountability regimes prior to NCLB partially caught up with children in states with stronger programs.

ESSA requires states to «establish a system of meaningfully differentiating, on an annual basis, all public schools in the State, which shall be based on all indicators in the State's accountability system... for all students and for each subgroup of students.»

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.

While this replaces the statutory approach of basing all accountability decisions on the separate performance of numerous student subgroups, including students from low - income families, the assessment results for all of these «disadvantaged» student subgroups designated in the ESEA statute must be reported each year and must be taken into account in determining performance consequences for public schools.

States operating Title I programs under ESEA accountability waivers often combine some of the ESEA's designated subgroups, or use one or more new subgroups, for some or all of their primary accountability determinations.

Ensure that all students in tested grades are included in the assessment and accountability system, hold schools and districts accountable for the performance of each student subgroup and include all schools and districts;

In many waiver states, some of the primary accountability determinations, such as the selection of Priority schools, are based on the performance of all students plus students in a limited number of demographic subgroups.

The organizations oppose the draft Student Success Act because «it abandons accountability for the achievement and learning gains of subgroups of disadvantaged students who for generations have been harmed by low academic expectations.

The federal government is permitting many schools to escape accountability for the progress of racial or ethnic subgroups under the No Child Left Behind Act, according to a computer analysis released by the Associated Press last week.

States must include each major racial / ethnic subgroup in school accountability systems and can not use a combined «super subgroup» of minority students.

The intent of that law was to prevent schools from hiding subgroups of students from the accountability structure and was not aimed at preventing parents from refusing to have their children tested.

Tightens the screws on NCLB's «subgroup accountability,» requiring schools to hit targets on dozens of indicators in order to avoid stigmas and sanctions.

State accountability systems must expect the «continuous improvement» of all public schools in «the academic achievement and academic growth of all students,» including subgroups.

Or maybe it's not exactly gone, in the mind of folks who yearn for Uncle Sam to mandate accountability models that obsess about achievement gaps and give failing grades to any school with low proficiency rates for any subgroups.

It goes something like this: Step away from federal heavy - handedness around states» accountability and teacher credentialing systems; keep plenty of transparency of results in place, especially test scores disaggregated by racial and other subgroups; offer incentives for embracing promising reforms instead of mandates; and give school districts a lot more flexibility to move their federal dollars around as they see fit.

How to define the «students in foster care» subgroup for the purposes of accountability is an open question, but nevertheless they must be reported on.

A number of states have little or no accountability for the graduation rate accountability of subgroups.

The Politics K - 12 Team at Education Week surveyed all 50 states regarding their use of «super subgroups» in their NCLB waivers that «can no longer be used in place of individual subgroups of student for accountability purposes» under ESSA.

As a result, underperforming SWD would continue to fall behind without an accountability system that incentivizes states and districts to close achievement gaps between subgroups of students.

Before federal education officials exempted Indiana from the national accountability law, schools tracked the performance of students in every socioeconomic and ethnic «subgroup» in their building.

In a letter sent to the Education Department today, these groups express deep concerns about waiver implementation, from how graduation rates are factored into state accountability systems to how subgroups of at - risk students are being helped.

Teachers: you can work night and day with a subgroup, show gains in learning of 1 to 2 years from your students beginning of the year baseline, yet if your gains don't meet AYP Proficiency under differentiated accountability — you and your kids will be deemed failures.

Includes STAAR results for students previously identified as English learners in the English learner student subgroup for purposes of school accountability, for up to four years after the student ceases to be an English learner.

The administration also failed to fully address other concerns: For example, it granted Georgia a waiver in spite of concerns that it didn't include graduation rate data for poor and minority kids into its proposed accountability system, the College and Career Ready Performance Index, which effectively meant that «a school could earn a high CCRPI with low graduation rates for some subgroups».

Members point to regulations that insert comparability of teacher salaries, define a threshold for classroom size of subgroups, condense accountability development timelines, and require states to apply a single summative rating (accountability) to schools.

Creating a «combined subgroup» seems to undermine this stated purpose of accountability.

The 100 percent proficiency target set by No Child, for example, was an ambitious statement that all kids should get the education they need to write their own life stories, while AYP's emphasis on subgroup accountability made clear that states, districts, and schools need to do well by all children, regardless of who they are.

After much debate, the legislation allows the inclusion of former English learners in the English learner subgroup for accountability purposes for up to four years.

Student demographic and assessment data has long been shared as part of the accountability process; it's how states gauge their performance and the performance of demographic subgroups against each other and national norms.

All of California's public schools are held to higher levels of accountability to improve the academic performance of these subgroups.

Rather than link school and district accountability to the percentage of student overall and subgroup performance at these bands, the state devised a system that obfuscates actual student performance.

In exchange, states implemented systems of differentiated accountability in which they identified and intervened in their lowest - performing schools («Priority» schools) and schools with the largest achievement gaps between subgroups of students («Focus» schools).

While we appreciate CDE's proposal to disaggregate student subgroup data in achievement (not just growth, as was the case in previous frameworks), as well as the Department's commitment to ensuring transparency of subgroup performance data in reporting, we strongly encourage CDE to reconsider the adoption of a combined subgroup for accountability purposes, which would have significant implications for educational equity.

She will further argue for accountability systems that look at the growth and performance of all students as well as subgroups of children.

His amendments, for example, would require state accountability systems to set performance, growth, and graduation targets for all students, including all subgroups of students, and make performance against those targets matter for all schools.

State accountability systems must meaningfully hold schools accountable if fewer than 95 percent of all students or of any subgroup of students were not included in the state's assessment.

The first of its kind to be granted to districts as opposed to states, the waiver will allow the eight districts to implement a new accountability model called the School Quality Improvement System which is based on a holistic vision of student success, a collective moral imperative to prepare all students for college and career, and an emphasis on eliminating disparities between subgroups of students.

CAP believes that Congress should provide states with the flexibility to establish an accountability system that takes into account the performance and progress of all students and subgroups of students across multiple academic indicators.

Yet given that achievement gaps are present in schools that are both high - and low - performing overall, a policy that restricts subgroup accountability to an arbitrary number or a percentage of schools — such as only the lowest - performing schools in a state — is not enough to address existing achievement disparities.

Among their top concerns are the incorporation of super subgroups within state accountability systems, graduation rate calculations that include students who receive GEDs, and a lack of transparency and clarity about schools» performance.

The waivers may allow for the possibility of states targeting gender for subgroup accountability (and thus, addressing the crisis of low educational attainment among young men of all socioeconomic and racial backgrounds) on their own.