Sentences with phrase «on objective measures of student achievement»

[xi] Teacher associations, for their part, continue to push back against teacher evaluation systems that focus on objective measures of student achievement and provide any meaningful differentiation between teachers.

Not exact matches

Consistent with the prior studies, in this objective evaluation, KIPP students outperformed the comparison children on numerous measures of achievement, across a range of subject areas.

To the extent the program involves student achievement, it bases awards on «student learning objectives» as «created by individual teachers, with the approval of site - based administrators»; these objectives «will be measured by a combination of existing assessment instruments, and teacher designed tools,» as well as by state standardized tests.

In tackling this task, Feinberg says, they «backed into» the five essential tenets of the KIPP model: High Expectations (for academic achievement and conduct); Choice and Commitment (KIPP students, parents, and teachers all sign a learning pledge, promising to devote the time and effort needed to succeed); More Time (extended school day, week, and year); Power to Lead (school leaders have significant autonomy, including control over their budget, personnel, and culture); and Focus on Results (scores on standardized tests and other objective measures are coupled with a focus on character development).

According to the National Council on Teacher Quality (NCTQ), the number of states requiring objective measures of student achievement to be included in teacher evaluations nearly tripled from 2009 to 2015, from 15 to 43 states nationwide (see Figure 1).

You write, «I respectfully disagree with your suggestion that the closest thing states have to an objective measure of student achievement [value - added growth scores based on standardized tests] should not be part of the equation.»

As documented under Section 1115 of Title I, Part A of the Every Students Succeeds Act (ESSA), a local education agency receiving Title I funds «may use funds received under this part only for programs that provide services to eligible children under subsection (b) identified as having the greatest need for special assistance... Eligible children are children identified by the school as failing, or most at risk of failing, to meet the State's challenging student academic achievement standards on the basis of multiple, educationally related, objective criteria established by the local educational agency and supplemented by the school, except that children from preschool through grade 2 shall be selected solely on the basis of such criteria as teacher judgment, interviews with parents, and developmentally appropriate measures».

Changing the current evaluation system to focus on improved student outcomes, including objective measures of student growth, is critical to improving teacher effectiveness, raising student achievement, and meeting the objectives of the federal «No Child Left Behind Act of 2001.»

Under teacher evaluation reforms, as of 2015, all but eight states have committed to using an objective measure of student achievement — such as performance on standardized assessments — as a part of teacher and principal evaluation systems.40 However, given the challenges of fairly incorporating student test performance in evaluations, all states and districts engaged in these reforms must account for factors like the variation in student background and other external influences on performance.

In special education, reliance on the single measure of a high stakes test is not necessary since a direct measure of student learning is available: achievement of IEP goals and objectives.