Sentences with phrase «proficiency targets this year»

Not exact matches

A question of particular interest was whether schools that failed to make AYP in the previous school year responded strongly to the incentive to target instruction to students at risk of falling just short of the proficiency threshold.

The plan sets a target of 66 % of working - age New Mexicans earning a college degree or post-secondary credential by the year 2030 — a rigorous goal given the current attainment rate of 45 %.1 The plan also sets a vision for New Mexico to be the fastest growing state in the nation when it comes to student outcomes, with a goal to increase the percentage of students who demonstrate readiness to more than 60 % on the state English language arts (ELA) and math assessments.2 These efforts are significant considering New Mexico's historically lower student academic proficiency rates compared to other states and to national averages3, and demonstrate how leaders are driving a sense of urgency to improve.

The target, set by law for the 2014 - 15 school year, is 100 percent proficiency on math and English exams for all students.

Seven out of the state's 15 top - scoring schools on math proficiency tests this year were Success Academy charter schools — the same network targeted by Mayor de Blasio earlier this year in a fight over classroom space.

That's why it's important to fix how we are measuring Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)-- so that schools are not unfairly punished by measurements that do not take account, for instance, where a particular student started at the beginning of the year and whether the school moved students closer to proficiency targets.

Targets for English - language proficiency must be set to ensure that English - language learners are on track to achieve proficiency «not later than 5 years after being identified as English learners.»

The law established tiered consequences for states that failed to meet the yearly proficiency goals, increasing in severity each subsequent year a school missed its target.

Nor did Duncan admit that one reason why states and districts complained about No Child's accountability and proficiency goals was because of their own gamesmanship, failing to elevate (and in some cases, deliberately lower) standards and proficiency targets more - rigorous in the first place, then moving to ramp them up just a few years before the 2014 target would come into play, aided and abetted by Duncan and his predecessors.

For the last two years, OCS has met the New York City Department of Education's target for average student proficiency in reading.

The plan also establishes 10 - year goals for student performance using end - of - grade and end - of - course exams and goals for closing achievement gaps, and continues the School Performance Grades model, in which schools earn a A-F grades based on proficiency measures and student - growth targets.

The after - school program is targeted specifically for English language learners who have been in the United States for several years but who have not yet reached proficiency in English.

One of the strengths of SGP is that it can provide information at multiple levels, showing comparative performance of the student, school, and district, and predicting the amount of growth needed by the individual student, in terms of a specific scale score, to achieve proficiency by the target year.

I explained that our adequate yearly progress (AYP) targets would be tied to the state's new high school proficiency assessment and that if we missed those targets for several years in a row we could face sanctions, including the implementation of student transfers and supplemental tutorial plans.

For English language proficiency, 46 percent of students making progress in achieving English language proficiency by the year 2032, starting with a target of 42 % in 2017 - 2022, increasing to 44 % in 2022 - 2027, and then increasing to 46 % in 2027 - 2032).

The fact that the development of Common Core wasn't even fully completed until 2010, and that the 45 states rolling out the standards didn't approve them until that very year, also makes it hard for Peterson and Kaplan to link the proficiency targets set by states to Common Core implementation.

What Peterson and Kaplan should have done was simply focus on the underlying data, which shows that for most of the past eight years, many states have set proficiency targets and cut scores on state tests that have undermined the goals (and, in some cases, high expectations set by) their old curricula standards.

What Duncan continually fails to acknowledge is that the underlying reason for that had to do with the gamesmanship by states that didn't make their standards and proficiency targets more - rigorous in the first place, then ramped them up just a few years before the 2014 target would come into play.

For a district qualifying under this paragraph whose charter school tuition payments exceed 9 per cent of the school district's net school spending, the board shall only approve an application for the establishment of a commonwealth charter school if an applicant, or a provider with which an applicant proposes to contract, has a record of operating at least 1 school or similar program that demonstrates academic success and organizational viability and serves student populations similar to those the proposed school seeks to serve, from the following categories of students, those: (i) eligible for free lunch; (ii) eligible for reduced price lunch; (iii) that require special education; (iv) limited English - proficient of similar language proficiency level as measured by the Massachusetts English Proficiency Assessment examination; (v) sub-proficient, which shall mean students who have scored in the «needs improvement», «warning» or «failing» categories on the mathematics or English language arts exams of the Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System for 2 of the past 3 years or as defined by the department using a similar measurement; (vi) who are designated as at risk of dropping out of school based on predictors determined by the department; (vii) who have dropped out of school; or (viii) other at - risk students who should be targeted to eliminate achievement gaps among different groups oproficiency level as measured by the Massachusetts English Proficiency Assessment examination; (v) sub-proficient, which shall mean students who have scored in the «needs improvement», «warning» or «failing» categories on the mathematics or English language arts exams of the Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System for 2 of the past 3 years or as defined by the department using a similar measurement; (vi) who are designated as at risk of dropping out of school based on predictors determined by the department; (vii) who have dropped out of school; or (viii) other at - risk students who should be targeted to eliminate achievement gaps among different groups oProficiency Assessment examination; (v) sub-proficient, which shall mean students who have scored in the «needs improvement», «warning» or «failing» categories on the mathematics or English language arts exams of the Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System for 2 of the past 3 years or as defined by the department using a similar measurement; (vi) who are designated as at risk of dropping out of school based on predictors determined by the department; (vii) who have dropped out of school; or (viii) other at - risk students who should be targeted to eliminate achievement gaps among different groups of students.

While the law aimed to close these gaps, they persist despite incremental progress.20 Even after making statistical adjustments to proficiency rates under NCLB, by 2005 — four years after the law passed — the rates of schools making «adequate yearly progress» started to decline.21 Any school missing a single target for any subgroup for two years in a row initiated particular actions, such as offering free tutoring or the option for students to transfer to a higher - performing school.

Under NCLB, the number of schools identified as needing improvement had increased each year as performance targets crept nearer to 100 percent proficiency.

Two years ago, the Obama administration and U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan raised eyebrows and garnered criticism from school reformers when it allowed Virginia's state education officials to retroactively set the proficiency targets it had to meet under the No Child Left Behind Act — and make the performance of its schools look better than reality.

Carey is right in noting that the very flexibility in the law (along with the U.S. Department of Education's implementation of AYP) allowed states to game it by failing to elevate (and in some cases, deliberately lower) standards and proficiency targets more - rigorous in the first place, then moving to ramp them up just a few years before the 2014 target would come into play.