Sentences with phrase «require yearly testing»

While the federal government still would require yearly testing, the results could be used only as a guide to see how students are faring.

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.

The No Child Left Behind Act previously required all public schools receiving Title I funding to administer statewide standardized testing with the stipulation that students make «adequate yearly progress.»

Operators are required to do so - called «mechanical integrity» tests at regular intervals, yearly for Class 1 wells and at least once every five years for Class 2 wells.

Districts with schools that had persistently failed to make «adequate yearly progress» in their test - score performance were required to offer the students in those schools options ranging from a seat in a higher - performing public school to free tutoring services.

NCLB is most often characterized as having been implemented during this year, in part because states were required to use testing outcomes from the prior 2001 — 02 year as the starting point for determining whether a school was making adequate yearly progress (AYP) and to submit draft «workbooks» that described how school AYP status would be determined.

Since the mid-1990s, the North Carolina Department of Public Instruction (NCDPI) has required all districts to submit data that include demographic information, attendance rates, and behavioral outcomes, yearly test scores in math and reading for grades 3 through 8, and subject - specific tests for higher grades.

NCLB requires annual testing of students in reading and mathematics in grades 3 through 8 (and at least once in grades 10 through 12) and that states rate schools, both as a whole and for key subgroups, with regard to whether they are making adequate yearly progress (AYP) toward their state's proficiency goals.

Even with seat - time waivers available to schools, then, requiring once - yearly summative assessments frustrate the possibility of a fully flexible progression, as students will be forced to take tests on subjects that they have already moved beyond or have not yet mastered.

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.

The 2001 No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) marked a new level of federal oversight by requiring states to set more rigorous student evaluation standards and, through testing, demonstrate «adequate yearly progress» in how those standards were met.

Examples of such initiatives include the No Child Left Behind legislation in the United States, which required schools to demonstrate that they were making adequate yearly progress and provided escalating negative consequences for schools that were unable to do this; the creation and publication of league tables of «value - added» measures of school performance in England; proposals to introduce financial rewards for school improvement and performance pay tied to improved test results in Australia; and the encouragement of competition between schools under New Zealand's Tomorrow's Schools program.

[4] Although the ESSA would end the Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) mandates under NCLB, which require that all students in all states make «adequate» annual progress toward universal proficiency in math and reading or have the state risk federal sanctions, the proposal would keep the annual testing structure in place.

Also, the federal law specifies that test increases must occur for handicapped children and for children who speak limited English; it also requires separate score targets for reading and math, while the California law allows a merged reading and math score for annual yearly progress.

No Child Left Behind required schools to administer yearly state standardized tests.

Under the law, for the first time, schools were required to test every student annually in math and reading in grades K - 8, and schools had to make «adequate yearly progress» — as measured by student test scores — or face increasingly heavy penalties.

All ESSA requires is a yearly measure of Reading skills and a yearly measure of Math skills and a test of Science skills every three years.

To hold states to that requirement, the feds required them to make AYP — adequate yearly progress — effectively requiring states to make sure test scores, year over year, are always going up.

Numerous provisions contained in S. 1177 represent a huge step forward from current legislation: the elimination of adequate yearly progress and the 100 percent proficiency requirements, tempering the test - and - punish provisions of No Child Left Behind; the continued requirement of disaggregated subgroup data; removal of the unworkable school turnaround models required under the School Improvement Grant and Race to the Top programs; clarification of the term school leader as the principal of an elementary, middle or high school; inclusion of the use of Title II funds for a «School Leadership Residency Program»; activities to improve the recruitment, preparation, placement, support, and retention of effective principals and school leaders in high - need schools; and the allowable use of Title II funds to develop induction and mentoring programs that are designed to improve school leadership and provide opportunities for mentor principals and other educators who are experienced and effective.

Montana proved victorious in its showdown with the U.S. Department of Education over refusing to raise its adequate yearly progress (AYP) testing targets this next school year as required by No Child Left Behind (NCLB).

For example, we strongly support doing away with the adequate yearly progress measurement, and agree that requiring states to adopt unreliable test - based principal and teacher evaluation will only lead to an overemphasis on standardized tests and the further narrowing of the curriculum.

NLCB required all students to make adequate yearly progress on standardized tests.

Never mind that federal law only requires (in grades 3 - 8 and once in high school) one reading test yearly, one math test yearly, and one science test (three times total).

The same is true for K — 12 standardized achievement tests and metrics such as annual yearly progress required by No Child Left Behind.

If your pet requires any routine vaccinations or treatment then they will usually be taken care of at this time, for example your dog may be tested yearly for heart worms.

Indoor cats require one Leukemia test and outdoor cats require a yearly Leukemia test.

All pets staying at the Pet Resort are required to be current on all yearly vaccines and tests.

This is one of the reasons I believe every judge in every court in the country, state and federal, should be required to have to take a yearly polygraph test (lie detector) as a condition to remain as a judge.

Women are more vulnerable to high health care costs because women's reproductive health requires more regular contact with health care providers, including visits for yearly annual exams, pap tests, mammograms, and obstetric care.