Sentences with phrase «schools face sanctions»

Since that means almost all schools face sanctions, it hardly matters if fewer than 95 percent of the students take the state exam.

As more and more schools face sanctions, how will the administration handle the inevitable logistical and political quicksand?

But as more and more schools face sanctions, the states are having trouble supervising school improvement.

Not exact matches

Some (Cutcliffe) have recently signed contract extensions at their current schools, others (Golden) are getting ready to face sanctions for the wrongdoings of others, and some (Petersen) have been mentioned for every job running for the last five years without ever actually going anywhere.

«More than 2,000 schools in Britain are coasting and could face sanctions if they do not improve as part of a toughening up of Ofsted inspections, it has emerged.

Chris Keates, general secretary of the NASUWT, said: «The recognition that there were problems with the 2015/16 data, and that because of this no schools should face harsh sanctions solely on the basis of that data, is a welcome step towards relieving the pressure and anxiety some schools have been experiencing.

At that time, the school had failed to meet the goals of the NCLB law and faced possible sanctions from the state of Maryland.

Schools that are doing heroic work bringing students with extremely low scores up to a point that may be just below proficiency get no credit for that, and may, in fact, face serious sanctions despite the progress they are making with kids who are the most at risk.

NCLB required that states test students in math and reading each year, that average student performance be publicized for every school, and that schools with persistently low test scores face an escalating series of sanctions.

Schools that consistently earn low ratings face sanctions, such as school closure, reconstitution as charter schools, or loss of stateSchools that consistently earn low ratings face sanctions, such as school closure, reconstitution as charter schools, or loss of stateschools, or loss of state money.

Such schools also face sanctions, such as permission for students to transfer from low - performing schools to higher - performing ones.

Schools that consistently earn low ratings face sanctions, such as school closure.

Students who violate the agreements here shall forfeit their right to school Internet access and will face other sanctions deemed appropriate by the administration.

This exacerbated the inherent risk - aversion and «box - checking» request for proposal processes in state education offices and school districts by adding federal sanctions to the list of risks they already faced in their procurement processes.

A second hazard involves fairness to schools at risk of being sanctioned for poor performance: these schools can face longer odds if weather or other schedule disruptions limit school days.

Researchers have also found positive effects behind the mere act of notifying schools in need of improvement that they faced the potential of sanctions.

Schools that failed to make «Adequate Yearly Progress» toward the 100 percent proficiency goal for each subgroup would face sanctions, such as reorganization or closure.

But urban leaders — whose schools are most likely to struggle to reach the law's current goals and most apt to face such sanctions — are urging Congress to be more aggressive in holding their schools accountable in the future.

CORE's accountability system would replace the current system, with most schools in Program Improvement, facing NCLB sanctions, with a three - tiered system that rewards top Schools of Distinction and identifies the 15 percent of Title I schools needing improschools in Program Improvement, facing NCLB sanctions, with a three - tiered system that rewards top Schools of Distinction and identifies the 15 percent of Title I schools needing improSchools of Distinction and identifies the 15 percent of Title I schools needing improschools needing improvement.

Moreover, when a school fails to meet established standards, the sanctions they face rarely induce meaningful change.

2001 brought passage of the No Child Left Behind Act, a momentous reauthorization of the ESEA, declaring not only that every single student should become «proficient» in math and reading, but also that every school in the land would have its performance reported, both school wide and for its student demographic subgroups, and that schools failing to make «adequate yearly progress» would face a cascade of sanctions and interventions.

Rather than restrict the proportion of schools that must face the strictest sanctions to 5 or 10 percent, as Lamar Alexander's legislative package and the Administration's own Blueprint do, the sky is once again the limit under the Miller approach.

Many educators at public schools have made identical complaints to Paige and Congress about No Child Left Behind, under which schools can face sanctions even if a subgroup of students, such as low - income or special - education students, do poorly on annual tests.

Schools and states that fail to make those targets are marked as failing under the law and face increasing sanctions.

That meant that starting last year, a Title I school — with some exceptions — faced sanctions unless all its children scored proficient i n math and English language arts.

Advocates for public, charter and private voucher schools have been unable to reach agreement on numerous issues, including whether they all should take the same test to measure student performance, how that material should be presented, and whether any should face sanctions.

In addition to the growing body of research supporting the benefits of alternative campus discipline programs, there is now federal pressure for districts to rethink their practices: schools may face sanctions if discipline policies are found to unfairly target minority students.

Because no action is taken until the third consecutive poor performance, no schools would face sanctions until the 2017 - 18 school year.

If the Assembly bill's provisions become law, six Madison schools could potentially face sanctions if the schools» performance continues, according to DPI data posted online by the School Administrators Alliance.

In return, states will no longer have to face the 2014 deadline for bringing all students to proficiency in math and reading, their schools will no longer face NCLB sanctions such as providing school choice, and district officials will have more freedom to move around Title I money for disadvantaged students.

Schools and districts that don't meet the standards over multiple years face escalating sanctions.

For one, more and more public schools are facing sanctions under the NCLB law, as the levels of proficiency required have climbed.Also, the recession has led to cutbacks in aid to schools, with impacts on teacher pay, benefits, and class sizes.

Most school districts in Washington State will likely have less control over how they spend money during the next academic year, and those that were already under sanction for failing to make progress under the federal No Child Left Behind law will face more severe consequences.

During a 4 - year span, all schools who fail to meet AYP, including those with an A + on the FCAT, will face sanctions ranging from economic to a complete «reconstitution» or breakdown the school that involves firing principals, and staff and relocating students around the county.

Those that received federal Title I funds — funds allocated to schools that serve a requisite number of low - income students — faced sanctions that increased over time.

But with the lofty 2014 goal of 100 - percent proficiency in math and reading, a majority of schools are likely to start facing sanctions.

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.

The law required states to make measurable progress on high school graduation rates or face sanctions such as a loss of funds for poor students.

At the hearing in Springfield, state schools Superintendent Christopher Koch repeated warnings that state and local districts faced serious sanctions if most students don't take the test.

More recent high - quality studies have provided evidence that schools improve their performance when they face sanctions (Ahn and Vigdor 2014), that principals and teachers focus time and effort in different ways that improve performance when their school receives low ratings (Rouse, et al 2013), and that teachers threatened with dismissal for an ineffective rating improved their performance (Dee and Wykoff 2014).

A high school shooting in Florida led to a national student walkout that swept up students in Georgia, some with the support of their school districts and others facing threats of sanctions.

School districts will begin facing the state sanctions based on whether too few students take the exams next spring.

The goal is to ease the pressures of testing and bring an end to the test prep mania that for years has consumed schools worried they wouldn't meet Annual Yearly Progress (AYP) and face closure, firing of staff, or other sanctions.

Dozens more school employees have faced ethics sanctions in a case that has rocked the city of Atlanta for the past few years.

And schools would no longer face federal sanctions if they fail to make what was called «adequate yearly progress» — a benchmark that critics have long called unrealistic and onerous.

Under the law, schools that didn't make «adequate yearly progress» faced ever more draconian sanctions, including wholesale reorganization and closings.

Along with potentially shortening summer breaks, especially for teachers switching school districts, it also changes the date before which teachers can resign without facing potential sanctions for contract abandonment.

The longer low - performing schools faced the threat of sanctions, the less apt they were to examine their underlying assumptions and current practices — and pull together to improve them (Finnigan, Daly, & Che, 2012).

An increasing number of schools and districts, including Madison, face various sanctions if the law doesn't change, but a reauthorization of NCLB has been stalled in Congress for years.

Charter schools are held accountable for their performance and when they do not meet their goals, they face sanctions and closure, making them the most accountable public schools there are.