Sentences with phrase «student subgroups as»

These groups were concerned that Florida's plan did not comply with ESSA's requirement that states include the performance of individual student subgroups as a factor in the grades assigned to schools.

Additionally, waiver states had to identify the 10 percent of Title I schools demonstrating the largest achievement gaps or lowest achievement for student subgroups as «focus» schools.

When Dashboard indicators identify student subgroups as low performing or low growth, districts are encouraged to engage in a process of continuous improvement to develop strategies and then monitor their effectiveness.

Not exact matches

But the category of English - language learners differs from other subgroups, such as students of a particular race.

Under the NCLB law, schools must break out results on annual tests by both the student population as a whole, and these «subgroup» students.

Certainly the results would have been even more encouraging if the high - priority SINI students had shown significant reading gains as a distinct subgroup.

As sample size shrinks, the chances rise that a few individual children influence the school's accountability rating — either positively or negatively — in a way that has nothing to do with how well the school serves students in that subgroup.

[11] The same document prohibits states from combining «major racial and ethnic subgroups... into a... «super-subgroup,» as a substitute for considering student data in each of the major racial and ethnic groups separately (emphasis added).»

It refers to schools with stubborn achievement gaps or weak performance among «subgroup» students, such as English - language learners or students in special education.

Focus School: A school with persistent achievement gaps or poor performance among «subgroup» students, such as English - language learners or students in special education.

The law requires states to use a single accountability system for public schools to determine whether all students, as well as individual subgroups...

And they must report the results, for both the student population as a whole and for particular «subgroups» of students, including English - learners and students in special education, racial minorities, and children from low - income families.

It is required to report whatever metrics its state chooses not only for all its tested grades (3 - 5), but also for a number of distinct «subgroups» including those defined by race / ethnicity, as long as there are more students in each subgroup than the minimum n - size the state has chosen.

If n is too small, statistical reliability is at risk; if n is too big, too few schools and students are held accountable, as those with subgroup enrollments less than n do not participate in the accountability system.

Schools must report all results by subgroup, but if the number of students in a group won't produce statistically reliable results, the state need not identify the school as not making AYP based on the subgroup results.

For example, the idea that the success of LEAs will be determined based on: «the number and percentage of participating students by subgroup who have daily access to effective and highly effective teachers» is problematic in the way that it potentially limits the innovative staffing models possible to serve students if educator is defined as one being co-located with the student.

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.

• Ensure that all students within a participating school are included in the pilot and that participating districts and schools pay appropriate attention to the needs of different subgroups in designing policies to make them as equitable as possible.

As with schools, that determination must be based not just on overall student achievement, but also on the performance of student subgroups, broken down by categories such as race and ethnicitAs with schools, that determination must be based not just on overall student achievement, but also on the performance of student subgroups, broken down by categories such as race and ethnicitas race and ethnicity.

As for subgroups, let's look at the percentage of students scoring at «satisfactory» or above on mathematics:

Yet in addition to checking whether the lotteried - in and lotteried - out students are comparable as whole groups, we also need to check that subgroups of students, sorted by the grade to which they applied, are comparable.

First, it would all but eliminate school - level information about the learning of student subgroups, as testing only a single grade in each school often results in sample sizes for groups such as English learners or blacks that are too small to yield reliable information for the school as a whole.

In addition, we control for determinants of student achievement that may change over time, such as a teacher's experience level, as well as for student characteristics, such as prior - year test scores, gender, racial / ethnic subgroup, special education classification, gifted classification, English proficiency classification, and whether the student was retained in the same grade.

The higher the threshold — say, requiring a subgroup to represent at least 15 percent of the student body, as opposed to 5 or 10 percent — the lower the failure rate will be for schools with small percentages of disadvantaged minority students.

This analysis includes the entire class of 2013, as well as additional information on trends and the performance of subgroups, including students with disabilities.

With English - language learners as the special focus of this year's report, it also, for the first time, provides 50 - state information on this diverse and growing student subgroup,...

Several EdSource stories have highlighting the pros and cons of the dashboard, as well as new «5 × 5 reports» that show how well schools or student subgroups are doing in specific categories.

Rather than presenting performance as the proportion of students who have met the minimum - proficiency cut score, states could present the average (mean) score of students within the school and the average performance of each subgroup of students.

The bill replaces AYP standards with a requirement for states to annually measure all students and individual subgroups by: (1) academic achievement as measured by state assessments; (2) for high schools, graduation rates; (3) for schools that are not high schools, a measure of student growth or another valid and reliable statewide indicator; (4) if applicable, progress in achieving English proficiency by English learners; and (5) at least one additional valid and reliable statewide indicator that allows for meaningful differentiation in school performance.

Effective remedies to improve instruction, learning and school climate (including, e.g., decreases in bullying and harassment, use of exclusionary discipline practices, use of police in schools, and student referrals to law enforcement) for students enrolled are implemented in any school where the school as a whole, or any subgroup of students, has not met the annual achievement and graduation targets or where achievement gaps persist.

As I've previously written, 9 of the 10 analyses show significant, positive effects for at least some subgroups of students.

To make adequate yearly progress, or AYP, under the federal law, schools and districts must meet annual targets for the percentage of students who score at least at the proficient level on state reading and mathematics tests, both for the student population as a whole and for certain subgroups of students.

How do these practices differ for student subgroups, such as students with disabilities, English language learners, and low - achieving students?

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.

So we know that Latinx students, black students and then some subgroups within the Asian American population, are not fairing as well, they are just not completing at the same rate as their white counterparts.»

The progress of the lowest - performing students should be included as well, regardless of what «subgroup» they're in, or the size of that subgroup.

In math, charter school entry increases performance among all subgroups of students at district schools except Hispanic students and students classified as LEP, who experience no effects; Asian students only experience a significant positive effect in math in district schools located within a half - mile radius.

In terms of achievement, all major subgroups of students were at least as well - off after the reforms.

Similar patterns are observed for most subgroups — black and white students are approximately equally likely to move between groups, as are students who are eligible and ineligible for a free lunch.

Overall, however, the scales performed well along this dimension, both overall and for important student subgroups such as English language learners and students with disabilities.

And, as I argued a few weeks ago, it's extremely likely that student behavior does in fact vary across different subgroups — not because of race, but because of the vastly different socioeconomic circumstances that children of different groups are facing.

One study in North Carolina finds null results overall and some negative results for student subgroups for a similar approach implemented as part of that state's Race to the Top program.

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.

The School and District Improvement (SDI) Collaborative supports states as they work to support struggling schools and districts, turn around the lowest - performing schools, and close achievement gaps for all students and for specific subgroup populations.

Our subgroups of exceptional learners — ESL students, distinct demographic groups, and high poverty students — in conjunction with our students as a whole, are performing at exemplary high levels.

A Tier 3 school that has implemented targeted supports for more than three years, but has not improved the performance of the same student subgroup compared to the «all students» group will be classified as Tier 4 and qualify for comprehensive supports.

Other states including Arizona, Florida, Mississippi, and Tennessee have implemented ESA programs to benefit specific subgroups of students, but none have been as expansive as Nevada's.

But because the NCLB escalating performance goals also apply to subgroups - including special education students and English learners - even the best schools nationally have struggled to keep up and avoid being designated as «failing.»

This shift in focus creates a problem for certain subgroups, such as students with limited English proficiency or students from racial or ethnic backgrounds, because these individuals are frequently the ones on the lower grid of the achievement gap.

Under the new law, states and districts are required to provide comprehensive support and improvement to: the lowest - performing 5 percent of schools, high schools that fail to graduate one - third or more of their students, and schools in which subgroups perform at the same level as students in the lowest - performing schools despite local interventions.