Sentences with phrase «subgroups of students at»

Evaluators also analyzed annual student achievement data from the criterion - based Mississippi Curriculum Test for subgroups of students at each grade in each school in the state.

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.

Not exact matches

«Although electronic alcohol screening and brief counseling interventions may have effects on participants among subgroups of university students or among other groups, the results of this study and others suggest that the effect of this type of intervention among university students is modest at best,» write Timothy S. Naimi, M.D., M.P.H., of Boston Medical Center, Boston, and Thomas B. Cole, M.D., M.P.H., of JAMA, Chicago, in an accompanying editorial.

While states under ESSA need to identify for intervention only the lowest performing 5 percent of schools, high schools with graduation rates under 67 percent, and some unspecified percentage of schools in which at - risk subgroups are underperforming, the National Governors Association reports that «40 percent of all students and 61 percent of students who begin in community colleges enroll in a remedial education course at a cost to states of $ 1 billion a year.»

By 2030, 75 percent of all students and student subgroups score at least proficient (a level 3 or 4) on the state E / LA and math exams.

The state wants 80 percent of all students and student subgroups to score at a level demonstrating that they are on track for postsecondary readiness by 2024 - 25, based on state tests; also wants all students and student subgroups to graduate at a 90 percent clip by the same year.

For smaller American Indian / Alaskan Native and Hawaiian Native / Pacific Islander subgroups, the majority of students in the subgroup remain uncovered if only students in that subgroup are pooled: the «super subgroup» strategy of aggregating across racial / ethnic groups is the only way to account for most students in these groups, although their data are not identifiable at the subgroup level.

Both NCLB and its successor, the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), left the choice of minimum subgroup size at the school level (n - size) for accountability purposes to the states.

For a school to make AYP, each subgroup and the school overall must make AYP, and the school must test at least 95 percent of students, including 95 percent of each subgroup.

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.

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

Despite the vast majority of randomized control trials (RCTs) of private school choice showing significant, positive test score effects for at least some subgroups of students, some of those gains have been modest and other effects have been null for at least some subgroups.

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.

The natural question is, how will that subgroup of students meet the performance targets when students who score at proficient levels are quickly taken from the group?

For several days in early January, Michaelis and support staff members met with classroom teachers in grades three to six charged with identifying students in different subgroups (Hispanic, African American, English language learners, special education) at levels 1 and 2 with the best chance of scoring at a higher level on the math, reading, or writing section of the CMTs, if they received intensive, targeted remediation.

Identification of, and comprehensive, evidence - based intervention in, the lowest - performing five percent of title I schools, all public high schools with a graduation rate below 67 percent, and public schools in which one or more subgroups of students are performing at a level similar to the performance of the lowest - performing five percent of title I schools and have not improved after receiving targeted interventions for a State - determined number of years; and

Annually measures, for all students and separately for each subgroup of students, the following indicators: Academic achievement (which, for high schools, may include a measure of student growth, at the State's discretion); for elementary and middle schools, a measure of student growth, if determined appropriate by the State, or another valid and reliable statewide academic indicator; for high schools, the four - year adjusted cohort graduation rate and, at the State's discretion, the extended - year adjusted cohort graduation rate; progress in achieving English language proficiency for English learners; and at least one valid, reliable, comparable, statewide indicator of school quality or student success; and

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.

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

Oakland Unified is one of 28 districts that could face state intervention if at least three student subgroups don't improve in the next two years.

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.

Under current law, a state must determine the average yearly progress (AYP) for all students and subgroups at the school, LEA, and state level; AYP standards mandate specified thresholds of performance with respect to assessments and graduation rates.

4 Subgroup of students who were considered English learners at the time of the assessment.

For this reason, we also examine two U.S. subgroups conventionally thought to have better preparation for school — white students and students from families where at least one parent is reported to have received a college degree — and compare the percentages of high - achieving students among them to the (total) populations abroad.

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

States may include both former English learners and students with disabilities in calculating graduation rates if they were part of the subgroup at any point during high school, even if the student exited during high school.

Schools in which at least 85 percent of students in each subgroup are proficient should continue to do what's working for their students.

The intent of that law was to prevent schools from hiding subgroups of students from the accountability structure and was not aimed at preventing parents from refusing to have their children tested.

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.

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.

«While the performance of Virginia students compares favorably to that of students in other states, the disparities between subgroups underscore the importance of the Board of Education's policies and initiatives aimed at narrowing, and ultimately closing, achievement gaps,» Board of Education President David M. Foster said.

Even if we expanded beyond this subgroup of high income students to the entire high income population at these schools, I believe the conclusion still holds true that low income students have suffered higher tuition hikes than high income students.

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.

Charter schools in New York consistently grew academic achievement among the following demographic groups at significantly higher rates than the same subgroup of students in their district peers: Black, Hispanic, students in poverty, and special education.

One category covers Title I schools with at least one consistently underperforming subgroup of students.

I remember realizing I was one of the handful of free / reduced lunch students in AP Calculus in my high school, which is why I now constantly look at achievement gaps of under - represented subgroups.

The Politics K - 12 Team at Education Week surveyed all 50 states regarding their use of «super subgroups» in their NCLB waivers that «can no longer be used in place of individual subgroups of student for accountability purposes» under ESSA.

Just how states address this issue if the participation rate of all students (or a subgroup of students) at a particular school falls below 95 percent is up to them.

The federal one looks at the performance of certain «subgroups» of kids: minorities, poor students, youngsters with disabilities and those still learning English.

Seven states — Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Massachusetts, New Mexico, and Oklahoma — would create new super-subgroups encompassing either the bottom 25 percent of students at each school or traditional subgroups combined into a single unit.

While, overall, SOL scores at year - round schools were similar to scores in traditional calendar schools, SOL scores of certain student subgroups were more likely to improve at a faster rate at year - round schools.

A great deal of focus, both at the federal and state level, has been placed on expanding access to early education programs — including preschool and kindergarten — as a way to close achievement gaps between student subgroups.

It is also a good time for managers of federal programs to look closely at one of the key subgroups that often struggle with academic performance: homeless students.

Indiana currently looks at the lowest achieving 25 percent of students instead of tracking specific subgroups.

As standardized testing approaches, find low - performing students in subgroups at risk of failing.

Instead the grading system relies on two «super subgroups,» the bottom 25 percent of students at each school and the top 75 percent.

In a letter sent to the Education Department today, these groups express deep concerns about waiver implementation, from how graduation rates are factored into state accountability systems to how subgroups of at - risk students are being helped.

Revised AMOs culminate with all students and student subgroups achieving pass rates of at least 78 percent in reading and 73 percent by 2016 - 2017.

At every level of aggregation we lose insight into what is actually going on with students, so rather than being valid and actionable, a combined subgroup seems to blur what the data means.

Rather than link school and district accountability to the percentage of student overall and subgroup performance at these bands, the state devised a system that obfuscates actual student performance.