Sentences with phrase «under federal accountability systems»

This 2009 report, written by Dana Brinson and Lauren Morando Rhim for the Center on Innovation and Improvement, provides five brief profiles of schools that dramatically improved student performance and successfully restructured under federal accountability systems.

Not exact matches

Likewise, in a September 3, 2003, column examining the differences between state and federal accountability systems, Winerip looked at North Carolina, where, he said, some schools that were doing just fine under the state's previous accountability system were now being flagged as needing improvement under NCLB.

As states grapple with designing new accountability systems under the federal Every Student Succeeds Act (see «How Should States Design Their Accountability Saccountability systems under the federal Every Student Succeeds Act (see «How Should States Design Their Accountability Systems?systems under the federal Every Student Succeeds Act (see «How Should States Design Their Accountability SAccountability Systems?Systems?»

The Texas school accountability system implemented under then Governor George W. Bush served as a blueprint for the federal legislation he signed as president nearly a decade later.

Before George W. Bush signed NCLB into law as president, Texas implemented a test - based accountability system in 1993 under Bush as governor that was similar to the subsequent federal NCLB law.

At the same time, the federal government lacks the capacity to design an accountability system that is appropriate to the needs of each state, and has a poor track record when attempting to dictate the required elements of efforts to improve under - performing schools.

Under present day standards and accountability systems, states, pushed and prodded by the federal government, have moved from trying to force districts to educate students to a minimum level of basic skills and to do something about schools that are obviously failing, to holding districts, schools and teachers accountable for (in the words of the Common Core State Standards Initiative) «preparing all students for success in college, career, and life.»

There seems to be no consensus about whether the across - the - board increases in U.S. graduation rates reported by the federal government last week are the result of No Child Left Behind - era accountability mechanisms or the data - based decisionmaking stressed under the Obama administration, more early - warning systems to identify potential dropouts, or fewer high school exit exams.

-LSB-...] written, I think the piece that might have had the greatest impact is an open letter I wrote on my personal blog about the design of accountability systems under the new federal education law.

Increased state flexibility and experimentation with federal guidance under waivers from federal law, shifting to even greater state control of accountability systems design under the Every Student Succeeds Act

States could have eviscerated their accountability systems, doing the bare minimum under the federal law by identifying their very worst schools, and staying mum about the other 90 or 95 percent.

The DOE already reduced the number of state - mandated tests to the federal minimum during the 2015 - 16 school year, Kishimoto said, and it no longer ranks schools under its Strive HI school accountability system.

As states and districts work to develop new accountability systems under the Every Student Succeeds Act, six California districts who received federal waivers under the Obama administration are getting the first hints of how more holistic accountability systems might work.

Hyslop writes that under the new system, the choices individual states made about how to design an accountability system mattered less than the fact the federal government dictated states intervene in 15 percent of Title I schools.

He directly supervised the Divisions of Talent, Performance, Information Technology and led education priorities including the development of a new comprehensive school accountability system under the federal Every Student Succeeds Act.)

As the Center on Education Policy noted in its recent survey of states granted waivers under the gambit, there is already fears that they will have scotch the accountability systems they put in place after receiving the waivers and start all over again under a new version of the federal education law.

Designed to serve three purposes, the School Performance Profile will be used for federal accountability for Title I schools under the state's approved federal No Child Left Behind waiver, the new teacher and principal evaluation system that was signed into law in 2012 and to provide the public with information on how public schools across Pennsylvania are academically performing.

Under his 2010 «blueprint» for reauthorizing the federal law, Obama proposed an accountability system that focused on the worst 5 percent of schools, along with an additional 10 percent of schools with large achievement gaps.

CORE, along with a majority of states, has been operating under a federal waiver program that offered relief from the demands of NCLB in exchange for a number of conditions — one of them was to create new systems for student achievement and school accountability.

Under ESSA, the states rather than the federal government determine the expected student performance in their accountability systems.

If Maine is successful in receiving federal SIG funding this year, schools that are categorized as «priority» under the State's Title I accountability system would be eligible to apply for the grant and would be contacted with more detail to proceed.

By design, under ESSA, the role of the federal government in education is greatly diminished, and states face critical and substantial policy decisions in framing school accountability and the academic standards and testing systems that underpin those structures.

The national policy landscape surrounding academic standards, assessments, accountability, and school improvement is in many respects more chaotic than ever as states transition away from strong federal systems and requirements under NCLB and once again take the lead role in defining and enforcing accountability measures for public schools.

For members of the state board, this presents the opportunity to redefine school accountability from a system that was strictly based on standardized test scores under the federal No Child Left Behind Act to one offering a multi-dimensional look at student achievement, school culture and college and career preparation.

NAESP is pleased to have played a role in creating the opportunities that are now afforded to schools under the new law, such as allowing accountability systems to include multiple measures, factoring in elements other than test scores; conducting needs assessments for struggling schools and learning communities facing the greatest challenges; developing clear and concise plans for targeting federal funding in ways that meet the needs of students in the school; and implementing local programs and monitoring their progress in collaboration with educators.