Sentences with phrase «yearly progress under»

That announcement comes too late for 319 Indiana schools that could have earned A's or B's from the state this year if they hadn't failed to make Adequate Yearly Progress under NCLB.

In this paper we examine how failing to make adequate yearly progress under No Child Left Behind (NCLB), and the accountability pressure that ensues, affects various non-achievement student behaviors.

Both schools were placed on the U.S. Department of Education's list of persistently low - achieving schools for not meeting Adequate Yearly Progress under No Child Left Behind (NCLB).

One recent study, in fact, found that nearly one - third of states have lowered their academic proficiency standards in reading and mathematics to make it easier for schools to make adequate yearly progress under NCLB (Dillon, 2009).

However, this year only 23 % of Florida Schools — 785 out of 3,324 made Adequate Yearly Progress under the No Child Left Behind Act.

The school is not required by the state to make Adequate Yearly Progress under NCLB because students are often there for a short time period.

We have observed time and again where in an effort to meet Adequate Yearly Progress under No Child Left Behind requirements, states have watered down standards and school districts have taken a narrow «teach to the test» view of curricular implementation.

An article in the Oct. 25, 2006, issue of Education Week on charter schools in the District of Columbia («At Age 10, Booming D.C. Charters Feel «Growing Pains»») should have said that 118 out of 146 regular public schools in the city did not make adequate yearly progress under the No Child Left Behind Act for last school year.

What the schools all have in common is that they made adequate yearly progress under NCLB and otherwise demonstrated impressive student - achievement gains.

Not exact matches

THE National Competition Council this week released a comprehensive stocktake of reforms undertaken by various State governments, as part of their yearly review of progress by States in implementing reform under the Hilmer competition policy agenda.

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 department is also recognizing schools that are doing well under the federal law's requirement that schools make «adequate yearly progress.»

Under the law, schools must show not only that their overall student body is making «adequate yearly progress» on state tests, but also that a sufficient percentage of certain subgroups of students are likewise proficient.

It is in the bottom 10 percent of schools statewide, having made adequate yearly progress only once since 2003 under the federal No Child Left Behind Act.

The Department of Education last week selected the first states that will be allowed to use a «growth model» to determine adequate yearly progress for schools under the No Child Left Behind Act.

Adequate yearly progress (AYP) is the measure by which schools, districts, and states are held accountable for student performance under Title I of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB), the current version of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.

In 2010 — 11, 28 percent of K12 schools made Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) under the federal No Child Left Behind accountability law, compared to 52 percent of schools nationwide.

Under the law, schools are kept on track toward their goals through a mechanism known as «adequate yearly progress» or AYP.

Similarly, the number of Richmond schools meeting the Annual Yearly Progress criteria of No Child Left Behind increased from 20 percent to 80 percent under her leadership.

Under the law, states must evaluate schools according to the standard of Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP).

Six of the nine states participating in the U.S. Department of Education's growth - model pilot project provided information to the EPE Research Center detailing the number of schools making adequate yearly progress, or AYP, under...

State efforts at carrying out requirements to test English - language learners under the No Child Left Behind Act are receiving increased scrutiny, as hundreds of schools across the country fail to meet goals for adequate yearly progress at least in part because of such students» scores.

Under the «No Child Left Behind» Act of 2001, states must determine each year whether school districts have made «adequate yearly progress» in academic achievement.

Central High did not make the Adequate Yearly Progress standard under the federal No Child Left Behind Act, and less than 20 percent of its students score «proficient» on state standardized math tests.

By the 2006 - 2007 school year, Csar Chvez had made annual yearly progress (AYP) two years in a row, and started the year in Phase Zero — meaning the school did not meet AYP for a year, and then made it back to AYP, so the school had been headed back to «in need of improvement» under NCLB, but now is back on track to meeting AYP goals.

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.

For last school year, 187 Georgia schools did not make «adequate yearly progress» under federal law solely because they fell short of the required participation level.

Under NCLB rules, schools that fail to meet their adequate yearly progress targets are subject to an escalating series of interventions.

A Title I school that fails to make adequate yearly progress (AYP) for two consecutive years is considered a school in need of improvement under the No Child Left Behind Act.

«Wisconsin's superintendent of public instruction took the first step Thursday toward withholding up to $ 175 million in federal funds from Milwaukee Public Schools because of the district's failure to meet yearly academic progress targets required under law.»

Under the federal No Child Left Behind Act, Title I schools that fail to reach state goals for making adequate yearly progress must offer such tutoring to students from poor families.

Each state, district, and school under NCLB will be expected to register «adequate yearly progress» toward meeting these goals.

Just weeks before states release their lists of schools that have not met «adequate yearly progress» targets under the main federal K - 12 law, many states are still negotiating with federal officials over changes to their accountability plans designed to reduce those numbers.

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.

Acting upon the superintendent's recommendation, the SRC decided that the six schools should come under direct district control once again because they had not made Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP), as required by No Child Left Behind.

Except as provided in subparagraph (vi) of this paragraph, a local educational agency (LEA) that received funds under title I for two consecutive years during which the LEA did not make adequate yearly progress on all applicable criteria in paragraph (14) of this subdivision in a subject area, or all applicable indicators in subparagraphs (15)(i) through (iii) of this subdivision, or the indicator in subparagraph (15)(iv) of this subdivision, shall be identified for improvement under section 1116 (c) of the NCLB, 20 U.S.C. section 6316 (c) and shall be subject to the requirements therein (Public Law, section 107 - 110, section 1116 [c], 115 STAT.

Under that system, whether a school makes Adequate Yearly Progress is determined primarily based on the share of students scoring at proficient levels in math and reading in a given year.

At that time, and under his leadership, the school was the only middle school in the district to have earned an A grade and make Adequate Yearly Progress every year since the inception of No Child Left Behind.

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.

To make «adequate yearly progress» under the law, schools must show that increasing numbers of students can meet state standards, no matter what their race or poverty level.

[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 iProgress (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 iprogress toward universal proficiency in math and reading or have the state risk federal sanctions, the proposal would keep the annual testing structure in place.

In states operating under the provisions of the ESEA statute, as well as some states operating under ESEA accountability waivers, this is done by applying measures of adequate yearly progress (AYP).

The No Child Left Behind Act prescribed sanctions for schools and districts failing to make «Adequate Yearly Progress,» and even under the waivers that most states have now obtained from NCLB's accountability provisions they must still show how they will take action on their lowest - performing schools.

Under NCLB, states developed and implemented a plan for adequate yearly progress (AYP).

Howell neglects to mention that among the 14 largest urban districts in Massachusetts, Worcester had the second highest percentage (68 percent) of schools meeting state targets for making «adequate yearly progress» under the law; the statewide average was 48 percent.

Examining the days forfeited to snow and other «unscheduled closings» in Maryland in 2002 - 2003, he concluded that two - thirds of the elementary schools that failed to make «adequate yearly progress» (the federal benchmark under «No Child Left Behind») in math that year would have done so «if they had been open during all scheduled school days.»

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.

Also, because of the anticipated approval of a waiver from requirements under the federal No Child Left Behind law, schools and districts won't be judged as failing to meet adequate yearly progress this year, Johnson said.

Under the education overhaul of 2002, schools must show yearly progress for many historically disadvantaged groups, including minorities.