Reset Search. Every Student Succeeds Act Explainer. By Alyson Klein — April 10, 12 min read. President George W. Share article Remove Save to favorites Save to favorites. Alyson Klein. Follow Unfollow. Assistant Editor , Education Week. Thank you for subscribing. Nov 12 Fri. This content is provided by our sponsor. It is not written by and does not necessarily reflect the views of Education Week's editorial staff. These data points help you.
Content provided by ACT. Nov 15 Mon. Help every student belong in school with these practices for school climate. Content provided by Panorama. Nov 16 Tue. And while most students in special. See More Events. Teacher Jobs. Search over ten thousand teaching jobs nationwide — elementary, middle, high school and more.
Principal Jobs. Find hundreds of jobs for principals, assistant principals, and other school leadership roles. Administrator Jobs. Over a thousand district-level jobs: superintendents, directors, more. Support Staff Jobs.
Search thousands of jobs, from paraprofessionals to counselors and more. States must only step in if districts are unsuccessful in helping schools improve. Because, despite the dominant narrative, much of the pushback to NCLB came because the law actually succeeded, in part, at doing what it was intended to do: identify and intervene in schools that were not helping students achieve overall, as well as those with large disparities in outcomes among different student subgroups, and bring urgency to the need to improve in these instances.
And while it acknowledged the critical role that teachers play in student and school success through HQT and school interventions targeted at replacing the teaching force, it did not directly attempt to improve the quality of teaching. That would have required training educators on how to analyze more fine-grained data on student and teacher performance, setting related goals, and putting coherent systems in place to support educator growth in targeted areas.
For example, in schools with big achievement gaps between different groups of students, but no subgroup is performing horrendously on state tests, schools must develop an improvement plan and districts must step in if no real improvements are made.
As such many may be perfectly happy with the more lax ESSA, and its tenets may live on in future federal education laws. Will ESSA take a similar trajectory, leading us back to consensus that a federal role is required to keep some states from walking back from holding schools and educators to high standards, and intervening when schools fail to meet them?
And the years thereafter will tell if this experiment worked, or if this country is still leaving our students behind. The goal of NCLB was to provide more education opportunities for students.
It focused on four key groups:. It did this through annual testing, reporting, improvement targets, and penalties for schools. These changes made NCLB controversial, but they also forced schools to focus on disadvantaged kids. NCLB is no longer the law. Annual testing: Schools had to give students statewide math and reading tests every year in grades 3—8 and once in grades 10— Parents and caregivers had the right to get individual test results for their kids.
All kids had to take the tests, including at least 95 percent of students in the disadvantaged groups. For example, schools had to report how students in special education were performing on reading and math tests. They had to set targets for improvement, called adequate yearly progress AYP. Schools essentially got a report card from the state on how they were performing. The school had to share that information with parents of their students. If a school repeatedly failed to meet AYP, parents had the option to move their kids to another school.
The penalties only applied to Title I schools. Ranking Member Scott, members of the committee, thank you for inviting me to speak with you today. My comments are my own, and do not represent any position of the institute. I do this with a few important provisos. First, standardized test scores generally only provide limited information about how children are performing, and NCLB focuses on reading and mathematics. Not only does that mean NCLB ignores art, social studies, physical education, and other academic subject areas, it also ignores character development, preparation to become active citizens, and other, broader educational goals.
Second, test scores often tell us how well students were prepared to take certain kinds of tests, which does not always translate into useable skills or other desired educational outcomes.
If you go back to , the gains were greater, but it is very hard to know the extent to which NCLB could have driven this since the law was not passed until early , and it took a long time to implement. In reading less progress was made. For Hispanics, the jump was from to But much of that happened between and , and how much occurred before or after NCLB is impossible to tell.
All of this, again, with the to problem.
0コメント