How states can avoid proficiency rates when measuring academic achievement under ESSA
By Brandon L. Wright
By Brandon L. Wright
On this week's podcast, special guest Chad Aldeman, a principal at Bellwether Education Partners, joins Mike Petrilli and Alyssa Schwenk to discuss his organization’s recent review of state ESSA plans. During the Research Minute, Amber Northern examines the progress of the high school sophomore class of 2002.
In early June, the Ohio Department of Education (ODE) released an updated draft of its ESSA plan for public comment. The department had initially intended to submit its plan earlier this spring, but after heavy pressure, state officials decided to delay submission until September.
Early last week, the Trump administration gave three states feedback on their submitted plans for the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA).
On this week's podcast, special guest Chris Minnich, Executive Director of the Council of Chief State School Officers, joins Mike Petrilli and Alyssa Schwenk to discuss the seventeen ESSA plans that have been submitted to the U.S. Department of Education, and what the other thirty-four states can learn from them. During the Research Minute, Amber Northern examines Kentucky’s promising approach to school improvement.
NOTE: The Thomas B. Fordham Institute occasionally publishes guest commentaries on its blogs. The views expressed by guest authors do not necessarily reflect those of Fordham.
By Brandon L. Wright
By Brandon L. Wright
By Brandon L. Wright
Under the Every Student Succeeds Act, the federal School Improvement Grants program is gone, but the goal of school improvement remains. States must now use seven percent of their Title I allocation for these efforts, but are no longer constrained by a prescribed menu of intervention options.
Ohio’s draft plan for implementing the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) came out earlier this month, and we at Fordham continue to
In early February, the Ohio Department of Education (ODE) released the first draft of its state plan for the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA).
By Brandon L. Wright
One of the hallmarks of school accountability is the identification of and intervention in persistently low-preforming schools.
Today Education Week released its annual Quality Counts report card for states. Ohio earned a C with an overall score of 74.2, aligning the Buckeye State for the second year in a row with national U.S. average (also 74.2).
Teacher evaluation was one of President Obama’s signature policies, and a controversial element of education reform during his tenure.
The Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) has put the future of teacher evaluations firmly in the hands of states. Ohio is now in full control of deciding how to develop and best implement its nascent system.
Eleven weeks ago, in High Stakes for High Achievers: State Accountability in the Age of ESSA, the Fordham Institute reported that current K–8 accountability systems in most states give teachers scant reason to attend to the learning of high-achieving youngsters.
As students and teachers settle back into school routines, thousands of high schoolers are getting their first taste of classes that are supposed to prepare them for college. Some of them are sitting in Advanced Placement courses, while others have enrolled in district-designed advanced courses.
By Kathryn Mullen Upton
By Michael J. Petrilli
Last week, several of my Fordham colleagues published a fantastic fifty-state review of accountability systems and how they impact high achievers. Lamentably, they found that most states do almost nothing to hold schools accountable for the progress of their most able pupils.
During the No Child Left Behind era of education reform, now winding down, teachers, schools and districts were tacitly encouraged to focus their efforts on raising the floor rather than raising the roof on student achievement. Whether by accident, choice or neglect, high-achievers as well as those merely "above proficient" received little attention. And why should they?
By Yasmine Rana
No Child Left Behind meant well, but it had a pernicious flaw: It created strong incentives for schools to focus all their energy on helping low-performing students get over a modest “proficiency” bar. Meanwhile, it ignored the educational needs of high achievers, who were likely to pass state reading and math tests regardless of what happened in the classroom.