I’m in meetings most of this week and haven’t had time to dig into the numbers on this Times story about a school in CT that didn’t make “adequate yearly progress” but it seems like something doesn’t add up. Based on the article shouldn’t the school should have made sufficient progress via “safe harbor” under the law unless they also missed other targets like student participation in assessments that the article doesn’t address? Readers, sort this out!
 Collective Bargaining in Education: Negotiating Change in Today's Schools Edited by Jane Hannaway and Andrew J. Rotherham
|  Better Benefits: Reforming Teacher Pensions for a Changing Work Force By Chad Aldeman and Andrew J. Rotherham |
 A Qualified Teacher in Every Classroom Edited by Frederick M. Hess, Andrew J. Rotherham, and Kate Walsh |
 Conflicting Missions and Unclear Results: Lessons from the Education Stimulus Funds By Sara Mead, Anand Vaishnav, William Porter, and Andrew J. Rotherham |
 Rethinking Special Education For A New Century Edited by Chester E. Finn, Jr., Andrew J. Rotherham & Charles R. Hokanson, Jr. |
 Location, Location, Location: How Would a High-Performing Charter School Network Fare in Different States? By Chris Lozier & Andrew J. Rotherham |
 Changing the Game: The Federal Role in Supporting 21st Century Educational Innovation By Andrew J. Rotherham and Sara Mead |
 Achieving Teacher and Principal Excellence: A Guidebook for Donors By Andrew J. Rotherham |
Eduwonk is powered by
WordPress | © 2007 - Retrofitted by ArtyBlogs
|
Entries (RSS)
and Comments (RSS).
July 28th, 2008 at 7:21 pm
The story talks about improvements by third-graders, but not other grades. I’m guessing that despite those gains, other grades didn’t meet the safe harbor requirements. That’s just one opinion from one education reporter.
July 31st, 2008 at 10:58 pm
My guess is that a subgroup failed to make the growth needed to hit AYP or qualify for “safe harbor.”