How a Strong School Faced "Failure".
Saved in:
| Title: | How a Strong School Faced "Failure". |
|---|---|
| Authors: | Likis, Lori1 llikis@banneker.org |
| Source: | Educational Leadership. Nov2006, Vol. 64 Issue 3, p80-85. 6p. 2 Color Photographs. |
| Subject Terms: | *Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System, *Educational tests & measurements, *Educational law & legislation, *Educational evaluation, Benjamin Banneker Charter Public School (Cambridge, Mass.), No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 |
| Geographic Terms: | Cambridge (Mass.), Massachusetts, United States |
| Abstract: | The author explores how rigid formulas for measuring adequate yearly progress (AYP) threatened genuine improvement at the Benjamin Banneker Charter Public School in Cambridge, Massachusetts. She explains that their 2002-2003 test scores for the Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System revealed they had failed to make AYP in math for the fifth consecutive year, pushing the school into the "Corrective Action" category under the U.S. No Child Left Behind Act. Because of how AYP is measured in the state, the school continued to be labeled as failing, even after it reached its AYP target. The impact this had on the school, in terms of public perception and enrollment, and the corrective actions that were taken are explored. The author also addresses implications for educators in general. |
| Database: | Education Research Complete |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| Abstract: | The author explores how rigid formulas for measuring adequate yearly progress (AYP) threatened genuine improvement at the Benjamin Banneker Charter Public School in Cambridge, Massachusetts. She explains that their 2002-2003 test scores for the Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System revealed they had failed to make AYP in math for the fifth consecutive year, pushing the school into the "Corrective Action" category under the U.S. No Child Left Behind Act. Because of how AYP is measured in the state, the school continued to be labeled as failing, even after it reached its AYP target. The impact this had on the school, in terms of public perception and enrollment, and the corrective actions that were taken are explored. The author also addresses implications for educators in general. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 00131784 |
