States used ESEA flexibility to move away from the 100 percent proficiency goal and target a narrower set of low-performing schools for support¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · associationalr2·q2
Currency · newest study 2017 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person · overdue for a recheck since 2022: baselines and conditions change
Subclaims¶
Reading the evidence codes
q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r
the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.
This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.
q2 i? States used ESEA flexibility to move away from the NCLB 100 percent proficiency goal and to target additional support on schools with persistently lowest performance or substantial achievement gaps. → Troppe 2017
Evidence¶
Troppe 2017¶
Troppe, P., Milanowski, A. T., Heid, C., Gill, B., & Ross, C. (2017). Implementation of Title I and Title II-A Program Initiatives: Results from 2013-14 (Executive summary). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance. https://ies.ed.gov/ncee
q2 · i? · associational · r2
Descriptive finding on school accountability from the study's state surveys and document review. The report states that "States used ESEA flexibility to move away from the 100 percent proficiency goal" and to target a narrower set of schools for additional support. No effect size is printed.
"States used ESEA flexibility to move away from the 100 percent proficiency goal required under the 2002 reauthorization of ESEA (known as the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB)) and to target a narrower set of schools—those with persistently lowest performance or substantial student achievement gaps—for additional support."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- The NCLB era's focus on targets and sanctions without educator capacity-building or component alignment was a key barrier to implementing new standards — related
- Nearly half of waiver states adopted a 'cut the gap in half' achievement goal, while only Arizona chose 100 percent proficiency by 2020 — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
- In many NCLB waiver states, performance against improvement and gap-closing goals does not factor into school accountability ratings — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
esea-flexibility-narrowed-accountability-focus |
title |
States used ESEA flexibility to move away from the 100 percent proficiency goal and target a narrower set of low-performing schools for support |
description |
States used ESEA flexibility to move away from the 100 percent proficiency goal and target a narrower set of low-performing schools for support |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
moderate |
newest_evidence |
2017 |
recheck_by |
2022 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-08 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
1 — troppe-2017 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.