Nice answer, but I would like to add that any such rating is based on giving numerical values to very complex realities, and such
evaluations are always opinable and may be very sensible to observator
bias («If in my country we do things this way then any country that does it differently is
less democratic»).
This lack of empathy, though supposedly making student
evaluations more efficient and
less biased, eliminates the relationships that allow teachers to understand their students» lives outside and differentiate instruction in the classroom to meet the needs of their learners.
In partnership with researchers from related projects in Canada, the UK, South Australia, the Northern Territory and Western Australia, Aboriginal organisations and policymakers, we will analyse whole - of - population data for New South Wales (NSW) to investigate the determinants of positive early childhood development in Aboriginal children, and assess the impacts of two «real - world» programmes that were implemented under circumstances where evidence of their efficacy was unable to be derived from RCTs: the NSW Aboriginal and Maternal Infant Health Service (AMIHS) 45 and the NSW Department of Family and Community Services (FACS) Brighter Futures Program.46 Early
evaluations of these programmes suggested some positive changes in proximal outcomes related to their objectives.45, 47, 48 However, each of these
evaluations was limited by one or more of the following: use of single data sets,
less than 2 years of outcome data and / or issues of confounding and selection
bias.