Ideally, indicators used for classification purposes would have a moderate to strong relationship with
key student outcome measures, particularly long - term outcome measures such as college completion rates.
A new study commissioned by the Association for Equity in Funding (AEF) finds disparities in school funding among school districts with vastly different student demographics have negative effects
on student outcome measures such as scores on school and district report cards.
Most articles illustrate the trials and tribulations of practitioners» and scholars» attempts, highlighting a host of reasons for their exclusion: established school cultures that misunderstand the purpose and process of youth - adult leadership practices, relentless focus on
achieving student outcomes measured almost singularly by high - stakes literacy and numeracy exams, and budgets and school schedules that defund and devalue youth leadership activity.
With an emphasis
on student outcomes measures, participants will focus on predictive graduation and college success factors and measure change at the school level, necessitating the inclusion of principals and other school - based practitioners on each district's participating team.
The key phrase here is «
student outcome measures.»
As Hough noted in 1991, their popularity was «linked to programmatic characteristics... not to
student outcome measures.»
The report acknowledges areas for growth and highlights the school's many strengths, including: (1) A strong and democratic school culture; (2) The rigor and quality of student learning; (3) Progress on
student outcome measures; and (4) Advancements in engaged scholarship.