I would also add, as I've written elsewhere, that school performance should be thought of in broader
terms than standardized tests.
Not exact matches
Inner - city Catholic schools (the Church in America's most effective social welfare program) demonstrate that time and again: They spend less
than the government schools, and their students learn much more — and not just in quantifiable,
standardized -
testing terms.
Although NAEP attempts to
standardize its
test from one administration to the next, its efforts in this regard are more strenuous when administering the Long -
Term Trend version of NAEP (LTT)
than when administering the main NAEP (MAIN), upon which Ginsburg depends for his conclusions.
Research conducted by Marcus Crede suggests that grit is barely distinct from other personality traits and that
standardized test scores, attendance, and study habits are much better predictors of long -
term success
than grit.
Jon, AF pays its teachers about 10 % more
than their host district pays its teachers on average, spends slightly less total $ $ on a per pupil basis, and academically outperforms its host districts by wide margins in
terms of
standardized tests in reading, writing, and math, graduation rates, and college entrance.
We are more
than 10 years into a massive reform effort revolving around high stakes attached to
standardized tests, and there is no significant growth in actual learning — even in
terms of the
test scores most valued by proponents.
Whether the measure is proficiency on
standardized tests, graduation rates or college completion, the outlook in
terms of school performance is significantly worse for low - income students
than for their middle - income and wealthy peers.