English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Open

Here we address the criticism of our NAEP analyses by Rosenshine (2003). On the basis of his thoughtful critique we redid some of the analyses on which he focused. Our findings contradict his. This is no fault of his, the reasons for which are explained in this paper. Our findings do support our position that high-stakes tests do not do much to improve academic achievement. The extent to which states with high-stakes tests outperform states without high-stakes tests is, at best, indeterminable. Using 1994-1998 NAEP reading and 1996-2000 NAEP math data and accounting for NAEP exemption rates for the same years, we found that states with high-stakes tests are not outperforming states without high-stakes tests in reading in the 4th grade or math in the 8th grade at a statistically significant level. States with high-stakes tests are, however, outperforming states without high-stakes tests in math in the 4th grade at a statistically significant level. Our findings also support our earlier stance that states with high-stakes tests are exempting more students from participating in the NAEP than are states without high-stakes tests. This is more prevalent the more recent the NAEP test administration. This is illustrated in the tables below.

Re-analysis of NAEP Math and Reading Scores in States with and without High-stakes Tests: Response to Rosenshine