> And one way to improve standardized test scores would be killing low-achieving students, but you don't see schools doing that despite the funding incentive.

> And one way to improve standardized test scores would be killing low-achieving students, but you don't see schools doing that despite the funding incentive. No, but they may be doing something similar[1]: Schools at times suspend, expel, "counsel out" or otherwise remove students with low scores in order to boost school results and escape test-based sanctions mandated by the federal government's "No Child Left Behind" law, at great cost to the youth and ultimately society. I don't know the veracity of the linked paper, but it's certainly plausible and I'm sure it has occurred somewhere. If you're under enormous pressure to raise test scores, and your district has a continuation school, then it seems like the lowest-scoring students could be shuffled off to that school and the average increased. Not that I'm making a value judgement here. It's possible that doing this is actually the best course of action in many instances, but it's also possible the the transfer technique could be abused to the detriment of some students. All in all, it's extremely hard to develop a metric that's resistant to gaming and manipulation. EDIT: Here's another good link. More of a primary source[2] [1](PDF) http://www.fairtest.org/sites/default/files/racial_justice_and_testing_12-10.pdf http://www.fairtest.org/sites/default/files/racial_justice_a... [2] http://www.nber.org/papers/w11194 http://www.nber.org/papers/w11194