Abstract:
Teacher judgments of student achievement are increasingly used for high-stakes decision-making, making it imperative that judgments be as fair and reliable as possible. Using a large national database from New Zealand, we explored the relation between psychometrically designed standardized achievement results and teacher judgments in reading (N = 4771 students) and writing (N = 11,765 students) using hierarchical linear modelling. Our findings indicated that judgments were systematically lower for marginalized learners after controlling for standardized achievement differences. Additionally, classroom and school achievement composition were inversely related to teacher judgments. These discrepancies are concerning, with important implications for equitable educational opportunities.
