{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01662971175166297, 'fraction_numerical': 0.005543237250554324, 'mean_word_length': 5.314685314685315, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
School Effectiveness Research: From a review of the criticism to recommendations for further development

School effectiveness research (SER) has flourished since the 1980s. In recent years, however, various authors have criticised several aspects of SER. A thorough review of recent criticism can serve as a good starting point for addressing the flaws of SER, where appropriate, thereby supporting its further development. This article begins by reviewing the criticism from different perspectives by discussing the political-ideological nature of SER, its theoretical limitations and the research methodology it applies. The review of each type of criticism is accompanied by a review of the recommendations that the critics propose for improving SER. We then proceed to present our views on each line of criticism and propose 5 avenues that we consider promising for the further development of SER.