Validating Randomization Was the randomization successful in the table below? Why or why not? and How does one get to know this? 

This is a perfectly reasonable question. I don't think it should be closed. My reaction was: You are not given the right information to judge this. This kind of baseline table with "tests of baseline homogeneity" on some pre-intervention covariates (we don't even know whether in this case they are prognostic for the outcome of interest) is known to be of no particular value [1] (the linked paper is a useful one to study) for judging the randomization. Sure, it's useful for telling you what the type of students in the study was.
You would judge a randomization based on how it was implemented (e.g. some methods are better than others: envelopes that one can try to peak into to find out what comes next are more problematic than a computer system where you cannot know beforehand, alternating assignment would not be a proper method of randomization etc.) and what you know on how it went (e.g. if we know that people violated the instructions that were to be followed and assigned a different intervention than the one the randomization said, a computer system assigning groups randomly may have malfunctioned, in a non-blinded study people may have withdrawn consent to participate after finding out what group they are in etc.).
[1] Senn, S. (1994). Testing for baseline balance in clinical trials. Statistics in medicine, 13(17), 1715-1726.
