Did You Know?

• DYK #1: Reading comprehension growth across elementary and middle school grades is similar between students with disabilities and students without disabilities
  Schulte, A. C., Stevens, J. J., Elliott, S. N., Tindal, G., & Nese, J. F. T.
• DYK #2: Mathematics achievement gaps for special education students vary by exceptionality
  Stevens, J. J., Schulte, A. C., Elliott, S. N., Nese, J. F. T. , & Tindal, G.
• DYK #3: There are similar mathematics achievement growth rates among students in specific special education exceptionality groups in Grades 3 to 7 in the North Carolina (NC) state accountability system, yet there is substantial variation in the average level of mathematics achievement for these same student exceptionality groups
  Stevens, J. J., Schulte, A. C., Elliott, S. N., Nese, J. F. T. & Tindal, G.
• DYK #4: Despite great interest in academic achievement gaps, there is little consistency in how gaps are measured and reported
  Stevens, J. J., Anderson, D., Nese, J. F. T. , & Tindal, G.
• DYK #5: School performance can look very different depending on the accountability model used. As states and districts develop new accountability systems, it is important to consider model choice. Our recent research shows that choice of model matters a great deal!
  Stevens, J. J., Nese, J. F. T., Schulte, A. C., Tindal, G., Nedim, Y., Anderson, D., Matta, T., & Elliot, S. N.
• DYK #6: Accountability models vary in their depictions of school performances as a function of the student composition of the school
  Stevens, J. J., Nese, J. F. T., Schulte, A. C., Tindal, G., Nedim, Y., Anderson, D., Matta, T., & Elliot, S. N.
• DYK #7: Accountability model estimates of school performance vary a good deal from one student cohort to another. Without careful scrutiny, these changes in cohort composition may be misinterpreted as changes in school performance
  Stevens, J. J., Nese, J. F. T., Schulte, A. C., Tindal, G., Nedim, Y., Anderson, D., Matta, T., & Elliot, S. N.
• DYK #8: Students with significant cognitive disabilities (SWSCD) participating in state-wide testing systems often take an alternate assessment based on grade-level, modified, or alternate achievement standards. For about 60% of SWSCDs in Oregon there was too little change in alternate assessment scores to be confident that the students had made meaningful gains, and about 6% showed gains of more than one standard deviation
  Tindal, G., Nese, J. F. T., Farley, D., Saven, J. L., & Elliott, S. N.
• DYK #9: States regularly report student performance and progress in several ways, such as percentile ranks, normal curve equivalent scores, scale scores, and proficiency status. When states do not use a vertically scaled test that ensures scores are comparable from grade to grade, change can only be detected when students move from one proficiency category to another (e.g., from below proficient to proficient)
  Tindal, G., Nese, J. F. T., & Stevens, J. J.
• DYK #10: Before Oregon adopted the Smarter Balanced assessments, schools had the option of giving students up to three opportunities to take state achievement tests per year. Given additional testing opportunities, the number of students with disabilities (SWD) who met proficiency nearly doubled, and the number of English Learners (EL) meeting proficiency more than doubled
  Nese, J. F. T., Tindal, G., Stevens, J., & Elliott, S. N.
• DYK #11: Students' entrances and exits from special education may create a downward bias in annual reports of the academic performance of the special education subgroup. Compared to students remaining in special education, students exiting special education are likely to have higher achievement, and students newly identified for special education are likely to have lower achievement
  Schulte, A. C., & Stevens, J. J.
• DYK #12: Allowing students to count in the students with disabilities subgroup (SWD) for two years after exiting special education increased the percent of students with disabilities reaching proficiency in reading and mathematics in about 85% of schools
  Schulte, A. C.
• DYK #13: Despite great interest in differences between student groups, achievement gaps are measured and reported inconsistently. Because different methods for measuring and reporting gaps are used, the size and even the presence of gaps are often misunderstood
  Joseph J. Stevens, Daniel Anderson, Joseph F. T. Nese, & Gerald Tindal
• DYK #14: The size of the mathematics achievement gap effect size (ES)1 between students with learning disabilities (LD) and students without disabilities (SWOD) depends on other student characteristics. In our study of North Carolina students, we found that the gap was substantially larger for Black or economically disadvantaged students (EDS) with LD than for all students with LD
  Stevens, J. J.
• DYK #15: In DYK #14, we used achievement data from NC to show that the size of the mathematics achievement gap between students with learning disabilities (LD) and students without disabilities (SWOD) depended on other student characteristics (e.g., ethnicity). In this DYK, we extend the results in DYK#14 to another state (AZ) and a different content area. Here, we report that students who are both LD and English Learners (EL) have a much larger achievement gap than either group considered separately
  Stevens, J. J.