- ”access to grade-level curriculum and is measured by students’ academic progress”
- students only have "access" if they are improving in the curriculum

University of Michigan - Ann Arbor

Hypotheses:
- The size of the achievement gap depends on the specific type of disability 
- The achievement gap will be larger in secondary school 
- The achievement gap will be smaller after the no child left behind act 
- The achievement gap will be smaller in high stakes assessments 

Meta Analysis of the Reading Achievement Gap Between Students with and without disabilities

Gilmour, A. F., Fuchs, D., & Wehby, J. H. (2019). Are students with disabilities accessing the curriculum? A meta-analysis of the reading achievement gap between students with and without disabilities. Exceptional Children, 85(3), 329-346.

Are students with disabilities accessing the curriculum? A meta-analysis of the reading achievement gap between students with and without disabilities.

Definition of Educational Access

- location -PL 94-142 gave SWDs the opportunity to have extra help in the form of an IEP (individualized education program)-”identification for services and the physical locations where SWDs were presumably educated”
- Participation in assessments-reauthorization as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 1997 (IDEA)of  the PL 94-142 ensured that students who were previously excluded from having to take standardized tests are now able and encouraged to participate in statewide exams 
- Outcomes-with the no child left behind act, schools had to look at standardized test data in groups (race, economic status, disability, etc). If they wanted to maintain federal funding, 95% of students in each category had to take the standardized tests and work on closing the achievement gap
- The gap between SWDs and other students shows if the students are accessing the curriculum 


Educational Access in federal policy

like this article does, it might be helpful to refer to students with disabilities as SWDs

- Scores on reading tests (in a study, SWDs scored 1.39 SD below the normal test score)
- The proportion of students who score above a specific point, indicating proficiency

different ways to measure the disability achievement gap

- Analyzing a proficiency gap-only represents the number of students who complete a specific criterion-this is influenced by where the proficiency point is placed 
- SWDs have been placed into one category despite their differing disabilities because there aren’t that many SWDs to study-perhaps students with SLI (speech language impairments) are higher performing and will drive the average up 
- Reading gap could be invalid because the normative sample could not represent students in a traditionally low-scoring school district 
- Looking at the disability gap in terms of reading tests done specifically for research might have limited generalizability 
- Different studies examine in it in different ways and are influenced by the demographics of the sample, the specifics of the assessments, and if the assessments held anyone accountable 

limitations of the disability achievement gap

requirements for inclusion in the meta-analysis:
- Study must include students with an IEP or with a specific disability that is outlined in IDEA 
- Studies includes a comparison group 
- The data was collected from 1997 to 2016 
- Sample included students from kindergarten to 12th grade 
- The studies looked at reading comprehension 
- Coded the sample by looking at the year, type of disability, age of the children, level of data (statewide, nationwide, etc), way disability was established and the specifics of students who were excluded from the study 
- Coded the assessments baked on name, the constructs they tested, if they were administered in a group or individually, if the task was high stakes, type of questions, if retests were allowed and if accommodations were allocated 
- Performed moderator and sensitivity analyses 

Search criteria for the SWD meta-analysis study

- On average, the reading achievement gap is 1.17 standard deviations-SWDs performed more poorly than their peers 
- The average gap is 3.3 years of reading growth 
- Unable to do a meta-analysis by specific disability category because there wasn’t enough data 
- Students with learning disabilities performed 1.44 SDs (approximately 4 years) below other students in reading 
- The reading gap with low-incidence disabilities is a little more than LD, with approximately 4.3 years 
- The overall gap was the smallest (0.62 SDs or 1.7 years) when all of the disabilities were grouped together 
- Only statistically significant gap size-students with high incidence disabilities and other students and all disabilities versus other students 
- No statistically significant difference depending on the school level (elementary versus secondary)
- No statistically significant difference based on whether it was conducted before or after the no child left behind act 
- No statistically significant difference based on if the test was high or low stakes 

Results for the SWD meta-analysis study

- A national study found that 60% of 4th-8th grade students without disabilities are even performing below the acceptable level and therefore, SWDs are performing even worse 
- The gap might be able to be closed if they are provided personalized instruction that is intense in nature but it might not be enough 
- Since the achievement gap did not change based on school level, analysis could potentially not reflect SWDs who drop out of school 
- Policy improvements for SWDs-states can increase the amount of useful data that they provide to help provide more accurate accounts of the achievement gap-In instances where retests are allowed, states should report the students’ first test score and perhaps consider averaging them 

Learn Before

Related