{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.027389277389277388, 'fraction_numerical': 0.007575757575757576, 'mean_word_length': 5.359259259259259, '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}}
Are Schools Deemed Effective Based on Overall Student Growth Also Closing Achievement Gaps? Examining the Black–White Gap by School

Background/Context: Closing achievement gaps is a major concern in U.S. education. These gaps can develop in a wide range of ways over the course of a student’s schooling. Yet, research on school effectiveness and accountability policies for schools often focuses on rank orderings of schools based on value-added models, which could mask those complex gap trends altogether. Purpose: In this study, schools’ contributions to student growth were estimated for Black versus White students such that some of the complex trends in how gaps develop can be disaggregated. Research questions were the following: (1) How different are the rank orderings of schools for Black versus White students? (2) Does relying on rank ordering alone mask any differences in how schools contribute to achievement gaps, including whether or not schools are (a) closing gaps, (b) preparing students for college differentially by race, and (c) generating comparable growth for White and Black students? Sample: Students in the sample, who ranged from roughly 92,000 to 139,000 in number depending on the year, all took a vertically scaled achievement test in math/reading and were followed longitudinally. Research Design: Rather than simply fit lag score models common in the value-added literature, growth curve models were estimated in a multilevel modeling framework. Conclusion: Results show that focusing on rank orderings of schools alone can mask troubling trends in relative achievement over time, including masking differential rates of progress toward college readiness for minoritized students.