Are Students With Disabilities Accessing the Curriculum? A Meta-Analysis of the Reading Achievement Gap Between Students With and Without Disabilities

2018 ◽  
Vol 85 (3) ◽  
pp. 329-346 ◽  
Author(s):  
Allison F. Gilmour ◽  
Douglas Fuchs ◽  
Joseph H. Wehby

Federal policies have aimed to improve access to grade-level curriculum for students with disabilities (SWD). Current conceptualizations of access posit that it is evidenced by students’ academic outcomes. In a meta-analysis of 180 effect sizes from 23 studies, we examined access as outcomes by estimating the size of the gap in reading achievement between students with and without disabilities. Findings indicated that SWDs performed 1.17 standard deviations, or more than 3 years, below typically developing peers. The reading gap varied by disability label but not by other student and assessment characteristics. We discuss implications for access to grade-level curriculum and potential reasons for why the achievement gap is so large despite existing policies.

2016 ◽  
Vol 50 (2) ◽  
pp. 195-212 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael F. Hock ◽  
Irma F. Brasseur-Hock ◽  
Alyson J. Hock ◽  
Brenda Duvel

Reading achievement scores for adolescents with disabilities are markedly lower than the scores of adolescents without disabilities. For example, 62% of students with disabilities read below the basic level on the NAEP Reading assessment, compared to 19% of their nondisabled peers. This achievement gap has been a continuing challenge for more than 35 years. In this article, we report on the promise of a comprehensive 2-year reading program called Fusion Reading. Fusion Reading is designed to significantly narrow the reading achievement gap of middle school students with reading disabilities. Using a quasi-experimental design with matched groups of middle school students with reading disabilities, statistically significant differences were found between the experimental and comparison conditions on multiple measures of reading achievement with scores favoring the experimental condition. The effect size of the differences were Hedges’s g = 1.66 to g = 1.04 on standardized measures of reading achievement.


2014 ◽  
Vol 50 (1) ◽  
pp. 37-59 ◽  
Author(s):  
Donald J. Leu ◽  
Elena Forzani ◽  
Chris Rhoads ◽  
Cheryl Maykel ◽  
Clint Kennedy ◽  
...  

2003 ◽  
Vol 85 (1) ◽  
pp. 68-75 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard L. Allington ◽  
Anne McGill-Franzen

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document