Systematic attrition differences mean COVID-19 impacts on student achievement are likely underestimated in fall 2020 MAP Growth results¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · associational r? · q2
Currency · newest study 2020 · checked against its sources 2026-10-20 (automated, 1 of 1 entry) · not reviewed by a person · overdue for a recheck since 2023: tool and model accuracy changes quickly

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Because attriters differed systematically from stayers, the impacts of COVID-19 on student achievement are likely underestimated. → Angela Johnson 2020

Evidence¶

Angela Johnson 2020¶

Angela Johnson, Megan Kuhfeld. (2020). Fall 2019 to fall 2020 MAP Growth attrition analysis. NWEA Research. https://www.nwea.org/research/publication/fall-2019-to-fall-2020-map-growth-attrition-analysis/

q2 · i? · associational · r?

The authors' inference from the attrition analysis: since lower-achieving and minoritized students were more likely to be missing, observed fall 2020 results overstate the achievement of the full population, so COVID-19 impacts are "likely underestimated".

"The systematic differences between attriters and students who were tested in fall 2020 mean that the impacts of COVID-19 on student achievement are likely underestimated."

Studies bearing on this claim¶

When a study follows learners over time and some drop out or stop being tested, can the results for those who remain be read as results for the whole group? This table gathers the studies behind this claim and the 7 narrower claims that bear on it: 6 distinct studies (6 associational), q2–q3, 0 of 6 with an effect size coded. One row per study, codes as each entry records them; no effect is averaged and no verdict is drawn. Built by scripts/synthesize_claim.py from eval/synthesis/; a row that looks wrong is fixed on the claim it comes from.

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Systematic demographic differences in available fall 2020 assessment data suggest COVID-19 impacts on the most vulnerable students may be underestimated — possibly the same claim (merge candidate)
• Students who did not retest in fall 2020 were disproportionately minoritized and lower-achieving compared with students who retested — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
• Approximately one in four students who tested the prior year were missing from fall 2020 data, disproportionately Black or Latinx students in higher-poverty schools, so prior estimates likely understated pandemic impacts — possibly the same claim (merge candidate)
• Attrition was concentrated in schools with higher concentrations of racial/ethnic minorities and socioeconomically disadvantaged students — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
• The dashboard's cross-sectional view compares same-grade students across terms using the full sample of testers, but attrition is not random — related
• Teacher attrition is approximately 55% higher in high-poverty schools than in lower-poverty schools — related
• Longitudinal growth observed for current ELs likely underestimates total-cohort growth because students who reach English proficiency exit and are no longer assessed — related
• Year 3 and Year 4 student achievement growth in mathematics and reading showed no significant differences between 2019 and 2020 cohorts in NSW primary schools — related
• Longitudinal subject attrition produces systematic baseline differences among continuing, dropout, and non-participating students — related
• Sensitivity analyses restricting to students assessed in all 15 terms reproduced the full-sample between-group comparisons — related
• The dashboard's cohort view restricts results to students who consistently tested across selected terms, and those outcomes may be positively biased — related
• COVID-19 school closures caused approximately 70% attrition on the primary outcome, limiting the trial's power to detect effects — related