Complicating “Statistical Soundness”: How States Legitimize Subgroup Composition and N-Size Decisions in ESSA Plans

Oct 15, 2026

Uploaded by Pentious

AERA Open 2025 paper examines how states use discursive strategies in Every Student Succeeds Act plans to rationalize subgroup accountability decisions. Using a critical quantitative lens, it analyzes subjective choices about subgroup composition and n-size and how these shape which groups are framed as (dis)advantaged. The study shows that for composition, SEAs emphasize past practice and student demographics alongside claims of inclusive, stable measures; for n-size, SEAs cite statistical expertise, other states’ practices, stakeholder consultation, inclusivity, and aims of statistical soundness, privacy, and demographic responsiveness.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryResearch & Report

FormatPDF

Pages17

Reading Time43 min

AccessFree to download

Introduction

Subgroup accountability under ESEA and NCLB

Subgroup composition and n-size decisions

AERA Open January-December 2025, Vol. 11, No. 1, pp. 1–17 DOI: 10. 1177/23328584251352824 Article reuse guidelines: [sagepub.com/journals-permissions](sagepub.com/journals-permissions)[ ](sagepub.com/journals-permissions)© The Author(s) 2025. [https://journals.sagepub.com/home/ero](https://journals.sagepub.com/home/ero) Complicating “Statistical Soundness”: How States Legitimize Subgroup Composition and N-Size Decisions in ESSA Plans Rachel Garver Montclair State University Emily M. Hodge Virginia Commonwealth University This paper uses a critical quantitative lens to examine the discursive techniques used in states’ approved Every Student Succeeds Act plans to rationalize their subgroup accountability decisions. These subjective decisions about subgroup composition and n-size are used to conduct quantitative analyses to identify performance gaps and, therefore, shape how particular subgroups are constructed as (dis)advantaged. We identify the plans’ discursive legitimation strategies to draw attention to the range of subjective considerations that live behind those two seemingly “objective” decisions. For decisions about subgroup composition, state educational agencies (SEAs) relied heavily on appeals to past practice and student demographics and emphasized their efforts to achieve inclusive and stable accountability measures that effectively identified performance gaps. For n-size decisions, SEAs referenced past practice, statistical expertise, the practices of other SEAs, stakeholder consultation, inclusivity, and their intention to achieve an accountability measure that provides statistical soundness, student privacy, and responsiveness to school demographics. Keywords: Accountability, educational policy, equity, Every Student Succeeds Act, state education agencies, subgroups, textual analysis, QuantCrit Introduction In recent years, scholars have increasingly highlighted the need for critical approaches to quantitative analysis, especially in how racial and ethnic groups are constructed as part of administrative panel data like the U.S. Census (Prewitt, 2018) . Decisions about how to collect and analyze administrative data have important implications for policy and research, including how congressional districts are drawn and how resources are distributed (e.g., Kenny et al., 2021) . Scholars in the field of education have taken up this call by using Quantitative Critical Race Theory (QuantCrit; Castillo & Gillborn, 2023; Gillborn et al., 2018) to examine the groups researchers have used over time in educational research (Viano et al., 2024) and to provide recommendations for improving transparency in administrative data collection and use (Viano & Baker, 2020) . In K–12 schooling, one key set of decisions about group construction and related quantitative analyses that remains underexplored through a critical lens, however, is the primary federal lever for educational equity: subgroup accountability. Subgroup accountability was first introduced with thereauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) as No Child Left Behind (NCLB) in 2001 to focus schools on performance gaps between student groups, with the idea that groups whose performance isnot included in schools’ accountability ratings may be overlooked and underserved (Rentner et al., 2003) . Under prior state policies, schools seeking a favorable accountability rating were found to focus their attention on students just below the proficiency cut-off, deprioritizing lower-performing students (Booher-Jennings, 2005) . Schools also referred students who scored below “proficient” on state tests to special education at an increased rate as a way of manipulating pass rates, since students with disabilities were typically excluded from taking state standardized tests (Heilig & Darling-Hammond, 2008) . Subgroup accountability was created as a federal policy mechanism to address performance gaps, to ensure that a school’s overall

FAQs

What is the paper’s central focus regarding ESSA subgroup accountability?

It examines discursive techniques states use to rationalize subgroup composition and n-size decisions in approved ESSA plans, highlighting how these seemingly objective choices affect which groups are treated as (dis)advantaged.

How do states’ decisions about subgroup composition influence accountability?

Subgroup composition determines which demographic groups states disaggregate for accountability scoring. The paper shows SEAs rely heavily on past practice and student demographics while claiming efforts to achieve inclusive, stable measures that identify performance gaps.

What does “n-size” determine in the accountability system?

N-size sets the minimum number of students in a school for a particular group to “count” for accountability. If a group’s enrollment does not meet the threshold, its performance is excluded from calculating the performance gaps used to judge improvement needs.

Oct 15, 2026

Uploaded by Pentious