We examine how incentives for test prep varied between math and English language arts (ELA) on U.S. state accountability exams. We collected data on exam structure for grade 3 to 8 tests in six states that are the setting for most U.S. research in literatures where accountability matters. We show that math exams typically measured ability more precisely for students on the margin of achieving proficiency. This gave educators an incentive to spend more time preparing students for math tests than for ELA tests, consistent with the common finding of larger math effects in the literature.

We describe a unique environment in which undergraduate students from various STEM and social science disciplines are trained in data provenance and reproducible methods, and then apply that knowledge to real, conditionally accepted manuscripts and associated replication packages. We describe in detail the recruitment, training, and regular activities. While the activity is not part of a regular curriculum, the skills and knowledge taught through explicit training of reproducible methods and principles, and reinforced through repeated application in a real-life workflow, contribute to the education of these undergraduate students, and prepare them for post-graduation jobs and further studies.