Search Database

Does the accountability movement hurt top students? That’s the question behind a new report from the Fordham Foundation on “High Achieving Students in the Era of No Child Left Behind.” The answer is that while high-achieving students have not seen their test scores fall, few teachers feel that their intellectual growth is a top priority. NCLB – the federal education law created in 2001 – is closing the achievement gap. But the results of the Fordham study raise the question of whether that was a good goal for such a far-reaching piece of legislation.

The results
For the Fordham report, authors Tom Loveless, Steve Farkas, and Ann Duffett looked at how students in the 90th percentile and the 10th percentile scored on the NAEP (the National Assessment of Educational Progress, or “the nation’s report card”) over the past few years. They also surveyed teachers about their time and priorities.

While some of the test scores are murky, there are a few pronounced results. From 2000 to 2007, 4th grade reading scores rose 3 points for students at the 90th percentile, and 16 points for students at the 10th. In 8th grade math, NAEP scores rose 5 points for students at the 90th percentile, and 13 for students at the 10th. An analysis of states that implemented accountability programs prior to 2000 found that for 4th grade math scores, students at the 90th percentile gained an average of 1.6 points, while students at the 10th percentile gained 5.7 points. Among a comparison group of states without accountability programs, 90th percentile students gained 2.5 points, and students at the 10th percentile gained 1.9 points.

In plain words, this means that when accountability programs are put in place, scores for high-achieving students stay flat. Scores for lower achieving students rise. This causes the achievement gap to close – which was precisely the point of NCLB.

A flat score does not constitute being “hurt.” However, the survey responses from teachers painted a more nuanced picture of how NCLB and accountability programs influence the classroom experience. Among the key findings:

1. Teachers don’t think schools are concerned about high achievers. 78% of teachers agreed that getting underachieving students to proficiency is so important that the needs of advanced students have taken a back seat. About a third said that academically advanced students were a low priority, and 40% of high school teachers said that honors and accelerated classes were often watered down.
   
   
2. Teachers themselves are concerned with the needs of high achievers, even if they don’t believe their schools are. 73% agreed that “too often the brightest students are bored and under-challenged in school – we’re not giving them a sufficient chance to thrive.” In focus groups, teachers talked about “cheating” their students and levels of frustration “when they have to sit by while we’re babysitting.” Noted one teacher: “It does seem that the resources, when we do get them for the higher achievers, are always geared toward things like day trips to places...The problem is that when we do get funds for the gifted students, it’s always ‘Take them to the science museum.’”
   
   
3. Teachers think students do better with homogeneous grouping. By a margin of 72-14, teachers believed advanced students were more likely to reach their academic potential in homogeneous classes, rather than mixed ability classes. They also – by a margin of 46-36 – favored ability grouping for struggling students. A full 76% of teachers said they favored the idea of homogeneous grouping for meeting students’ needs. They were well aware of the problems in mixed classes: 77% agreed that when they assign group projects, advanced students do most of the work.
   
   
4. Teachers do not like full grade acceleration. While 85% liked the idea of subject matter acceleration, 63% opposed grade skipping. This is reflected in school policies. 46% said that their schools do not allow grade skipping, and 27% say they are not sure, which means that it is likely rare in these teachers’ schools.

While some teachers have long had concerns about acceleration, the preference for subject matter vs. full grade acceleration may also be a function of NCLB. A 4th grader who goes to 6th grade for math could still be counted as a 4th grader (with her scores bringing up the school average). A 4th grader who moves to 6th grade for all subjects would count in the 6th grade average.

Analysis
The accountability movement does seem to be raising struggling students’ test scores. This is a good thing. Gifted advocates should try to figure out ways that the good parts of the accountability movement can be sustained, while changing the incentives in such a way that schools will want to help high achievers do their best. These are a few ideas:

• Currently, states use their own tests to measure progress. Could all states use the NAEP? Since the NAEP does not “top out” as easily as a grade level test, schools would have an incentive for high achievers to do better.
  
  
• Can scores be compared by age, rather than grade? A 10-year-old working at the 10th grade level could still count, for testing purposes, as a 10-year-old. This would remove the disincentive for whole grade acceleration.
  
  
• Teachers like homogeneous grouping. So advocates should work with teachers to push for this whenever possible. One recent study from Kenya found that ability grouping raised test scores for both students in the higher and lower tracks alike. This makes ability grouping NCLB-friendly.
  
  
• Gifted advocates should write their representatives and ask that the mission of NCLB be clarified as “boosting all student achievement” rather than “closing the achievement gap.” Words matter. The Fordham report shows that when an entire federal agency throws its weight behind a result, you get that result – whether it was the right outcome or not.

View the report here: https://edexcellence.net/publications/high-achieving-students-in.html?v=publication

Permission Statement

This article is provided as a service of the Davidson Institute for Talent Development, a 501(c)3 nonprofit dedicated to supporting profoundly gifted young people 18 and under. To learn more about the Davidson Institute’s programs, please visit www.DavidsonGifted.org.