In the Fordham Institute policy report titled Think Again: Are Education Programs for High-Achievers Inherently Inequitable?, Brandon Wright outlines four claims describing arguments that opponents of advanced education programs use to advocate for their elimination. He explains then responds to those who seek to justify their opposition to advanced academic services, such as acceleration, honors courses, and grouping practices.
Educators must support all learners according to their varied educational needs. On this I believe we completely agree. In this blog, I describe practical measures that schools have taken to address these objections in ways that promote fairness to all students who need such learning opportunities to make academic progress in their schools. I demonstrate how these measures can serve our advanced learners while also preparing those who don’t yet show readiness but have the potential to benefit from advanced academic opportunities.
I begin by restating the four claims as framed by Wright, along with his responses, and then I delineate actions that schools can take that are in line with those responses.
Opponent claim 1: “Programs for advanced students don’t work, especially for marginalized students.”
Wright’s response: “False. Interventions, including acceleration and readiness grouping benefit high-achieving students from all backgrounds and don’t harm their lower- and middle-achieving peers.”
Advanced academic programs fluctuate widely based on the fidelity of implementation and support. When done well, they are highly effective and critical to students’ academic growth. They are not inherently bad for marginalized students; schools must design their systems better to become more inclusive. One approach is to recognize both students demonstrating high academic achievement and also those with high ability who may not yet be achieving at levels commensurate with their ability. We can more easily recognize students’ strengths when using local norms for identifying students who may be capable of learning at a faster pace and deeper level.
Grouping students with high ability along with high achievers for at least part of their daily instruction can help those with high potential make faster gains in their academics. With this exposure to intellectual peers, many students with high potential (not yet advanced in their learning) will likely begin achieving at higher levels than they would if isolated from their advanced peers.
Opponent Claim 2: “What’s commonly termed ‘differentiated instruction,’ i.e., grouping all readiness levels into single classrooms, works just as well as advanced programs that group some of them separately.”
Wright’s response: “False. No high-quality research shows that heterogeneous differentiation can work at scale for the full range of student readiness levels typically present in American classrooms. And several large-scale meta-analyses say it doesn’t work.”
Some schools use “differentiation” as an excuse for not having programs or processes for challenging students with advanced abilities. It is a false assumption that differentiated instruction can work by itself, without those programs or processes. It cannot due to several factors, such as the inherent inconsistency within the practice, limited support and training of the teachers, and most importantly, the wide range of achievement levels in a given class. Differentiated instruction can work well when there is a narrowed range of ability and achievement in classes and when teachers have consistent training and support in this type of instruction. It is unreasonable to expect or believe that even highly skilled teachers can adequately reach and engage all students at their challenge levels when classes have the full spectrum of learners—those achieving at levels far below average along with those at the highest end of the spectrum.
Additionally, with increasing teacher shortages, many schools have teachers who do not have specific teacher preparation, so it is hard to assume they are prepared to teach students with a wide range of abilities or achievement levels in a heterogeneous classroom.
Opponent claim 3: “School systems under-identify marginalized students due to biased practices.”
Wright’s response: “Perhaps. We can’t deny that bias can occur, but the problem is deeper—and it is up to us to intervene early.”
Bias occurs because many schools continue to use biased screening processes and teacher rating scales to decide whom to nominate for gifted testing. Bias is rarely intentional. It often stems from a lack of knowledge and familiarity with students’ true abilities. (See Claim 4 response below.) There are several solutions and approaches schools can adopt and implement to counter biased practices, beginning with understanding the difference between high ability and high achievement and planning for both groups.
View advanced thinkers and advanced achievers as part of a spectrum of learning. Group high-ability students when that ability is first recognized, ideally from universal testing in the primary grades. Treat them as gifted by grouping them together, then build on students’ strengths to prepare them for advanced academics. Develop leveled services and tiered learning opportunities to provide ongoing entry points for students to participate in advanced coursework when they demonstrate the need.
Schools and states that universally test students (thereby necessarily including grade-level groups, specific underserved demographics, etc.) can better identify all students who would benefit from specialized services.
Opponent claim 4: “Many school systems have a gatekeeping mentality, which serves to worsen segregation and inequity.”
Wright’s response: “True. And we must address it.”
Consider that only a few states require pre-certification coursework in gifted education as part of their teacher preparation programs. This means, among other things, that they don’t have the skills to recognize advanced skills, strengths, or potential in many of their students—especially those with whom teachers don’t share cultural backgrounds. This lack of congruity adds to schools missing identifying students of diversity for advanced coursework. One solution is to provide professional learning opportunities for teachers and school administrators in understanding learning characteristics of a broad range of gifted and talented learners, with specific attention to the school’s demographics.
Part of the problem is how schools and/or states label those students who need advanced academics, i.e., gifted, gifted and talented, highly capable, advanced academics, honors, accelerated learning, and more. These distinctions often influence the design of instructional services. So when the school’s terminology does not recognize a child with high potential, they may be overlooked. For example, if a school uses the term “advanced academics,” will it be looking to identify those with high potential? Once again, being broader in our scope will make the services more inclusive.
Wright summarizes his three top recommendations:
- Expand and augment school programs for higher achievers.
- Screen all students for advanced program eligibility using local norms.
- States should mandate that districts offer fully developed advanced programs and regularly audit districts for compliance.
Schools can embed effective and equitable grouping practices into existing school structures by developing systemwide processes for screening all students, grouping using local norms, and requiring ongoing, formative assessment to monitor achievement and readiness. This process also requires providing ongoing professional learning to all teachers in areas such as flexible grouping practices, acceleration, and differentiated instruction. And finally, when state mandates require schools to develop advanced programs, a measure of accountability is missing in most states.
