According to national data, children from low-income families and students of color do not have the same access to advanced courses as their more advantaged peers. Even when access to these courses increases, the gap in course enrollment further increases. This disparity in educational opportunity highlights the systemic biases in how students are selected for advanced coursework—and represents a large amount of untapped potential among economically disadvantaged students and students of color. Across the nation, there are bright, capable students whose abilities surpass the limited expectations of the current inequitable system.
Adam Tyner’s recent research at Fordham emphasizes this inequity. It reveals that, despite school systems commonly employing some smart policies like universal screening, “advanced programming in most elementary and middle schools is limited and of questionable value.” And only a minority of districts use local norms for identifying advanced learners, which could help recognize high-potential students in underserved populations. In general, Tyner finds that “most districts neglect valuable policies that could expand access and improve student outcomes, resulting in a broken pipeline in advanced education.”
Research I conducted with my University of Arkansas colleagues Sarah C. McKenzie and Miranda Vernon reflects this national trend, too. When we examined similar districts and students with similar prior academic achievement in Arkansas, we discovered that students designated for free and reduced-price lunch status are almost twice as likely to be excluded from advanced ninth-grade courses compared to their wealthier peers. Moreover, Black students are four times less likely to be placed in advanced courses than Asian students, and also less likely than White students.
Similar studies in other states echo these findings that disproportionately affect high-achieving students from minority and low-income backgrounds and point to some concerning reasons for these gaps.
For instance, research shows these students are often overlooked due to subjective assessment criteria and biased expectations. These biases can manifest in various ways, such as teachers underestimating the abilities of students from certain backgrounds or relying heavily on parental advocacy, which may not be equally available to all students. Studies have shown that teachers’ expectations significantly influence students’ academic outcomes, and when these expectations are biased, they can lead to unequal opportunities.
Many districts also require students to opt into advanced courses, a process often dependent on parental involvement or teacher recommendations, both of which carry implicit racial and socioeconomic biases.
Additionally, our interviews with counselors in Arkansas revealed problematic attitudes and practices that may hinder fair placement. One of our counselors in an interview quoted this for what factors they considered when placing students into advanced courses: “I mean, I could probably tell quickly if a student was going to enroll in advanced courses…well, they either attended the White or Black kid school.” Another highlighted the subjective criteria of "effort, participation, and a hard-working attitude" as factors for placement, while another noted a lack of proper training for making these decisions.
These findings highlight the urgent need for systemic changes to ensure that all high-achieving students have equal access to advanced educational opportunities regardless of their background.
A good place to start is overhauling how students are selected and placed in advanced coursework. Texas, North Carolina, and Washington, for example, have implemented policies that automatically enroll high-performing students into advanced courses, with parental opt-out options. Such systems have shown promise in reducing inequities and ensuring that capable students are not overlooked due to systemic biases or lack of awareness. Texas, for instance, saw a significant increase in the enrollment of underrepresented students in advanced courses after implementing an automatic enrollment policy. North Carolina reported improvements in enrollment and performance of minority students in advanced classes, demonstrating that such policies can help bridge the gap in educational opportunities.
These initiatives are about fairness and unlocking the potential inherent in our nation's diverse student population. Automatic enrollment eliminates the root of the problem of disparities we saw in Arkansas and other states. It removes parents' need to advocate for their child’s placement in advanced courses. This process often disadvantages those from lower socioeconomic backgrounds who may lack the time or resources to engage with school counselors. This system also bypasses the need for teachers, who might have implicit biases, to identify and recommend all high-potential students for advanced coursework accurately. Additionally, automatic enrollment alleviates the burden on counselors, who admit they are not adequately trained to make informed course placements and schedule decisions.
Our Arkansas research illustrates how bad advanced education policies exacerbate racial and socioeconomic disparities, but results in other states show how policymakers across the nation can help reverse them. The futures of our children, communities, and country—as well as basic fairness and equity—demand that we fix these problems. Leaders should start by implementing policies that automatically align every high-achieving student with the advanced courses they deserve.
