1. Contract talks in Dayton resume today with some distance still between the two sides. Folks seem upbeat but it will be a long day today and probably Wednesday too, the only other scheduled bargaining day. In between – a school board meeting. Now THAT should be interesting either way. (Dayton Daily News, 8/6/17)
    
2. Speaking of teachers, there are changes in the works for the state’s resident educator training program – a mentoring/support/development program for new teachers which escaped the budgetary chopping block a month or so ago. Kudos to the Ohio Department of Education for understanding that improvements were needed. Let’s hope that the results of said changes are properly analyzed down the road so as to make sure they are actual improvements. Your humble clips compiler has someone in mind for the gig should anyone be interested in a referral. (Gongwer Ohio, 8/4/17)
    
3. The “disappointed” president of the Lorain school board has filed an everything-including-the-kitchen-sink data request with a bunch of folks involved in the selection process for the new district CEO. You can read about the request generally in the Morning Journal. (Northern Ohio Morning Journal, 8/4/17) You can read a from-the-horse’s-mouth version of the story in the Chronicle, including some legal stuff that probably didn’t come from the board prez himself. (Elyria Chronicle, 8/6/17)  
    
4. Speaking of districts under the aegis of a CEO, Youngstown is reporting a 42 percent reduction in the number of missed days due to student disciplinary actions. CEO Krish Mohip is crediting the new, more-simplified student code of conduct he rolled out last year and the restorative justice practices put in place at the same time. Members of the school board are disputing both the numbers and their meaning. (Youngstown Vindicator, 8/6/17)
    
5. Both of my loyal Gadfly Bites subscribers know that your humble clips compiler is humble to a fault when it comes to the vitally important work (well…) of compiling other people’s clips and reporting on them. But it is not often that your humble clips compiler is actually humbled by a clip. Today, it has happened. Here is a story about Cross Over Academy in Stark County, whose structure is entirely a mystery to me. It is neither charter nor private school. It is geared for homeschooled students and its curriculum emulates other actual schools elsewhere in the country. However, it is tuition-free according to its founder, which means it’s not what we call a non-public, non-tax-supported school (or an “oh-eight” school) either, which it most closely resembles. Whatever Cross Over Academy is, the story of its founding and the description of its organizing principals are interesting and there are more than two dozen students ready to bust through the doors when it opens on Monday. (Canton Repository, 8/6/17)

You’ve got to be kidding me. Steven Singer has actually penned a piece in which he claims that Common Core has led to a spike in middle school suicides. Though he does admit that there are a variety of reasons for the increase, he stands firm in his claim that the Common Core State Standards are one of them.

I grew up and used to teach in metro-west Boston, which has its share of affluent districts known to be pressure cookers for kids and where adolescent suicide has devastated families and rocked school communities. They are places where the schools and parents’ expectations are high, where it’s not unusual for students to be doing extra work and SAT prep after-school, where high priced tutors abound to keep the dreaded C+ at bay, where parents dole out many thousands of dollars to pay for a private college counselor, and where the only acceptable colleges are the most prestigious (and selective) ones. Many students do fine and even thrive in the pressure-filled environment, but some internalize the pressure to a point that the expectations they put on themselves make them quite literally sick. Because we know that no one who is mentally healthy takes their own life.

When a rash of suicides hit Newton, Massachusetts in 2014, no one mentioned the Common Core.

An excerpt from the Boston Globe:

His family, who moved here 14 years ago from Israel, believes the stress of an overwhelming course load and an American obsession with elite universities contributed to his death, though they recognize there could have been additional—still unknown—factors.

In the aftermath of the suicides, other parents in town have also begun to question the culture of a high-achieving school community that routinely sends numerous graduates to elite colleges.

But psychiatrists, counselors, and school officials agree: The impetus to suicide is usually far more complex than anxiety about school work and is almost always linked to depression and other mental health problems.

Researchers have not found that school stress directly causes students to take their own lives, said Susan Swick, chief of the division of child and adolescent psychiatry at Newton-Wellesley Hospital.

However, she said, a stressful event, such as failing an important test or a relationship breakup, could trigger a suicide attempt in an adolescent with other risk factors, such as depression.

And contrary to Singer’s hypothesis that Common Core is so evil that it induces suicide, many in Massachusetts were actually reluctant to adopt Common Core because they saw them as a step down in terms of rigor and expectations.

I happen to be a mom of three in a Common Core state. My experience as a parent tells me that Singer’s claims aren’t only wrong. They’re dumb. First of all, Common Core is meant to be a floor, not a ceiling. And for what it’s worth, I wish my son was being pushed harder. I also don’t live in a town known for its high-achieving school culture or fixation on selective colleges. While mental health and suicide are concerns of mine as a parent, former educator, and someone who loves kids, uniform standards and an annual proficiency test are not what keep me up at night.

The mixed messages that bombard kids in the media keep me up at night.

The over-sexualization of young girls and the confusion it causes in their young minds keeps me up at night.

The epidemic of sexual abuse—including in our nation’s classrooms—keeps me up at night.

The twenty-four-hour cycle of cruelty and bullying that torments some children (made possible by social media) keeps me up at night.

The naïveté of our children around the consequences and the permanence of their online behavior keeps me up at night. They are not equipped to deal with the tools that modern-day America places in their hand all day, every day—a smartphone that allows them access to anything and everything and opens up communication with anyone and everyone twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week. All of us know that many adults haven’t figured out how to use social media appropriately, so how can we expect a child to navigate it without support, and coaching, and boundaries?

I had (and continue to have) huge concerns over the controversial Netflix series “13 Reasons Why,” and I understand why so many mental health experts, trained psychologists, and school administrators remain concerned as it gets ready to launch season two. We know that upon its release, troubling trends emerged:

Google search volumes for things like “how to commit suicide,” “commit suicide” and “how to kill yourself” all decisively spiked during the 19-day window after the show’s release. A 2009 study suggested “suicide search trends are correlated with actual suicides,” according to a letter accompanying the study in JAMA.

Did Singer include any of that in his piece? Nope.

Did he even mention the issue of trauma and all that we know about the impact it has on children as they move into adolescence? Nope.

Did he talk about the suicide clusters in the high-pressure communities, where Common Core is barely a blip on the radar amongst the excessive stress and competition some kids endure every day? Nope.

He was too busy talking about China and South Korea to even mention what is actually happening with our children in America.

It is healthy and important for people with different views about education policy and even education philosophy to spar over and debate substantive issues on the merits. But this reckless attempt by Singer to link Common Core to a spike in middle school suicides is indefensible and shows a callous disregard for the families who have lost children to suicide—and who know, without a doubt, that their state’s academic state standards had nothing to do with it.

Editor's note: This article originally appeared on Erika Sanzi's blog, Good School Hunting.

The views expressed herein represent the opinions of the author and not necessarily the Thomas B. Fordham Institute.

The NAACP caused quite a stir recently when it released a report calling for a moratorium on new charter schools for the next ten years. While the proposed charter ban has drawn most of the headlines—and with good reason—the NAACP report also offered a number of recommendations to address what it claims are widespread problems and abuses of power in the charter sector. These recommendations, which haven’t generated as much scrutiny, were incorporated into a model law for use by interested states.

Hailing from Ohio, a state with a history of charter-quality challenges, we cannot deny the charter sector’s warts. Outcomes in some charter schools are indeed much too poor, and financial shenanigans have been much too common. That’s why those of us at Fordham-Ohio and our partners worked hard to pass historic reforms to the state’s charter laws in 2015.

So we decided to review NAACP’s recommendations with an open mind, hoping to see them embrace the sort of quality-control policies that we identified and helped to enact in Ohio.

Sadly, that’s not what we found. The NAACP model law is not about improving charter schools, but strangling them. Moreover, if a law like this was passed in Ohio, it would be a massive step backward in terms of responsible, quality policymaking. Let’s take a look at a few reasons why.

The cart before the horse

Much of the NAACP’s model law is devoted to listing topics that the “appropriate education policy committees” must investigate in “a thorough analysis of the impact that charter schools have on all neighborhood public schools.” The call for more data is welcome, and a growing number of studies (like this one) show that competition from charter schools lifts all boats.

But it’s problematic that the model law spends pages outlining a needed “thorough analysis,” only to turn around and call for a decade-long moratorium on all charter schools regardless of what the analysis finds.

Another problem is that the model lumps all charters together. Rigorous research has shown that there are considerable differences not just between types of charter schools, but also between charter networks. Ignoring the uniqueness of different types and networks isn’t the best way to ascertain strengths and weaknesses—but is the easiest way to dismiss the entire concept of charter schooling.

To be fair, some of the data points that the model calls to be investigated are solid suggestions. For instance, states should be conducting regular audits of charter schools to detect fraud, waste, and the abuse of public funds. It has certainly been an important tool in Ohio. It is also important to know whether charter schools are serving high-need pupils well. But the vast majority of the model law’s recommendations are rooted firmly in the presumption that the number-one priority is to defend traditional public schools from competition, even if that competition is helping the kids in charters and the kids in district schools.

Governance preference over performance

The most talked about provision of the model is its call for a ten-year moratorium on any charter school operated by or affiliated with a charter management organization, an education management organization, or a for-profit company. Once again, the blanket prohibition of all types of charters—regardless of their past performance or future potential—is problematic. In Ohio, a moratorium would mean that high-performing networks with mind-boggling student outcomes wouldn’t be able to serve more students, regardless of their stellar results or high demand from families. The impact nationally would be nothing short of tragic, as many of America’s top charter networks would be prohibited from expanding. Never mind the model law’s claim that its purpose is to “enhance the provision of high-quality education.” Under this proposed law, high quality education is only welcomed if it comes from schools that are governed in a specific way.

Stacking the sponsor deck

Restricting the creation of new schools isn’t the only motive of the NAACP’s model law; it also seeks to bring every charter currently in existence under the control of a traditional public district. If it were to actually become law, only local school districts could serve as charter authorizers. They alone would be permitted to approve or reject new schools.

This is asking a fox to guard the henhouse. After pages of demands for data that analyzes how charters might negatively impact neighborhood schools, it’s illogical to claim that districts could turn around and objectively monitor their own competition. Even more out-of-touch is the idea that districts should use their authorizing authority to “monitor the supply of schools across a local area.” Supply and demand are two very different things. Every student in the country has access to a seat in a traditional public school—but that does not mean that the school offers a quality education. Families would essentially be trapped under the umbrella of whatever district they happen to live in, and low-income families in particular would pay a steep price.

But the worst part about this recommendation is that it assumes that districts are high quality authorizers. In Ohio, that’s not the case; the academic performance of district-sponsored schools varies dramatically. In fact, most of the best-respected charter authorizers in the country are independent charter boards, state boards, or public universities. It’s a rare school district that can oversee charter schools well.

The illusion of democracy

The NAACP model law also requires that every charter school hold a public election in order to select board members. This recommendation aligns with a widely cited criticism of charter schools—that they are “undemocratic” because they have non-elected boards. If it were true that local school boards were the paragon of democracy, that argument might hold water. But as my colleague Aaron Churchill has argued previously, school boards offer nothing more than an illusion of democracy. This is especially true in states like Ohio where school board elections are off-cycle—they are held during non-congressional election years—and are thus subject to notoriously weak turnouts, some as low as 20 percent. According to research, low turnout numbers make it easy for special interest groups like labor unions (surely a coincidence) to get control of school boards and enact policies and labor agreements that are geared toward the interests of their members.

To be clear, it’s absolutely important that conflicts of interest be prevented. But many states—including Ohio—already do so without requiring charters to go through the process of electing a board.

***

It’s obvious that the NAACP model law isn’t about boosting charter quality, but curtailing charter quantity. States that actually care about improving their charter schools should follow in the footsteps of the Buckeye State and craft—when necessary—their own new and improved charter law based on the specific needs and environment of their state, rather than adopt a model policy that fails to take into account the good work that so many charters across the nation are doing on behalf of kids.

The summer edition of the first-rate Education Finance and Policy Journal examines whether principals really think that all teachers are effective, especially since we know from prior studies that upwards of 98 percent receive positive evaluations. Supplementing 2012 administrative data from Miami-Dade, the fourth largest district in the U.S., Jason Grissom and Susanna Loeb ask roughly one hundred principals to rate a random handful of their teachers on different dimensions of practice. Importantly, they let the principals know that these are low-stakes ratings, in that only researchers would know the scores that they gave. The hypothesis was that without any stakes attached they might give more candid appraisals. These ratings were later compared to the high-stakes, summative personnel ratings (i.e., the Instructional Performance Evaluation and Growth System, or IPEGS) that principals gave those same teachers a few weeks later.

Analysts found that both sets of evaluations were quite positive, but the low-stakes evaluations tended to be more negative. Indeed, many teachers who were rated “ineffective” on the low stakes measures received “effective” or “highly effective” ratings on the high-stakes measures. Still, even though the official ratings skewed to the high side, teachers receiving the highest of the high scores (“highly effective” versus “effective”) were indeed more effective, according to student achievement growth. Finally, analysts also found that principals systematically gave better-than-predicted ratings (according to the interview data) to beginning teachers and worse-than-predicted ratings to both teachers who were absent more and, in some cases, to teachers of color—though they can’t say why.

In short, the study shows that principals can indeed distinguish between higher and lower performing teachers simply by differentiating at the high end of the scale. Principals also appear to face strong pressures to skew ratings in high-stakes settings. Making more use of the lower categories, analysts recommend, would facilitate more accurate feedback to teachers and potentially provide greater incentives for low performers to improve. We’ve certainly seen in Washington, D.C., for instance, how evaluations can also make it more likely that struggling teachers exit the system.

Still, just as prior research has shown, we’ve got to pay attention to the mechanics of evaluations. For instance, having a six-point scale on the low-stakes measure may have made principals more comfortable using lower ratings than the four-point scale on the high-stakes instrument. Moreover, in the end, we have to trust principals to do their jobs, while not being naïve about the logistical and relational aspects of all of this. Recognizing that low ratings trigger more paperwork and headache—and that you likely can’t terminate a low-performing teacher anyway—helps explain why a principal might say that one teacher is magnificent while another is just terrific.

SOURCE: Yujie Sude et al., “Supplying choice: An analysis of school participation in voucher programs in DC, Indiana, and Louisiana,” School Choice Demonstration Project, University of Arkansas, and Education Research Alliance New Orleans, Tulane University (June 2017).

A new analysis from David Figlio and Krzysztof Karbownik, part of the “Evidence Speaks” series from Brookings, indicates that variation in educational practices between individual schools explains a large amount of the socioeconomic achievement gap. In short, school quality varies, and it matters for every student.

Using a specially created data set from the Florida Departments of Education and Health, Figlio and Karbownik were able to match each child’s school record with his or her birth certificate data, which includes parental education, family structure, and poverty status. Based on a child’s socioeconomic status (SES) at birth, they grouped children into SES quartiles. Then, they examined academic gaps between low- and high-SES students at three points in time: kindergarten entry (using existing readiness data), the end of third grade (the point at which most students in Florida are first formally assessed), and the end of fifth grade. The study included 568 elementary schools across the state with a substantive distribution of students in all four socioeconomic quartiles, excluding schools that were practically all low- or high-SES (about one quarter of the elementary schools in the state).

In line with prior research, achievement gaps were observed between high- and low-SES pupils. Yet wide variations in the size of these gaps were observed from school to school. There were schools where the gaps were small and both groups enjoyed strong academic growth relative to state averages. There were schools where the gaps were small but growth was poor compared to the state average. Then, there were schools where high-SES students far outpaced their low-SES peers.

The general trend was that low-SES students appeared to perform somewhat better when in schools where their high-SES peers also do well. A rising tide lifts all boats.

The researchers dug deeper into the data to test variables that might explain their findings.

As befits the current vogue for preschool as a solution to poverty-related achievement gaps, the first variable examined was preschool preparation, measured by students’ kindergarten readiness scores. While the vast majority of students at all socioeconomic levels tested “ready,” it was not surprising to observe that high-SES students generally had higher kindergarten-readiness rates than their low-SES peers. But data from specific schools again varied widely, including eighteen schools whose low-SES kindergartners had slightly higher readiness rates than their high-SES peers. Additionally, while students with higher kindergarten readiness tended to perform better on the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT) in both third and fifth grades, wide variations in FCAT achievement between individual schools were observed which could not be explained by either individual socioeconomic status, a school’s overall SES level, or students’ kindergarten readiness.

Further digging into these and other variables led Figlio and Karbownik to conclude that while socioeconomic status plays a large role in achievement and test scores for students throughout elementary school, some individual schools were clearly making real and ongoing contributions to mitigating the influence of low SES on academic outcomes. The best schools helped both high and low-SES students to achieve.

However, identifying the “special sauce” that created these pockets of excellence for poor students is beyond the scope of this report and the authors surmise that a variety of efforts are at play. They recommend policymakers take a close look at practices and instructional policies at the school level, tracking the achievement and growth by subgroup to figure out which schools have greater success with low- and high-SES students. They also recommend that accountability systems focus at the school rather than district level, which can obscure variation in performance by school.

While only correlational rather than causal, the patterns documented here seem an important evidentiary underpinning to a fundamental truth: Some schools are better than others. While this tenet has always been a guide star for folks able to buy a house in a “good” school district, it has often been bound up with non-academic considerations, which can distort the definition of “good.” The same is true of the school choice movement, where mere access to choice has sometimes taken precedence over the quality of those choices. But we have turned that corner and research that points with specificity to schools and settings that are making a difference for low-SES kids is a timely reminder: Advocates of interdistrict open enrollment, private school vouchers, and charter schools must put academic quality—especially for the neediest students—at the forefront of our definition of a “good school”.

SOURCE: David Figlio and Krzysztof Karbownik, “Some schools much better than others at closing achievement gaps between their advantaged and disadvantaged students,” Economic Studies at Brookings (July 2017). 

1. Dayton school board members are not the only ones preparing for a possible teachers strike to start the school year: the union ratcheted up the tension to at least “triple dare” by voting this week to authorize a 10-day strike notice ahead of resumed contract negotiations. That means the deadline is August 11, leaving mere days before the start of school in the district get everyone’s tongues unstuck from the flagpole. (Dayton Daily News, 8/1/17) Not that this is related in any way, but the charter school STEAM Academy of Dayton began their school year today. Prolly got some spaces available in grades 1-8. Prolly not goin’ on strike on August 11 either. Just sayin’. (Dayton Daily News, 8/1/17)
    
2. In Youngstown, Krish Mohip announced the formation of the CEO’s Citizen Coalition to help advise him in his work going forward. He was probably inspired to do so by the enthusiastic community turnout – the largest so far! – for his recent meetings on possibly changing high school mascots. At least something real will come of those meetings. (Youngstown Vindicator, 7/31/17) Meanwhile, editors in Youngstown opined this week on Mohip’s choice of superintendent, what his selection means for the board, and what the courts should do regarding pending legal cases on the constitutionality of HB 70. Phew! That’s a lot of opining. (Youngstown Vindicator, 8/1/17) Meanwhile, members of the Youngstown school board’s finance committee pondered the imposition of something called a “financial restraining order” against the CEO. Personally, I picture this imaginary document being delivered to head office on the back of a unicorn. With two centaurs as guardians. And a couple of griffins playing trumpets alongside. Who’s with me? (Youngstown Vindicator, 7/31/17)
    
3. Speaking of school districts under the aegis of an Academic Distress Commission, the new CEO of Lorain City Schools returned to town for a whirlwind visit, including his first interviews with the local press. Despite the inadvertently identical headlines, the two pieces couldn’t be more different. The Morning Journal piece is solely about David Hardy – his plans and timelines as he gets up to speed. Interesting and focused, but a bit repetitive and ultimately not very informative. (Northern Ohio Morning Journal, 8/2/17) The Chronicle’s piece is somewhat creatively contentious and includes some needless and entirely predictable comments from the new board president. But it ends up telling us far more than we knew about Hardy before. To wit: he started his education career in Teach for America, doing his summer institute in Watts and then teaching in Miami-Dade County schools. “I worked in a building where kids wanted to be great, but depending on what classroom they walked into, depended on how great they were going to be,” he told The Chronicle. “There were some teachers that were really great, and there were some that I wouldn’t send my own child to, and I left with a feeling that I needed to do more and find a way to turn it around for these kids." Welcome aboard, Captain. (Elyria Chronicle, 8/2/17) Meanwhile, the Mayor of Lorain opined about…something that he seems to think is related to improving schools in his city. (Northern Ohio Morning Journal, 8/1/17)
    
4. Speaking of opining, editors in Akron did just that this week, writing in favor of the new House Task Force on Poverty and Education. They opine that poverty is not a “lifestyle”, despite testimony to the contrary at said task force meeting. But why would they let that stand in the way of a good opinon? (Akron Beacon Journal, 8/1/17)
    
5. Finally today, Columbus City Schools has quantified the “passage problem” they were whining to the state board about last month with regard to third grade reading scores. There is a tiny detail somewhat hidden in this little piece that I personally feel explains everything you need to know about testing in general and the third grade reading test in particular. See if you can spot it. (Columbus Dispatch, 8/2/17) By comparison, nearly every word of this piece about what neighboring Whitehall City Schools – comparable to Columbus in percentages of poor, ESL, and transient students while being about 75 percent smaller in number – has done and is continuing to do to help its youngest learners meet and exceed reading targets is better. With zero excuses (see the title of today's edition) and zero whining. (Columbus Dispatch, 8/2/17)

It’s almost the end of the summer and I realize that the professional development I have been in has been pretty fantastic, and pretty awful. I spent a good amount of time discussing about how we teachers can perfect our craft reaching at-risk students—a great goal. The difficulty is that defining an at-risk student can be hard.

We talked a lot about “those in poverty, those with gender issues, those with disabilities, and diverse students who struggle to have a voice and be accepted.” This makes sense. Yet not once this summer did I hear gifted and talented students mentioned as being at risk. Not once.

On some level, I get it. It took me nineteen years to fully understand that I had a gifted student in my own house who was at risk. But at 1:30 a.m., my son admitted he wanted to drop out of school.

After picking myself up off the floor, I spent a great deal of time trying to figure out what my husband and I could have done differently. After all, I teach gifted and talented kids. I differentiate my instruction. I work to meet their social-emotional needs. How could I have not identified the risk with my own son?

Perhaps it’s because, like many gifted kids, my son was good at hiding his struggles. But I also broke a rule I should have remembered. Doing well in school doesn’t mean a student is thriving, or even happy. “His grades are good,” I said to myself, “so he’s fine.”

I had to relearn some truths about gifted students to help my son, and I offer them as information for educators and parents of gifted students:

• Gifted and talented students are not the easiest kids to teach. Gifted students may grasp concepts faster, but they also move at a different pace. Sometimes this pace may be faster or slower depending on acceleration or depth and complexity in content. Additionally, many gifted students are twice-exceptional and have a disability which may require an Individualized Educational Plan (IEP).
• Gifted and talented students are not always the strongest students. It is easy to assume that gifted students can operate in a college and real-world setting academically, when in reality, structures are not in place to support their success. Gifted students need multiple ways to learn, and a traditional classroom in both K–12 and college settings may not be the best fit for them.
• Gifted students often need help maneuvering the world outside of school and need support emotionally. Social-emotional support for gifted students is key to their success. Many gifted students think like adults, but operate on an emotional level that is much closer to their age. Anxiety and depression is common, as is perfectionism. Without support, gifted students have a high dropout rate in both high school and college. Because of their fear of failure, and high levels of intelligence, they can easily hide their challenges until it is too late to support meaningful change.

Looking back, I realize it took great courage for my son to be brutally honest with me about his fear of failure, his need for differentiated instruction, and his anxiety about choosing a major. He realized that anxiety and depression had taken over his life at that time and he broke down, but he broke down to his parents.

Not all students are so lucky. This makes it even more important to support all of our at-risk students at school, including the gifted and talented ones who are often forgotten.

Michelle Pearson is the 2011 Colorado State Teacher of the Year and a member of the National Network of State Teachers of the Year. She is is a middle school social studies teacher in the Adams 12 Five Star School District in Thornton, Colorado, where she has been teaching for twenty-five years.

Editor’s note: This article originally appeared in a slightly different form on the Education Post.

The views expressed herein represent the opinions of the author and not necessarily the Thomas B. Fordham Institute.

More than sixty years ago, Lewis Terman said, “It seems that the schools are more opposed to acceleration now than they were thirty years ago. The lockstep seems to have become more and more the fashion, notwithstanding the fact that practically everyone who has investigated the subject is against it.” Terman’s words reflect today’s disconnect between research on and practice of academic acceleration.

Gifted education experts have been advocates of academic acceleration for decades. It is a strategy that works. Early pioneers in the field promoted grade-skipping and early college entrance. Contemporary scholars study a variety of academic acceleration, ranging from widespread interventions like Advanced Placement classes to less common procedures such as allowing a child to advance through a year of curriculum in just one semester.

Many studies have shown benefits during childhood for accelerated individuals, but few studies have examined outcomes of acceleration in adulthood. Two recent studies compared adult income for accelerated and similar non-accelerated individuals. The first study used the Terman dataset, a famous study that collected data on over 1,500 gifted children over the course of seven decades. The second study used more modern data from five U.S. federal government studies, ranging from the 1970’s to the twenty-first century. Combined, the two studies used data from over 2,600 accelerated people and over 68,000 similar non-accelerated people. Because accelerated and non-accelerated students can vary in important ways, potential confounding variables were controlled in both studies, including test scores, race, gender, and personality characteristics.

The results of both studies indicated an average of an annual income difference of about 5 percent, with accelerated individuals earning more money than non-accelerated individuals. That 5 percent isn’t enough to be rich, but over the course of a lifetime that could add up to hundreds of thousands of dollars. The fact that both studies produced broadly similar results is a strong indication that there likely is a real income difference between the two groups.

There are two caveats. Neither study can prove a cause-and-effect relationship, so no one knows whether full-grade acceleration causes people to earn more money as adults. Additionally, one important detail of the two studies is contradictory. In the study using the Terman data, accelerated males had an income advantage compared to non-accelerated males, while there was almost no difference between female groups. In the latter study, accelerated females did show an income advantage and accelerated males continued to show an advantage, albeit much smaller. It’s not clear why these studies produce different results for men and women.

The results should still be heartening to advocates for gifted children. Both studies show that the potential benefits of full-grade acceleration could last much longer into adulthood than anyone previously suspected. The studies also indicate that most children who experience full-grade acceleration do not have long-term negative effects and are usually economically productive adults.

What does this mean for parents and teachers? While it is not recommended that anyone skip their child a grade solely so that they will grow up to earn more money, the research is one more piece of information supporting acceleration. These studies add to the decades of research and the massive amount of evidence in support of full-grade acceleration, a strategy that works.

Russell T. Warne is an Associate Professor of Psychology, Department of Behavioral Science, at Utah Valley University.

The views expressed herein represent the opinions of the author and not necessarily the Thomas B. Fordham Institute.

Baltimore, also known as Charm City for those who grew up there, is my hometown. When I was a kid, Mayor Kurt Schmoke used his inaugural address to declare that education was one of his top priorities: “It would make me the proudest if one day it could simply be said that this is a city that reads.”

Thirty years of strife and lackluster education have, instead—in my mind as well as the minds of many others—given Baltimore a very different name that’s impossible to shake: “The City That Burned.”

So it strikes me as surreal that at its national convention in Charm City, a place where the fight for black opportunity may burn hottest, the NAACP issued its latest set of cold edicts to kill America’s—and Baltimore’s—charter schools. It’s offered a set of black-and-white notions, which would end the concept of chartering as we know it, in a town now infamous for the name Gray. You’d have to look the other way to miss the irony.

I participated in a debate on the organization’s charter school moratorium hosted by the NYC Bar Association just a few weeks ago. The NAACP board member, a former Goldman Sachs executive, participating in the discussion on its behalf seemed a reasonable fellow. In the spirit of the exchange I allowed myself to believe that the NAACP might have gotten the message from all these black moms and dads and kids enrolled—or yearning to be enrolled—in charter schools across America…not to mention the black advocates and the black charter educators out there. Their message: Charters are about opportunity. And the NAACP, as an organization historically committed to advancing opportunity, is the one place where no one should stand in the way.

If the group’s top officials heard those voices, they certainly managed to forget them before assembling their polemical charter report masquerading as a manifesto. If there was anything worth discussing in the NAACP’s first statement on charter schools, there’s certainly nothing worth discussing now.

But that’s really not the point. Black folks in America are used to having excruciating discussions with those in power: those with wealth and influence and money…with connections and currency. The elites who make things go. We’re used to waiting and not getting what we want. Having our asks for equality slow-walked to the “appropriate” entity—and summarily denied.

We know too well the smiles of “maybe” and the frowns of “sorry, not now or ever” that greet us when trying to change how government views and interacts with us. Disappointment is as much a part of the black experience as the joy of surviving it is.

But the one thing you don’t expect is for the group doing the frowning and the slow-walking to be led by people who look like you.

And in this instance—where some of America’s best public schools educating some of America’s blackest and most disadvantaged kids are concerned—the NAACP’s duplicitous engagement of black folks on the issue of charter schools is the worst kind of betrayal.

In one of my favorite films, The Matrix, Morpheus offers that there is a difference between knowing the path and walking the path. If this is the path the NAACP wants to take on charters, I don’t want to know it, and I, and many others, surely won’t be walking it with them.

In the city that once aspired to every black person reading, the NAACP just declared that its agenda—one for the adults and the union leaders that also puts charters on blast—is the one that, to them, matters most.

Editor’s note: This article was originally published by The 74.

The views expressed herein represent the opinions of the author and not necessarily the Thomas B. Fordham Institute.