Stop Wasting Money Teaching Millions of Students Content They Already Know
Thomas B. Fordham Institute, Advancing Educational Excellence
September 19, 2016
by: Plucker, Makel, Rambo-Hernandez, Matthews, and Peters

Using midpoints of percentage ranges given, it seems that:
20% of kids are at least one grade level ahead in math,
2%+ are 4 years advanced.
30% of kids are at least one grade ahead in reading,
10% are 4 years advanced.

This feeds the obvious problem of what a child doesn't learn when underchallenged (as discussed in a recent thread).

IMO, these percentages also help illustrate that gifted programs which teach one year ahead often do not meet the needs of gifted students. A one-year grade acceleration (grade skip) may also not meet the needs of some gifted kiddos.

Related thread: Johns Hopkins: How can so many kids be invisible?

I didn't actually read the article- shame on me. But I'll comment anyway with just one point.

How are there measuring where kids actually are grade level wise? I mean, I have a piece of paper with the WJ -IV results on it that say my child is performing at a > 13 grade level almost across the board (except speed). But in real life what does that look like? Yes, he can read anything but he doesn't have the life experience to really understand high school literature. He wouldn't thrive in a high school literature class.

Math would be slightly different. He could work six years ahead, but his EF skills wouldn't keep up being placed there in and BM school.

I'm starting just now to realize that school teaches a lot more than just grade level content. It teaches a steady progression of EF skills, it builds up life/social experience. Just because a test says your child is x years ahead doesn't mean they'd actually thrive in a BM environment at that level.

My takeaway is that there should be more opportunities for academic challenge as a matter of course, through multiple options, including within the core curriculum of each grade level, as well as through more radical programming.

I wonder about this general approach of talking about years ahead or behind in a lot of these reports and articles. There was a previous news article comparing school districts:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...-your-school-district-compares.html?_r=0

"Sixth graders in the richest school districts are four grade levels ahead of children in the poorest districts."

I could never quite pin it down but I assume the real data was maybe 4 standard deviations higher on the same standardized tests. Since it seems really unlikely you could take an entire school district and just advance everyone up some number of grades.

Well said!

Agreed.

Read the article. You may also wish to read the related thread linked in the OP.

Agreed.
1) The point which you raised, while valid, is a separate topic from the findings of the study, which are summarized by the linked article.
2) When contemplating accelerated grade placement, the Iowa Acceleration Scale (IAS) is the go-to tool, and it considers many factors - not just the results of one achievement test.
3) The article mentions, "... uniformly positive benefits when academic acceleration is implemented thoughtfully."

This seems related to the thread what kids don't learn.

The article which you linked makes its "SEDA data sets" available to peruse if you choose to identify yourself and agree to their terms of use.

Agreed. However the article linked in the OP did not suggest that. Neither did the article which you linked... it merely provided a comparison of averaged scores in various school districts, and correlated this to median family income. This is interesting, and I started a new thread for it: NYT interactive: Money and academic success.

Did you have thoughts on the research and article in the OP?

It is my understanding that the data comes from the plethora of tests ushered in to ensure common core standards are being followed. The article's linked "recent policy brief" provides detail.

Teaching that content may not be needed... these kids may need or benefit from being taught something new.

If it is an adaptive test and the kids are being given x grade questions and passing but not grade x+1 questions like the paper said then they grade level is accurate for that subject. This doesn't apply to non adaptive testing. But really it says what we know - bright kids benefit more from gifted programmes that accelerate slightly than gifted kids who need more. If you select by achievement you get achievers not gifted a lot of the time.

The data sets analyzed included both adaptive and non-adaptive testing:

Fixed: Wisconsin SBAC, FSA, NAEP
Adaptive: California SBAC, NWEA MAP

Loosely comparing the WI and CA SBACs does suggest that a bit of the effect may be due to non-adaptive testing--but not all, or even most, of it.

Some of the usual caveats about grade equivalents (samples intended to determine normative status, rather than mastery of all grade-level topics) may still apply, though if these are truly criterion-referenced measures (designed to demonstrate mastery of standards), then the grade equivalent caveats are less significant.

On tests like NWEA MAP, my kid who scores in the 99th percentile for a fourth grader is testing around the 50th percentile compared to 12th graders. So this study would put him at 8 years ahead. Can he actually do 12th grade standards? No. But it shows that the average 12th grader is not actually proficient with 12th grade math standards. Not sure if this makes any sense. But I think that's where they are going w/ this study. Basically any student that tests above the 90th percentile on a test like MAP is testing like the average student in a much higher grade. Anyone scoring about the 75th percentile or so is probably scoring like the average student 2 or 3 grade levels ahead. It doesn't mean that those kids in the 4+ ahead schools are actually accelerated 4 years in terms of the work. They just score a lot better on the tests. That's my take on this at any rate.

I don't know MAP not being in the US but my impression is that it isn't adaptive?

Really though if you are aiming the instuction at +/- 1SD then there are going to be a lot of kids who are below or above the instructional level. A number of kids I. Ds9's class are 2-3 years ahead and about 20% are 1 year ahead according to teacher assessments for national standards.

I'm confused. What else is new?

Anyway, it seemed odd to me that nearly half of California students were exceeding standards. This is not the California school system I know.

From the article:


Hmm. They were looking at results of the Smarter Balanced test for school year 2014-15. It was easy to find the summary results for California.

The results are clear: 3.15 million students took the English test, and 16% exceeded standards (about 504,000 kids). In math, 14% of 3.17 million students exceeded the standards (444,000).

Note that 56% of students did NOT meet the standards in English, and 67% didn't meet them in math. This information sounded more typical of statistics for this state.

Meanwhile, the OP's story linked to a "detailed" breakdown of percentages of students scoring beyond grade level by grade. Those numbers don't fit the with the numbers published by the CA department of education. They aren't even close.

So where did the 1.4 million figure come from? Oh....45% of 3.15 million is ~1.4 million.

They (apparently) pulled a number out of the air, applied it to all of California, and exclaimed that nearly half of our students are performing above grade level --- when in reality, 2/3 are below grade level in math and 56% are below in English.

I call bogosity/lying on this one.

Can I just ask, what does "exceeds expectations" actually mean?

Do the Smarter Balanced tests include lots of above-level questions? Or do they have lots of grade-level questions? I suspect the latter.

If so, then "meets expectations" just means "score is at least equal to some minimum [say, 55%] on a grade-level test." Exceeds would therefore mean, ""score is at least equal to some other minimum [say, 70%] on a grade-level test." My son's results confirm part of this idea, but with score ranges that I can't interpret (meets in English = 2583-2681, with lowest possible score being 2299 and highest being 2795).

Thus, exceeding the standards would NOT mean that a student is skilled at above-level work. It just means s/he got more on-level questions right.

I mean, isn't that the whole point of the out-of-level testing that the Johns Hopkins CTY is always talking about --- that in-level testing doesn't discriminate between very good grade-level students and students who are ahead of grade?

Did I mention that this report was written by a guy from ...Johns Hopkins CTY? And another author is from Duke's G&T program?

Have I missed something? Seriously --- if I've got this all wrong, I'd like to know.

Thanks to everyone who is digging into this!

I am excited about the study as it focuses on "kids at the top", who may need more than the standard grade-level curriculum. I believe that the fact that they've identified this as a significant percentage (15%-45%) has great potential for creating future policy which would make it easier for top performing students to receive instruction in their zone of proximal development (ZPD), with less advocacy required by parents and/or less resistance to advocacy.

I find that the 3 Implications and the 3 Final Thoughts presented at the end of the study are realistic, pragmatic, and make it very worthwhile to pursue the further research suggested.

Posters have asked great questions, which had me digging deeper and fact-checking as well.

As there is quite a bit of information presented, this is one of many times I wish we were discussing in person so we could each point to the exact words, phrases, diagrams, footnotes, etc which we are responding to at the moment (as some may find the routine back-and-forth of conversation comfortable in person, but rather painstaking and/or contentious when typed and read).

That said, I'll continue with digging into the information presented in the article (and research study upon which the article is based)... and proceed with typing responses to a few things in posts, with what I find in the information presented. Please feel free to re-direct attention to other parts of the research study as needed.

Northwest Evaluation Association (NWEA) offers Measures of Academic Progress (MAP) which is computer-adaptive testing (CAT).

The study's cited resource 15 brings us to a webpage which touts that MAP assessment is aligned to common core standards, and that MAP formative assessments provide data which predict (correlate to) standardized summative test results.

I will suggest that MAP assessments are valued for this alignment and correlation, as teachers/schools/districts can proactively anticipate the high-stakes standardized test scores upon which their own evaluations of teaching efficacy will be based.

I believe the study referenced the downloadable score correlation table found here, as the study states: "Because MAP has been aligned to the Smarter Balanced assessment, we were able to evaluate MAP scores using the Smarter Balanced criteria for grade-level proficiency.15"

blackcat, consistent with what you mention about your child's scores in the 99th percentile of 4th graders nearly matching the 50th percentile of 12th graders... in the study's "Figure 2" I see scores of 4th graders performing at the 90th percentile depicted as nearly matching scores of 8th graders performing at the 50th percentile and 12th graders at the 25th percentile.

When reading the study's "Implication 2" (Implication 2: The U.S. K-12 context, which is organized primarily around age-based grade levels, needs serious rethinking) I began to wonder whether a MAP score in particular subject area might be one criteria (among several) to consider when placing students in cluster groups by readiness and ability without regard to chronological age.

IMO, this does not mean that every academically advanced 4th grader (average age 10) should be in every class with every 8th grader (average age 14) and every 12th grader (average age 18) performing at the same level on MAP. Appropriate pacing, teaching strategies, and "fit" must also be considered. However in raising awareness of these extreme examples, the multi-age placement which is often currently accomplished through much effort and advocacy may be more readily considered an option going forward.

aeh, I believe the study stated they looked for "proficiency", using tests developed to measure according to common core standards.

The study provides Table 4 and Table 6 which are "cut scores developed for each grade level and content area" for "Proficient-ELA" and "Proficient-Mathematics".

The downloadable "data linking table" on this webpage (found by following the study's linked reference #15) shows four categories for each grade level:
Not Met, Nearly Met, Met, Exceeded.

This corresponds to "California set four levels of cut scores for ELA and mathematics" (resource 12 shows these to be 1, 2, 3, and 4) and "Wisconsin provided cut scores on ELA and mathematics at four levels: below basic, basic, proficient, and advanced.11 The state set proficient to indicate performance that was on grade level."

This seems to indicate:
Met = Level 3 = Proficient = on grade level,
and
Exceeded = Level 4 = Advanced = above grade level.

The article states, "a MAP test score that is equivalent to ninth-grade performance is in fact based on ninth-grade content knowledge and skills."

Thank you for sharing that link of summary results for California, the California Assessment of Student Performance and Progress (CAASPP). To be fair, please note there may be a bit of apples-and-oranges comparison when looking at CAASPP and data from the study:
1) CAASPP includes Smarter Balanced and other test instruments: "CAASPP includes a number of assessments, but the most widely given are the Smarter Balanced Summative Assessments, which evaluate student progress on the California standards in mathematics and English language arts/literacy, often referred to as the Common Core."
2) the article stated that Smarter Balanced was one source of data for CA, but not the only source: "Based on the... California Smarter Balanced... and multistate MAP data"

I agree these results which you cite from CAASPP do not sum to 1.4 million. That said,
1) CAASPP includes Smarter Balanced and other test instruments: "CAASPP includes a number of assessments, but the most widely given are the Smarter Balanced Summative Assessments, which evaluate student progress on the California standards in mathematics and English language arts/literacy, often referred to as the Common Core. "
2) the article cites MAP tests (which are given more frequently and may show growth beyond the Smarter Balanced Assessment, yielding a different result).

Agreed. I believe the study also agrees...
1) Because this study is focused on performance above grade level, "at or below grade level" is treated as one aggregated group, and is cited as 65% for ELA, 86% for Mathematics.
2) The study showed the results from Florida exceeded those from Wisconsin which exceeded those from California.

The CAASPP which you provided a link to includes Smarter Balanced and other measurement instruments. The study's Table 2 shows CA Smarter Balanced results by grade level. Here's how they compare for ELA:
ELA - Advanced, Grade 3: CAASPP: 18% . . . SB: 21%. . .(+3%)
ELA - Advanced, Grade 4: CAASPP: 19% . . . SB: 27%. . .(+8%)
ELA - Advanced, Grade 5: CAASPP: 17% . . . SB: 33%. . .(+16%)
ELA - Advanced, Grade 6: CAASPP: 13% . . . SB: 33%. . .(+20%)
ELA - Advanced, Grade 7: CAASPP: 12% . . . SB: 36%. . .(+24%)
ELA - Advanced, Grade 8: CAASPP: 12% . . . SB: 37%. . .(+25%)
ELA - Advanced, Grade 11:CAASPP: 23%. . . SB: not reported in Table 2
Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . .CAASPP: 16%
The difference in percentage reported as Advanced by Smarter Balanced grows each year as compared with the percentage reported as Advanced by CAASPP. I would be curious as to what other assessments are being given for CAASPP and whether these other assessments may have a disproportionate number of students performing at level 1, 2, 3, as compared with the population of students taking Smarter Balanced. (For example, possibly the other assessments are not aligned to the curriculum being taught.)

I think the 1.4million came from MAP data as the article states "Relying specifically on the MAP data, one out of every ten fifth-graders is performing at the high school level in reading, and nearly one child in forty at this age is performing at the high school level in mathematics
...
Converting these percentages to numbers of children provides a sobering picture of the number of students who are not well served under the current grade-based educational paradigm. In Wisconsin alone, somewhere between 278,000 and 330,000 public-school students are performing more than a full grade above where they are placed in school. And as mentioned above, in the much larger state of California, that number is between 1.4 million and 2 million students."

Part of a previous response recently posted upthread may address this:
The study provides Table 4 and Table 6 which are "cut scores developed for each grade level and content area" for "Proficient-ELA" and "Proficient-Mathematics".

The downloadable "data linking table" on this webpage (found by following the study's linked reference #15) shows four categories for each grade level:
Not Met, Nearly Met, Met, Exceeded.

This corresponds to "California set four levels of cut scores for ELA and mathematics" (resource 12 shows these to be 1, 2, 3, and 4) and "Wisconsin provided cut scores on ELA and mathematics at four levels: below basic, basic, proficient, and advanced.11 The state set proficient to indicate performance that was on grade level."

This seems to indicate:
Met = Level 3 = Proficient = on grade level,
and
Exceeded = Level 4 = Advanced = above grade level.

The article states, "a MAP test score that is equivalent to ninth-grade performance is in fact based on ninth-grade content knowledge and skills."

I believe this is why MAP test score results were also used by this study.

Fundamentally, I think all this is saying from a tactical standpoint, is that the structure of US schools is ill-equipped to deal with the educational needs on ANY student. The argument so far has been that the content was aimed at the highest number of students, and then differentiation could be made for the outliers.

Though, most of us know, the differentiation was really only benefiting those in between the 90th and 98th percentile of students, rather that those who need it most.

The article, to me, pretty clearly makes a case that the arguments FOR educating the most, and accommodating the least in terms of population isn't sufficient, and is really ideal for a small amount, while the rest accommodate school.

Time for a new model.

Exactly.

The system is designed for an "average" student, who doesn't exist in reality. No one student (okay, maybe there would be a few) is going to be at the averaged out ability and understanding on every single subject.

Agreed. I believe that this study substantiates something which parents on this forum may have long been aware of, anecdotally.

While I'm not a fan of data collection and have posted to raise awareness of the vast amounts of data collection ushered in by common core... having this research which combed through the collected test score data may help improve options, going forward, for these underserved kids at the top.

Indigo, really, I hope it helps improve options for everyone. Though I am particularly interested in kids at the top as I am worried about DD's education.

But I really do think studying the ways that we can differentiate for the highest levels of intelligence will actually provide solutions for students at every level because it will force individual needs to be seen with out collective lens.

I also don't think that our society will allow what will be seen as a privilege for those who many think are already "privileged" with intelligence, unless it is framed as a case study in differentiation and marketed as a way to improve our education system as a whole.

Because the focus of this study was the needs of students at the top (those achieving at a level one or more grades beyond the assigned grade level, as evidenced by scores on standardized tests) therefore my comment matched that, and focused on the students at the top. This does not show indifference to other students. There is simply no need to remark on them in this context, any more than it would be expected to wish a "Happy Birthday" to every attendee at a birthday party once you've acknowledged the guest of honor; while they all have birthdays, the moment is not about them.

I agree that it is essential to see individual needs without the collective lens. However, for illustrative purposes I struck the phrase with the buzzword differentiate and chose other words to describe this study.

When some may wish to reframe educational needs as "privilege", I believe it is important to refocus on needs. The right size of education to fit a pupil's growth in their zone of proximal development (ZPD) is not a privilege any more than the correct shoe size is a privilege; too-small education, like too-small shoes, can cause harm. (See related thread, what kids don't learn.)

It seems like an ambitious undertaking, but I agree it needs to change. Based on the response I've seen in everyday discussion, and the denial of the existence of higher cognitive ability, it seems like a big challenge. Perhaps I'm suffering from defeatism at the moment, but I recently had a couple conversations with people I consider quite intelligent, who don't believe in IQ differences (at least at the top; most people seem to accept that there are differences at the bottom, with just a few people at the very top who are obviously out there, but not that 2% have much different needs) nor that student needs are big enough to require anything beyond classroom differentiation. They both think that the gifted label stems from home enrichment and privilege, rather than higher intellectual ability. Also that it all evens out in the end, and everyone should have access to the same materials.

I agree that there are viewpoints informed by a desire for "equal outcomes" rather than "equal opportunities". Some people may not be ready to consider with an open mind that people are not uniform but are individuals, with unique strengths and weaknesses... however others may be ready to consider that reality.

A few thoughts to possibly counter this:

1) Differentiation is a buzzword which only means something is different: the advanced students may be required to twiddle their thumbs, mark time, march in place, tread water, or other catch phrases which indicate busy work with no real intellectual challenge or moving forward with measurable academic learning gains. With "differentiation" the pupil's school experience is somehow different, but this term is sufficiently nebulous as to what is "different" for the student's educational experience. Too often the difference may be in work-products expected (differentiated task demands), possibly including more stringent grading criteria, rather than a qualitatively different instructional level and pacing.

2) In contemplating whether student needs may be big enough to be met with advanced curriculum, such as the next "grade level" curriculum... that's where this study may come in handy, in showing that 15% - 45% of students are testing beyond proficient and therefore may have readiness and ability to learn advanced curriculum, such as the next year's curriculum.

3) Lack of an academic/intellectual challenge worthy of one's potential can cause long-lasting and far-reaching problems (some of which are summarized in the recent thread what kids don't learn).

A few thoughts to answer those who may present such views:

1) Home enrichment is not reserved to the wealthy. Rather, it may be simply regarded as positive parenting. Having books on hand is a common example. Library books are free to borrow and many charities provide a selection of books free for the taking. Enrichment may take many forms, such as reading to a child, conversing with a child, talking about one's day, making eye contact, asking questions, pointing out colors of everyday objects, counting things, discussing textures, describing foods as they are eaten, etc... anything which engages and stimulates the brain in a positive manner. Building a relationship with the child and building a child's vocabulary may be two notable benefits.

2) Both nature and nurture are involved in intellect; Native intelligence must be coached and nurtured to grow, just as athletic ability must be coached and nurtured to grow.

3) From an old thread discussing gifted myths, this post hopes to raise awareness that some conflate giftedness with opportunity, but they are two different things. Nature and nurture.

4) This thread shows that low SES schools with high-achieving students do exist (such as Steubenville City, Ohio).

5) There are many shining examples of role models - people who've risen from difficult circumstances, including Oprah Winfrey, Dr. Ben Carson, Chris Gardner ("Pursuit of Happyness"), Carol Swain, Candace Owens, Phiona Mutesi and students such as Destyni Tyree, Liyjon Desilva, Samantha Garvey, who come to mind as frequently cited examples.

There are posts about the heinous and toxic practices undertaken in attempt to close achievement gaps by capping the growth of students at the top, getting them to level-out, underachieve, and in some cases develop a host of social and emotional difficulties from sensing a need to hide or deny their gifts and talents (failure to embrace being their true selves).

Some may wish to respond: This is as preposterous as saying all should wear the same size of shoes!



I'm not saying that keeping up the conversation is easy, only that it is necessary, it is up to the gifted community, and there is good company along the way. Here's an old post which reflects on a similar theme.