The study targeted a group of students who qualified for a gifted and talented program by barely meeting a certain threshold based on past academic performance. Their test scores were compared to the students who just missed meeting the threshold -- in other words, students who were very similar academically.
Imberman said the marginal students in the gifted and talented program showed no improvement in test scores over the non-qualifying students in any of the five subjects
Well, but I think that IS what it suggests-- that if your reason for having a GT program is to "elevate" performance, then it's fundamentally a flawed program, because it has no demonstrable "impact" on students.
By extension, of course, it also suggests that (obviously) the argument used
against ability grouping is deeply flawed.
But aren't GT programs about appropriate education for the children who need them, anyway? Hmmm-- yeah, I know-- not really, in a lot of instances. It's all about "measurable" gains now, but clearly this suggests that
inappropriately high expectations are not really beneficial in and of themselves-- er-- at least not in elevating test performance.
I think this is like comparing two groups and asking "do vitamins make kids healthier?" by looking at illnesses and hospitalizations, however. In kids that NEED supplementation because of underlying medical conditions, the answer is unquestionably "YES" but in kids that just eat a lot of fast food, the answer is probably nowhere near as clear-cut as that. {sigh}
