http://worthwhile.typepad.com/worth...fted-education-programs-need-reform.htmlIn my latest Globe and Mail piece, I summarized a study by Sa Bui, Steven G. Craig, and Scott Imberman on the effectiveness of gifted education. The authors look at students in a large urban American school district who were evaluated for gifted programming in grade five. They ask: Who does better on the grade 6 and 7 standardized tests, the students who just made it into the gifted program, or the ones who fell just below the gifted threshold?
The authors have an impressive amount of data: standardized grade 5 test scores for 5,500 students either side of the gifted cut-off point before the gifted programming begins, and the same students� grade 6 test scores, one year later. They have similar information for 2,600 grade 7 students.
To test the effectiveness of gifted education, they measure how far each student was away from the gifted cut-off. The authors then estimate grade 6 and grade 7 standardized test scores as a function of distance from the gifted-eligibility threshold and some other controls. A "regression discontinuity" analysis is used to figure out if those who make it into the gifted program experience a jump in educational outcomes.
It's easier to explain with a picture than with words: [graph at site]
For reading and language - the green line and the red line - there is no jump in the test results at the gifted threshold. There's a kink, but not a shift. From this, the authors conclude that �students exposed to gifted-talent curriculum for the entirety of 6th grade plus half of 7th grade exhibit no significant improvement in achievement.� This is despite the fact that the students in the gifted-talented program have more educational resources coming their way � they are in classes with higher performing peers, are more likely to be placed in advanced classes, and more likely to attend a gifted-talented magnet school.
The lack of improvement in reading and language can be explained in a number of ways. The less able "gifted" students might feel discouraged by being in the bottom of the class and thus put less effort into school. The standardized test scores shown in the figure above might be measuring innate ability rather than what is taught in school. Reading and language scores may be more influenced by home environment than what is taught in the classroom.
But what is really striking is the suggestion that math results actually *fall* for those identified as gifted.
<rest of article at link>
The study is also discussed at
http://www.nationalreview.com/phi-beta-cons/267179/end-gifted-programs-robert-verbruggen and
http://giftedexchange.blogspot.com/2011/05/gifted-education-not-smart-idea.html .
I certainly don't think well-run gifted education programs are a waste of money, but advocates of gifted education will need to respond to the paper of Bui, Craig, and Imberman.
