By Daniel de Vise
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, November 25, 2007; C01
Some scholars are joining parent advocates in questioning whether the education law No Child Left Behind, with its goal of universal academic proficiency, has had the unintended consequence of diverting resources and attention from the gifted.
Proponents of gifted education have forever complained of institutional neglect. Public schools, they say, pitch lessons to the broad middle group of students at the expense of those working beyond their assigned grade. Now, under the federal mandate, schools are trained on an even narrower group: students on the "bubble" between success and failure on statewide tests.
Teachers struggling to meet the law's annual proficiency goals have little incentive, critics say, to teach students who will meet those goals however they are taught.
"Because it's all about bringing people up to that minimum level of performance, we've ignored those high-ability learners," said Nancy Green, executive director of the District-based National Association for Gifted Children. "We don't even have a test that measures their abilities."
A study published last month by two University of Chicago economists, analyzing fifth-grade test scores in the Chicago public schools before and after enactment of the law in 2002, found that performance rose consistently for all but the most and least advanced students.
"We don't find any evidence that the gifted kids are harmed," said Chicago economist Derek A. Neal. "But they are certainly right, the gifted advocates, if they claim there is no evidence that No Child Left Behind is helping the gifted."
Giftedness is a catchall term for children with abilities beyond their years. Students in the Washington region are generally screened in grade two, identified by grade three and competing for slots in specialized magnet programs by the upper elementary grades.
Local debate about gifted education centers on the concept of "differentiation," an education buzzword that describes how teachers, particularly in the elementary grades, are supposed to serve students of mixed abilities in a single classroom.
In recent years, school systems have gradually embraced the notion that all students, including the gifted, should study in regular classrooms. Alternatives, such as putting gifted children in separate classrooms or schools, or pulling them from regular classes for bursts of enrichment, are widely rejected as undemocratic.
"Gifted education is not something that should be done by another teacher down the hall; it should be done by every teacher in every classroom," said Marty Creel, who oversees gifted education -- and works with a particularly vocal community of parent advocates -- in Montgomery County.
Regional education leaders point to the success of their school systems as a whole, and to the region's superior Advanced Placement programs, as evidence that all children are learning and that gifted education and No Child Left Behind can coexist. Test scores are up. Expansive, well-funded gifted programs in Montgomery and Fairfax enjoy national reputations. Complaints, they say, come from a disaffected few.
"The truth is that we're showing a lot of success with the method that we're using," Creel said.
To properly serve gifted children, particularly in reading and math, teachers are expected to divide classes into small groups according to ability -- one group at grade level, for example, one above and one below -- and pitch lessons to each in turn.
The problem, parents say, is that many teachers aren't differentiating. Under pressure from No Child Left Behind, critics contend, educators are more apt to teach one lesson, trained on students in the middle, and to expend extra effort on those at the bottom.
Education leaders say that differentiation is effective when done correctly and that any capable teacher can do it. Research supports the practice, although studies show gifted children can also thrive in programs that group them by ability in separate classrooms.
Robert Slavin, a Johns Hopkins University researcher, found that achievement can rise for all students when teachers "regroup" students by ability within a classroom or in separate classrooms. Grouping students across grade levels -- with children sorted by ability, regardless of age -- is particularly effective. The challenge to educators, Slavin said, is to avoid "the negative aspects of ability grouping": low expectations for students in low-ability groups.
Some gifted education scholars are leery of the trend toward serving gifted children in mixed-ability classrooms. They consider the mixed-ability classroom a particularly difficult way to teach gifted children, because students might span a wide range of abilities and because gifted students learn differently than other students.
"You have now made every teacher a teacher of the gifted, whether or not they're trained to do it, whether or not they have the ability," said Joyce VanTassel-Baska, executive director of the Center for Gifted Education at the College of William & Mary in Virginia. "I would be remiss as an educator to not suggest it's a very challenging kind of model to deliver on."
Several organizations are studying the impact of No Child Left Behind on the best and brightest students. Their work is hampered by a dearth of evidence. Few states have tests that measure the progress of students who are working above grade level.
In the past five years, the share of students in elementary and middle schools scoring advanced, the highest of three performance levels, on the Maryland School Assessment has climbed from 18 percent to 26 percent. The share scoring at the middle level, proficient, has risen from 39 percent to 48 percent. Education leaders say the rise in advanced performance illustrates the effect of gifted education. Advocates for the gifted counter that the results are irrelevant because the statewide exam tests students only on grade-level work.
Montgomery education leaders point to MSA scores and other "data points" as key to invigorating gifted education in regular classrooms. They have begun monitoring several measures -- including advanced performance on the statewide test, participation in advanced math coursework and AP performance -- as a way to track gifted education in schools.
Parent advocates applaud the effort, but they would like to see other changes, including an explicit curriculum for the gifted that states what is to be taught by grade and subject area. Many parents would like to see gifted children regrouped, for at least part of the school day, with students of similar abilities in separate classrooms.
Already, students across the region are grouped by ability in high school honors and AP classes. Elementary and middle schools now routinely accelerate upper-grade students in math. Most middle schools offer accelerated courses in one or two core subjects.
There is a point, educators note, where regrouping becomes tracking. Tracking, or assigning students to classrooms by ability, has been mostly abandoned for concern that students would be labeled bright or slow based on standardized test scores. Gifted programs reflect an ongoing tension between parent demand for separate classes and pedagogical concern for equity.
Some systems, including Arlington County's, serve all gifted students in mixed-ability classrooms. Others, including those in Montgomery and Fairfax, steer only the most advanced children into separate classes. Prince George's and Howard schools continue to offer traditional "pull-out" gifted instruction.
The key to making such programs equitable, educators say, is that accelerated classes be fluid, with teachers monitoring progress, moving students regularly and tirelessly recruiting historically underrepresented children into gifted study.
At New Hampshire Estates Elementary School, one of the highest-poverty schools in Montgomery County, some students are pulled from their classrooms daily to study reading or math at two different levels of acceleration. One program, called Plus, is for children who are two or more grades ahead. The other, Nurture, is for those with potential who might be hindered by language difficulties or economic circumstance.
On a recent day, in one room, a teacher placed math flashcards into blue circles on the floor and asked students to decipher how she sorted them. In another, students played a game akin to Twenty Questions to deduce the contents of a wooden box. A class of second-graders has published a newspaper article about the recent visit of a goose to the athletic field.
"We have a safety net for kids who need a safety net," said Liz Fasulo, a reading teacher. "But there's pretty much no limit at the other end."
No comments:
Post a Comment