Which students are left behind? The brightest

No Child Left Behind has moved the needle for struggling students. But it hasn't done much for those who excel, says a report released today by the Thomas B. Fordham Institute. The think tank found while the bottom 10 percent of students have made solid academic gains in recent years, the gains for the top 10 percent have been minimal.

Fordham isn't alone in raising troubling questions about this potential downside to accountability. Teachers worry about it all the time, as this 2006 St. Petersburg Times poll story showed. But the new report is sure to put more of a spotlight on an issue that hasn't gotten enough attention. Both the 2002 No Child Left Behind Act and Florida's accountability system force schools to focus more on the students at the bottom, who are disproportionately poor and minority. But is there a tradeoff?

The wonks boil it down to this: Can schools be excellent and equitable at the same time?

"No Child Left Behind appears to be making progress toward its stated goal: narrowing achievement gaps from the bottom up. Let us celebrate the gains of our lowest achieving students," Fordham President Chester E. Finn Jr. said in a press release. "But in a time of fierce international competition, can we afford to let the strongest languish?"

Advocates for gifted children agree. The effect of No Child on gifted programs has made national headlines for years.

The National Association for Gifted Children sent out a statement to coincide with the Fordham report's release: "I hope this study serves as a wake-up call if we as a nation are truly committed to leaving no child behind and investing in students from all ability levels to maximize their potential," said Joyce Van Tassel-Baska, the group's past president. "Nothing less than our future is stake."

- Ron Matus, state education reporter

Comments

[Mary]

My child tested in the top half percentile in the nation. Obviously very gifted, but there is nothing in place in Pinellas to keep boosting my child up and beyond. Best they can do is gifted once a week. If my child was bottom half percentile, would get all kinds of extra tutoring, special programs, hand holding, one-on-one. But because child excels, they're largely ignoring child. I guess just hoping child will continue on this track. I wish there was more for my child. Private school, that I can't afford, would take child and continue building on the already solid foundation. Special programs, extra courses, more hands-on lessons and experiences, even promoting to higher grade. But not public schools. They have to spend all their money/time on underperformers.

[Kenneth]

Part of the problem, in my opinion, is that we look poorly on teachers who have degrees in their teaching subject, opting instead for teachers with more general education degrees. We even deter teachers from gaining graduate degrees in their subject. Higher performing students need to be taught by professionals with specialized knowledge in the subject matter - not by someone who took a hodgepodge of classes centered around dealing with the behavioral and learning issues of poor performing students.

Middle performers are accurately measured by the FCAT because the test is set up to be an on grade level performance measure. The problem is if a student was reading three years above level at the start of the year the test will not show anything about what was or was not done for him/her. Also, if a student is far below grade level, there is very little about the FCAT that will measure the true gains (or lack of gains) because it only looks for on grade level skills and benchmarks.

There is nothing about accountability in general that keeps them from really measuring the gains of all students except that Jeb wanted the focus to only be this way. NCLB is even worse. Really measuring "gain" scores would require tests that wrapped around more than just the standards for a single grade level. It is more difficult to do this successfully, but if they did it would provide for a much stronger accountability system.

[basicedshouldhavequaltime]

Gifted still have gifted classes in elementary and middle that they qualify for by IQ...and then they can go on to Honors/AP in high school.

Special Ed have co teach and self contained to meet their needs too.

The ones left behind are the middle/high performing basic ed kids who are not gifted lumped with the lower performing ones so the low ones don't feel like they are dumb.

What was wrong with ability grouping like we all grew up with?

Oh yes, the lower performing kids felt bad and so started the "feel good curriculum"......this is the price we have paid for the "self esteem factor"....

High schools have the Honors/AP track but nothing for the kids between the low performing and the Honors.......
aka the basic education student.

Middle performing basic students like middle classes are getting the shaft again...it's the American way, so why should schools be any different?