This article analyzes the magnitude of individual differences in academic achievement and their growth over the first 9 years of schooling. The author anchors the widening-gap phenomenon on the theoretical recognition of large individual differences in learning pace, which logically leads over time to an increasing gap in knowledge and skills between the fastest and slowest learners. The achievement data used as evidence were borrowed from the developmental standard score (SS) norms of the Iowa Tests of Basic Skills (ITBS; Hoover, Dunbar, & Frisbie, 2001). These norms reveal, among other things, that within most grade levels the range between the lowest and highest achievers exceeds the 8-year gap in knowledge between average 1st- and 9th-grade students. Moreover, the achievement gap widens by about 145% between grades 1 and 9. Parallel evidence suggests that standardized achievement test data probably underestimate the true differences. Because it ensues from stable individual differences in learning aptitude, educators should not perceive that widening achievement gap as a failure of the educational system, but should recognize it instead as a proof that all learners are given the opportunity to progress at their own learning pace.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Ackerman, P. L., Kyllonen, P. C., & Roberts, R. D. (Eds.). (1999). Learning and individual differences: Process, trait, and content determinants. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
2.
Anastasi, A., & Urbina, S. (1997). Psychological testing (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
3.
Archambault, F. X., Jr., Westberg, K. L., Browns, S. W., Hallmark, B. W., Emmons, C. L., & Zhang, W. (1993). Regular classroom practices with gifted students: Results of a national survey of classroom teachers. Storrs: The National Research Center of the Gifted and Talented, University of Connecticut.
4.
Berliner, D. C., & Calfee, R. C. (Eds.) (1996). Handbook of educational psychology. New York: Macmillan.
5.
Biemiller, A. (1993). Lake Wobegon revisited: On diversity and education. Educational Researcher, 22(9), 7-12.
6.
Carroll, J. B. (1997). Psychometrics, intelligence, and public perception. Intelligence, 24, 25-52.
7.
Cox, J., Daniel, N., & Boston, B. O. (1985). Educating able learners: Programs and promising practices. Austin: University of Texas Press.
8.
Eisner, E. W. (2002). The kind of schools we need. Phi Delta Kappan, 20, 576-583.
9.
Fenstermacher, G. D., & Goodlad, J. I. (Eds.). (1983). Individual differences and the common curriculum: Eighty-second yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
10.
Gagné, F. (1998). A proposal for subcategories within the gifted or talented populations. Gifted Child Quarterly, 42, 87-95.
11.
Gagné, F. (2003). Transforming gifts into talents: The DMGT as a developmental theory. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (3rd ed., pp. 60-74). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
12.
Gottfredson, L. S. (1997). Why g matters: The complexity of everyday life. Intelligence, 24, 79-132.
13.
Hoover, H. D. (1984). The most appropriate scores for measuring educational development in the elementary schools: GE’s. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 3, 8-15.
14.
Hoover, H. D. (1988). Growth expectations for low-achieving students: A reply to Yen. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 7, 21-23.
15.
Hoover, H. D., Dunbar, S. B., & Frisbie, D. A. (2001). Iowa tests of basic skills. Itasca, IL: Riverside.
16.
Hoover, H. D., Hieronymus, A. N., Frisbie, D. A., & Dunbar, S. B. (1993). Norms and score conversions: Form K, levels 7-14 of the ITBS Survey Battery. Chicago: Riverside.
17.
Hoover, H. D., Hieronymus, A. N., Frisbie, D. A., & Dunbar, S. B. (1994). Interpretive guide for school administrators (Forms K & L, levels 5-14). Chicago: Riverside.
18.
Iowa Testing Programs. (n.d.). Interpretation of developmental standard scores. Retrieved June 24, 2003, from http://www.uiowa.edu/itp/ed-interpret.htm
19.
Jastak, S., & Wilkinson, G. S. (1984). Wide range achievement test. Wilmington, DE: Jastak.
20.
Jensen, A. R. (1991). Spearman’s g and the problem of educational equality. Oxford Review of Education, 17, 169-187.
21.
Jorgensen, M. A., & McBee, M. (2003). The new NRT model. New York: Harcourt Educational Measurement.
22.
Keeves, J. P. (Ed.). (1988). Educational research, methodology, and measurement: An international handbook. Oxford, England: Pergamon.
23.
Lohman, D. F. (1999). Minding our p’s and q’s: On finding relationships between learning and intelligence. In Ackerman, P. L., Kyllonen, P. C., & Roberts, R. D. (Eds.), Learning and individual differences: Process, trait, and content determinants (pp. 55-76). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
24.
Lupkowski-Shoplik, A., Benbow, C. P., Assouline, S. G., & Brody, L. E. (2003). Talent searches: Meeting the needs of academically talented youth. In N. Colangelo and G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (3rd ed., pp. 204-218). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
25.
Mitzel, H. E. (Ed. in Chief). (1982). Encyclopedia of educational research (5th ed.). New York: The Free Press.
26.
Ormrod, J. E. (2000). Educational psychology: Developing learners (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
27.
Petersen, N. S., Kolen, M. J., & Hoover, H. D. (1989). Scaling, norming, and equating. In R. L. Linn (Ed.), Educational measurement (3rd ed., pp. 221-262). New York: Macmillan.
28.
Phillips, S. E., & Clarizio, H. F. (1988). Limitations of standard scores in individual achievement testing. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 7, 8-15.
29.
Reis, S. M., Westberg, K. L., Kulilowich, J., Caillard, F., Hébert, T., Plucker, J., Purcell, J. H., Rogers, J. B., & Smist, J. M. (1993). Why not let high ability students start school in January?: The curriculum compacting study. Storrs: The National Research Center of the Gifted and Talented, University of Connecticut.
30.
Riley, R. N. (February 22, 2000). Setting new expectations (Seventh Annual State of American Education Address). Retrieved June 24, 2003, from http://www.ed.gov/speeches/02.2000/000222.html
31.
Schulz, E. M., & Nicewander, W. A. (1997). Grade equivalent and IRT representations of growth. Journal of Educational Measurement, 34, 315-331.
32.
Slavin, R. E. (2000). Educational psychology: Theory and practice. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
33.
Stanley, J. C. (1977). Rationale of the study of mathematically precocious youth (SMPY) during its first five years of promoting educational acceleration. In J. C. Stanley, W. C. George, & C. H. Solano (Eds.), The gifted and creative: A fifty-year perspective (pp. 75-112). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
34.
Sternberg, R. J., & Williams, W. M. (2002). Educational psychology. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
35.
Stroud, J. B. (1946). Psychology in education. New York: Long-mans, Green.
36.
Thompson, L. A., & Plomin, R. (2000). Genetic tools for exploring individual differences in intelligence. In K. A. Heller, F. J. Mönks, R. J. Sternberg, & R. Subotnik (Eds.), International handbook for research on giftedness and talent (2nd ed., pp. 157-164). Oxford, England: Pergamon.
37.
UNESCO. (1948). Universal bill of rights. Retrieved on June 24, 2003, from http://www.unesco.org/general/eng/legal/human.rights.html
38.
Wang, M. C., & Walberg, H. J. (Eds.). (1985). Adapting instruction to individual differences. Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.
39.
Wittrock, M. C. (Ed.). (1986). Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed.). New York: Macmillan.
40.
Yen, W. M. (1988). Normative growth expectations must be realistic: A response to Philips and Clarizio. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practices, 7, 16-17.
41.
Yen, W. M., & Burket, G. R. (1997). Comparison of item response theory and Thurstone methods of vertical scaling. Journal of Educational Measurement, 34, 293-313.
