Should Millions of Students Take a Gap Year? Large Numbers of Students Start the School Year Above Grade Level

Abstract

Few topics have garnered more attention in preservice teacher training and educational reform than student diversity and its influence on learning. However, the actual degree of cognitive diversity has yet to be considered regarding instructional implications for advanced learners. We used four data sets (three state-level and one national) from diverse contexts to evaluate how many students perform above grade level in English Language Arts and mathematics. Results revealed that among American elementary and middle school students, 20% to 49% in English Language Arts and 14% to 37% in mathematics scored 1 year or more above grade level. We address what these findings imply for K-12 schools, grouping decisions, and educational policies that strive to foster advanced abilities.

Keywords

grouping diversity age/developmental stage differentiation achievement

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Alexander

K. L.

Entwisle

D. R.

Olson

L. S.

(2001). Schools, achievement, and inequality: A seasonal perspective. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 23, 171-191. doi:10.3102/01623737023002171

Assouline

S. G.

Colangelo

VanTassel-Baska

Lupkowski-Shoplik

(2015). A nation empowered: Evidence trumps the excuses holding back America’s brightest students. Iowa City, IA: Connie Belin and Jacqueline N. Blank International Center for Gifted Education and Talent Development.

California Department of Education. (2016). Smarter Balanced assessment system. Retrieved from http://www.smarterbalanced.org/assessments/

Connor

C. M.

Piasta

S. B.

Fishman

Glasney

Schatschneider

Crowe

. . . Morrison

F. J.

(2009). Individualizing student instruction precisely: Effects of child × instruction interactions on first graders’ literacy development. Child Development, 80, 77-100. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2008.01247.x

Engel

Claessens

Finch

M. A.

(2012). Teaching students what they already know? The (mis)alignment between mathematics instructional content and student knowledge in kindergarten. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 35, 157-178. doi:10.3102/0162373712461850

Evertson

C. M.

Sanford

J. P.

Emmer

E. T.

(1981). Effects of class heterogeneity in junior high school. American Education Research Journal, 18, 219-232. doi:10.2307/1162383

Farkas

Duffett

(2008). High-achieving students in the era of NCLB: Results from a national teacher survey. Retrieved from http://www.nagc.org/sites/default/files/key%20reports/High_Achieving_Students_in_the_Era_of_NCLB_Fordham.pdf

Firmender

J. M.

Reis

S. M.

Sweeney

S. M.

(2013). Reading comprehension and fluency levels ranges across diverse classrooms: The need for differentiated reading instruction and content. Gifted Child Quarterly, 57, 3-14. doi:10.1177/0016986212460084

Herrnstein

R. J.

(1971). I.Q. in the meritocracy. Boston, MA: Little, Brown.

10.

Hertberg-Davis

(2009). Myth 7: Differentiation in the regular classroom is equivalent to gifted programs and is sufficient: Classroom teachers have the time, the skill, and the will to differentiate adequately. Gifted Child Quarterly, 53, 251-253. doi:10.1177/0016986209346927

11.

Lohman

D. F.

Korb

K. A.

(2006). Gifted today but not tomorrow? Longitudinal changes in ability and achievement during elementary school. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 29, 451-484. doi:10.4219/jeg-2006-245

12.

Makel

M. C.

Plucker

J. A.

(2014). Facts are more important than novelty: Replication in the education sciences. Educational Researcher, 43, 304-316. doi:10.3102/0013189X14545513

13.

Neal

Schanzenbach

D. W.

(2010). Left behind by design: Proficiency counts and test-based accountability. Review of Economics and Statistics, 92, 263-283. doi:10.1162/rest.2010.12318

14.

Northwest Evaluation Association. (2015). Linking the Smarter Balanced Assessments to NWEA MAP Assessments. Retrieved from https://www.nwea.org/resources/linking-the-smarter-balanced-assessments-to-nwea-map-assessments/

15.

Northwest Evaluation Association. (2016). Linking the Texas STAAR Assessments to NWEA MAP Tests. Retrieved from https://www.nwea.org/content/uploads/2016/02/Texas_Linking_Study_FEB2016.pdf

16.

Plucker

J. A.

Giancola

Healey

Arndt

Wang

(2015). Equal talents, unequal opportunities: A report card on state support for academically talented low-income students. Retrieved from http://www.jkcf.org/assets/1/7/JKCF_ETUO_Executive_Final.pdf

17.

Polikoff

(2016, July 12). A letter to the U.S. Department of Education (Final signatory list). Retrieved from https://morganpolikoff.com/2016/07/12/a-letter-to-the-u-s-department-of-education/

18.

Rambo-Hernandez

K. E.

McCoach

D. B.

(2015). High-achieving and average students’ reading growth: Contrasting school and summer trajectories. Journal of Educational Research, 108, 112-129. doi:10.1080/00220671.2013.850398

19.

Rambo-Hernandez

K. E.

Warne

R. T.

(2015). Measuring the outliers: An introduction to out-of-level testing with high-achieving students. Teaching Exceptional Children, 47, 199-207. doi:10.1177/0040059915569359

20.

Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium. (2016). Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium: 2014-2015 Technical report. Retrieved from https://portal.smarterbalanced.org/library/en/2014-15-technical-report.pdf

21.

Texas Education Agency. (2013). State of Texas Assessments of Achievement (STAAR™): Vertical scale technical report. Retrieved from http://tea.texas.gov/WorkArea/linkit.aspx?LinkIdentifier=id&ItemID=25769806053&libID=25769806056

22.

Vygotsky

(1997). Interaction between learning and development. In Gauvain

Cole

(Eds.), Readings on the development of children (pp. 29-36). London, England: Worth.

23.

Wang

McCall

Jiao

Harris

(2013). Construct validity and measurement invariance of computerized adaptive testing: Application to Measures of Academic Progress (MAP) using confirmatory factor analysis. Journal of Educational and Developmental Psychology, 3, 88-100. doi:10.5539/jedp.v3n1p88

24.

Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction. (n.d.). About the data—Badger. Retrieved from http://dpi.wi.gov/wisedash/about-data/badger#Scoring

25.

Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction. (2015). The Badger Exam 3-8: A Wisconsin Smarter Balanced Assessment (Technical report). Retrieved from http://dpi.wi.gov/sites/default/files/imce/assessment/pdf/Badger%20WI%20Tech%20Manual%20Final%20Version.pdf