WASHINGTON — 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 D.C.-based National Association for Gifted Children. “We don’t even have a test that measures their abilities.”
A study published in October 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.
Much 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.
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
