![]() ![]() What I am saying is that our education discourse sometimes takes too far the viewpoint that boosting test scores is a sufficient measure of “what works," and it’s not always clear why the standard applies in some instances and not others. Moreover, while there are a few people who feel that standardized testing results should play absolutely no role in making decisions about teachers, students and schools, I am not among them (even if I frequently disagree with the manner in which they are used). I understand that policy judgments often must be made based on imperfect evidence and it’s difficult to find the sweet spot between this uncertainty and the need to act to improve performance. To be clear, I’m not trying to accuse anyone of hypocrisy. Now, it’s certainly true that plenty of people do oppose GT and similar programs, but their arguments are typically based on other concerns, such as equity and fairness, rather than test-based results. This is an enlightened, nuanced view of “what works," as distinct from the clumsy and simplistic standard by which we sometimes (but not nearly always) judge other policies. Supporters think that they’re worth paying for, even if they don’t boost scores, because they believe that these programs improve children’s educational experience in ways that are less “tangible” but perhaps just as important. The answer, it seems to me, is simple: People acknowledge that GT programs, offering special services such as advanced curricula, “hands-on” experience and specially-trained teachers, provide benefits that cannot be measured in terms of test score gains. If a solid body of research found that they offered no test-based benefits, how could those who argue for eliminating master’s bumps and closing low-performing schools based on the same evidence remain silent when it comes to GT programs? GT programs (and similar programs such as magnet/exam schools) cost money, which of course also means that they leave less funding for other interventions. In fact, many people argue that we should close entire schools if their students consistently fail to make progress on assessments, and open new schools if their operators demonstrate an ability to make such progress.Īre these programs and policies somehow different from gifted and talented programs? Not really. Yet, if we applied faithfully the standards by which we sometimes judge other policy interventions, we would have to make a case for getting rid of GT.įor example, there is a common argument in education circles that teachers with master’s degrees do not produce larger test score gains than those without them, and so we should therefore stop providing those who have them with a salary “bump” (the same basic argument is often applied to giving teachers raises for additional years of experience). New York City recently shut down its schoolwide bonus program in the wake of a RAND evaluation finding that the program was not associated with higher test scores. Would anyone, based on this evidence, be calling for the elimination of GT programs? I doubt it. Still, let’s speculate for a moment: Let’s say that, over the next few years, several other good studies also reached the same conclusion. Now, it’s certainly true that high-quality research on the test-based effect of these programs is still somewhat scarce, and these are only two (as yet unpublished) analyses, but their conclusions are certainly worth noting. Another recent NBER paper reached the same conclusion about the highly-selective “exam schools” in New York and Boston. The researchers found that GT programs (and magnet schools as well) have little discernible impact on students’ test score gains. For instance, a recent working paper from the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) looked at the question of whether gifted and talented (GT) programs boost student achievement. This effort to craft and maintain a framework for using assessment data productively is very important but, despite the careless claims of some public figures, it is also extremely difficult.Įqually important and difficult is the need to apply that framework consistently. In education policy debates, the phrase “what works” is sometimes used to mean “what increases test scores." Among those of us who believe that testing data have a productive role to play in education policy (even if we disagree on the details of that role), there is a constant struggle to interpret test-based evidence properly and put it in context. If Gifted And Talented Programs Don't Boost Scores, Should We Eliminate Them? Augby Issues Areas show submenu for "Issues Areas". ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |