National Working Group on Advanced Education: Inaugural meeting summary of discussion

NOTE: On March 7, 2022, seventeen members of the National Working Group on Advanced Education met in Washington, D.C., to get acquainted and to start identifying evidence-based practices to support the success of high-achieving students. The following is a summary of the discussions, with particular focus on the cultivation and identification of high-achieving students and the services they need (in grades K–12) to maximize their academic potential. We also note broader themes that came out of the conversation, areas where further discussion would be helpful, and additional topics to tackle at future meetings.

Two important reminders regarding the purpose of the group and its framing: First, the students we are interested in are students with potential for high achievement and academic excellence, not necessarily “gifted students” per se. Second, our focus in this project is primarily on district and charter network practices, not state policies.

General themes:

• We should acknowledge the past failures of the gifted movement, especially when it comes to equity.
• Tracking in the past was indeed often racist and classist, enrolling disproportionately more Black, Hispanic, and economically disadvantaged students in low tracks that led nowhere and failed to provide on-ramps for late bloomers.
• Maximizing the potential of America’s high achievers is important not only for those students but also for their families and for the country as a whole. We need students with potential for academic excellence to become tomorrow’s leaders, scientists, inventors, etc., to solve critical challenges and to boost America’s competitiveness.
• Narrowing excellence gaps is a key goal, and the earlier we start the better.
• Our focus here is students with potential for high achievement and academic excellence, but that doesn’t mean that we aren’t concerned about other students. Indeed, we want our schools to challenge all students to maximize their academic potential.

Identification of students with potential for high achievement and academic excellence:

• There is widespread support within the group for universal screening to identify students with potential for high achievement, due to strong empirical support and positive results in districts that have used it. Such screening involves reviewing assessment data for all students at one or more age points to identify students who might benefit from advanced learning opportunities.
• Districts and charter networks should use whatever assessment data they have universally available, though multiple tests (and other instruments) are better than one, because some students will shine on one assessment and not another.
• If diagnostic or interim assessments such as MAP or i-Ready are used universally in the early grades (K–2), districts and networks should use them as initial screeners, but at the latest they should start with third-grade statewide assessments. Officials should be sure to age-adjust the results so as not to miss kids with late birthdays.
• Nonverbal tests may be particularly important for identifying high-potential students who are English learners or from economically disadvantaged backgrounds, although the group acknowledged the mixed research on their effectiveness in this regard.
• We should continue to equitably identify additional students for services in every grade—instead of relying on a single screening point that would overlook late bloomers and/or result in racial or socioeconomic disparities.
• The group supports local (i.e., school-based) norms—especially when students are young. This means identifying and serving the highest-potential students in every elementary school—at least 5 to 10 percent of all students, but higher if more students could benefit from a more advanced curriculum.
• As students move into high school, it becomes more important to reference state or national norms when admitting students so that students are better prepared to compete in higher education and beyond. Thankfully, research shows that students who enjoy access to advanced education in elementary school are more likely to meet national norms by the time they enter high school.
• Local norms should be used in conjunction with “front-loading” models of programming (also called “talent development” or “talent scouting”), with the goal of preparing as many students as possible for gifted programs and identifying gifted students who show potential but are not yet demonstrating high achievement—starting in the early grades but not ending there.

Services (all grades):

• There’s widespread support for ability grouping in grades K–12, meaning that high-achieving students should get to spend at least part of every day with other high-achieving students—ideally in a separate classroom or environment.
• We have concerns that “differentiated instruction,” however appealing it may sound, is rarely used effectively to tailor services to high-achieving students (or anyone else).
• Likewise, “competency-based education” may show promise eventually for allowing all kids, including high achievers, to move at their own pace, but it’s not there yet.

Services (elementary schools):

• In the spirit of ability grouping for at least part of the day, there’s support for pull-out programs (as long as there’s enough dosage) or special classrooms for high achievers within subject areas, though that is usually politically untenable for the earliest grades.
• Within-classroom ability grouping may be the best that some schools can do, but it must be truly tailored and supported to be effective.

Services (middle schools):

• We support ability grouping (such as pull-out programs and separate “honors” classes) in as many subjects as possible, as long as there are equitable on-ramps for students who are late bloomers.
• The group is split on the value of “off-ramps” for students who were high achieving in earlier grades but are not high achieving now.
• Selection into honors courses should be on a subject-by-subject basis.
• High achievers should have the opportunity to take AP courses and/or earn college credit in middle school if they show extraordinary potential.
• Culturally responsive social and emotional supports are especially important in these grades.
• A “Period 0” or “Period 8” can allow for important enrichment activities. Out-of-school-time opportunities show great potential but can lead to equity concerns if not all students have access to them.

Services (high schools):

• We support ability grouping (i.e., “honors” classes) in as many subjects as possible, as long as there are equitable on-ramps for students who are late bloomers.
• The group is split on the value of “off-ramps” for students who were high achieving in earlier grades but are not high achieving now.
• Selection into honors and AP courses should be equitable and administered on a subject-by-subject basis.
• Students who show potential for success in AP and other advanced courses should be automatically enrolled (i.e., advanced courses for such students should be the default). However, AP and other advanced courses should not be the default for everyone.
• Schools shouldn’t resist if other students want to try advanced courses.
• The group is split on whether schools should be expected to offer additional supports to students who are not fully prepared to succeed in AP courses and the like. Some think those students should not be admitted to such courses, while others want schools to try to help them succeed.
• The group is also split about the value of selective high schools (“exam schools”), with some wanting to build many more of them (in order to solve for the scarcity problem) and others wanting to eliminate them (because of the mixed evidence of their effectiveness, as they often do not reflect the demographics of their school districts and more students might be served, and served more effectively, if high-quality programs are available in every high school).
• The group is also split about dual-enrollment courses, with some seeing them as a popular option for high-achieving students—one that leads to valuable, transferable credit—and others worried about their lack of standards.
• There is some interest in setting national standards for what it means to be an honors course.

Areas ripe for further discussion:

• Is it possible to make within-class ability grouping more effective in the typical classroom? How?
• How important is it for districts to use measures beyond achievement tests when identifying students for services? Will nonverbal tests turn up additional students, especially English learners or students from economically disadvantaged backgrounds?
• At which point do we require students to exhibit high achievement rather than potential in order to be identified and receive special curriculum and services (such as admission into AP and other advanced courses)?

Future topics to be discussed:

• Everything related to teachers (training, accreditation, recruitment, selection, etc.).
• Instructional materials and instructional strategies for high achievers.
• Nonacademic supports for high achieving students, including those related to social and emotional development.
• Culturally responsive supports and strategies to prepare high achievers, especially those from economically disadvantaged backgrounds, English learners, and first-generation college students, to succeed in selective and highly selective colleges.
• How to make sure services are well aligned across elementary, middle, and high school.
• State policies that create hurdles and disincentives for this agenda.

Areas for additional research:

• More studies on the types of students who are identified for services depending on the type of assessment used.
• Studies that might get “inside the black box” to explain why some initial high achievers remain high achieving all the way to graduation and others don’t, with a special focus on students from economically disadvantaged backgrounds and underrepresented racial groups.
• Studies demonstrating the value of advanced learning for students from disadvantaged backgrounds.