Blog

We’ve been encouraged by the attention and response from the media and blogosphere to our report, published by the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, “Do High Flyers Maintain Their Altitude? Performance Trends of Top Students”.  In recent weeks, a few have questioned the study’s methodology and findings, most notably in a report by the National Education Policy Center.  A fuller response to that critique can be found here.  I want to briefly restate our intentions for doing this study: to investigate and raise awareness about the patterns of performance and improvement over time by high- middle- and low achieving students using the information available to us through NWEA’s Growth Research Database.  A secondary motive, in light of the current debate over proposed modifications to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), was to facilitate discussion on the importance of federal accountability policies that give equal priority to students of all ability levels.  

One of the most significant findings from the study was our observation that large percentages, between 30-50%, of the highest performing students lost their competitive edge over time.  While the vast majority of these so-called “Descenders” remained above average students, the consequences they faced in terms of potential loss of Talented and Gifted designations, or for high school students the potential loss of merit-based college aid, pose considerable hardships for these formerly top level students.  On a more encouraging note, there were even greater numbers of so-called “Late Bloomers” whose performance and growth over time propelled them into the upper echelons of academic excellence.  These students were successful at creating opportunities and opening academic doors that had been previously closed to them.

Additional findings, such as the under-representation by traditionally disadvantaged groups of students (e.g., high poverty) among the nation’s highest achieving students have consequences for how we judge the effectiveness of existing school accountability policies designed to eliminate such achievement gaps, and how such policies may be improved upon in the future.

Readers interested in learning more about our study and our findings can explore our interactive data gallery that offer the opportunity to delve more deeply into the data, and to explore additional questions related to students of specific age groups, demographic groups,  school types, and subject content areas.  With these galleries, we hope to stimulate additional exploration and discussion of topics we believe to be of significant public interest.