If America is to remain internationally competitive with other advanced nations, we must maximize the academic potential of our top students. To date, few research studies have examined the progress of individual high achievers over time in relation to other students. The analysis in the Fordham Institute report Do High Flyers Maintain Their Altitude and the corresponding visualizations in this gallery helps to fill that gap. In the visualizations in this exhibit, you can compare the performance and growth of various groups of high achievers to that of their peers over multiple years.
We wish to thank the Thomas B. Fordham Institute and the Kern Family Foundation for their support of this study. You can see the full report by clicking here.
Tell Us What You Think
This is PHENOMENAL! THANK YOU for addressing this issue that has been troubling me for some time! My only regret is that I wasn't part of this exciting study!
THANK YOU for bringing this issue to light! I hope policy change can be affected!
Is there a way that you can address regression to the mean as a contributor to the "decliners" vs. the motivational or the NCLB account?
This question has popped up frequently. The short answer is that the declines we're seeing are larger than would be explained by regression to the mean. See yesterday's blog for a longer take on this.
Beyond our belief that this is not entirely regression to the mean, the authors are trying to be careful about assigning cause to the decline. The truth is that a constellation of factors probably contributes to the attrition among high achievers. The outcome of the study, we hope, is primarily to raise awareness of the issue and its possible consequences.
I teach at a progressive institution that struggles with the concept of ability groupings (sometimes called tracking). Some feel that placing students in learning groups by ability, which has historically been done in math and in earlier grades, by reading abilities--the lowly Robins, the Blue Jays, and the proud Cardinals--is injurious to self-esteem and antithetical to a progressive model. Your research offers much food for thought--many of us have been very "hungry" and ready to devour research on this topic.
I have been investigating the reasoning behind the so-called "wrong" answers since 1958. My findings show that the most common answer-selection strategy is for the student to read the question, from a conclusion and then select the closest fit.
The nature of the selection reveals the thinking processes.
This information is removed in the current test-scoring procedures. The result is that conformity to main-stream cultural expectations is being reinforced by this scoring. Students who bow to peer pressure lose their individuality.
Our new scoring procedure recovers this information. Used effectively in the classroom, the room becomes a learning community and divergent thinking thrives along with the students. Their natural learning modality is to create their own knowledge about themselves and their environments. Pressure to conform, when acceded to, destroys self-confidence. Exploring ideas is a more effective way to teach, especially with minorities than expounding from on high. This latter travesty is the one supported by current test scoring practices.
Keeping the brightest students challenged has become increasingly more urgent in today's standardized testing environment. While teachers labor to elevate the struggling students, the very intelligent students often tune out and lose out.