Accountability for High Achievers: Designing a System to Support All Kids

1. Accountability for High Achievers: Designing a System to Support All Kids  Michael J. Petrilli Chester E. Finn, Jr. Thomas B. Fordham Institute

2. Failing Our Brightest Kids • The U.S. is doing poorly • Things that hold us back • What other countries are doing • How states’ assessments and accountability systems can help

3. I. The U.S. is doing poorly domestically Percentage of students at/above NAEP Advanced level, by grade and subject, 2013

4. I. The U.S. is also doing poorly internationally Average PISA math score and percentage of high scorers, 2012

5. I. The U.S. is doing poorly: Excellence gaps(Poverty, Domestic) Our lag worsens for kids from disadvantaged backgrounds. Percentage of students at/above NAEP Advanced level in 8th grade math, by subsidized lunch eligibility, 2005–2013

6. I. The U.S. is doing poorly: Excellence gaps(Race, Domestic) Percentage of students at/above NAEP Advanced level, 8th grade math, 2003–2013

7. I. The U.S. is doing poorly: Excellence gaps(Socioeconomic, International) Percentage of students at levels 5 or 6, ESCS top and bottom quartiles, PISA math, 2012

8. II. Things holding us back Maximizing achievement of high-ability kids is not a priority for U.S. education policy. State and federal accountability systems (NCLB and beyond) focused on low-achievers

9. II. Things holding us back, pt. 2 Little incentive for schools to devote resources to students above “proficient” Additional obstacles: • Weak data • Uneven programs, limited access to them • Disputes over student identification & eligibility • Allegations of “elitism” and “creaming”

10. III. How other countries do it: Some examples • Japan • Selective high schools with exam-based admissions • Singapore • Universal screening in 3rd grade • Separate, full-time gifted classrooms in middle grades • Western Australia • Universal screening in 4th grade • Gifted sections of some high schools—and two gifted-only high schools • Germany • Special sections in some “gymnasia” for high-ability students • Ontario • Gifted education part of special education, with all the benefits and drawbacks of SpEd identification, IEPs, etc.

11. IV. Toward the future: moves the U.S. should make: • Place topic on policy agenda and revive debate about a society that pursues both excellence and equity • Stronger data and better R, D & Evaluation • Post-ESSA: Develop accountability systems that account for growth, not just proficiency, of all students, including high achievers • Adaptive tests that gauge gains at the “high end” & go beyond grade-level content

12. NCLB’s negative impact on strivers

13. How ESSA Accountability Systems Could Prioritize High Achievers • Measure “academic achievement” via more than proficiency rates – an index, or scale scores. • Use a robust growth measure, and include all students (not just low performers”) • Include “gifted” or “high achieving” students as a reportable subgroup. • Weight growth heavily in schools’ summative grades.

14. Most States Have Work to Do According to a new analysis by the Center for American progress, just 3 states weight growth more heavily than proficiency rates in their accountability system