Showing academic growth of gifted students.(from the editor)

With the reauthorization of No Child Left Behind, legislators and professionals in education will be reexamining the methods used for determining adequate yearly progress (AYP) of students. This provides a window of opportunity for us to step up and speak out about the effects of current assessment practices on gifted students and offer alternatives. Presently, states are able to develop assessments that measure the degree to which specific groups of students (not including gifted students) meet or exceed the state's standards. Schools that don't meet these standards for 2 years in a row are identified as needing improvement, face interventions from the state education agency, and must ultimately deal with closure if AYP is not met. Thus, state tests present high-stakes for schools, which have resulted in two major effects: schools tend to focus on students who are not progressing (e.g., not showing AYP), and states tend to design assessments that show progress toward minimum standards. As a result, gifted students are not able to show what they know on state assessments and often are not provided a full range of services that address their special talents or abilities.

A recent study by the Thomas B. Fordham Institute validates these effects (Duffett, Farkas, & Loveless, 2008). Using data from the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), they report that high achievers have made significantly less progress than low achievers (e.g., +3 vs. +16 points at the fourth-grade level and +3 vs. +16 points at the eighth-grade level). Moreover, 60% of the teachers surveyed stated that struggling students are their schools' top priority.

These effects are particularly devastating for high-achieving lower income students who disproportionately fall out of the high-achieving group during their elementary and secondary school years. They also are less likely to graduate from college (e.g., 59% vs. 77%) and attend graduate school ...