GATE Is Good For All Students Hemant K. Bhargava Jerome and Elsie Suran Chair in Technology Management Associate Dean, Graduate School of Management University of California Davis texttthemantb@ucdavis.edu March 7, 2013
Our public schools must meet the educational needs of all our children. The self-contained GATE program in Davis, which places gifted and talented children into separate classrooms, actually helps all students both GATE and non-GATE. By reducing within-classroom disparities in both GATE and non-GATE classes, self-contained GATE makes it easier to configure instruction to individual students’ needs. That makes teaching more effective. By taking out the students at the top extreme of a classroom, GATE helps creates stars in every classroom. I derived this conclusion by analyzing STAR test scores available from the California Department of Education. I compared the Davis school district against Lafayette, which essentially eliminated self-contained GATE in 2009, mixing GATE and non-GATE children into the same classroom. To broaden the analysis, I also evaluated additional districts in Northern California: Rocklin, like Davis, has a self-contained GATE program, while Buckeye, Fremont and Palo Alto resemble Lafayette’s mixed classroom approach. I looked at STAR data for ELA (English Language and Arts) and Math, between Grades 2 and 6. The results are striking and consistent. From 2nd to 6th grade, Davis and Rocklin move a much greater percentage of students into the highest tier of students who are rated as Advanced. See Chart 1. To be sure, Lafayette, Buckeye, Fremont and Palo Alto started the race ahead, with greater percentage of 2nd graders in the Advanced tier than Davis and Rocklin. But this metric merely reflects their richer natural endowment of elementary school children. Second graders are what the districts are given, not what their educational approach has shaped. The greater progress that Davis and Rocklin make between Grade 2 and Grade 6 is clear evidence that their self-contained GATE is more effective at enhancing students’ learning and academic achievement. Davis and Rocklin’s Statewide rank (among nearly 900 districts, based on the ELA Percentage Advanced category) leapt up 134 and 129 points, respectively, between Grades 2 and 6. Compare this with 50, minus 9, 12, and minus 5 for the mixed-classroom districts (see Chart 2). The self-contained GATE districts are unambiguously more effective. The results are similar for Math. The comparative performance is even better in 2010 and 2011. Finally, these gains do not come at any cost at the lowest levels. All 6 districts placed only 0-1% of children into the Far Below Basic tier by Grade 6, after starting Grade 2 at about 4-5% (for Davis and Rocklin) and 2% (for the rest). What does this tell us about the relative impact of self-contained vs mixed classroom models? Chart 3 visualizes the answer. Since GATE is highly selective (it picks students in the top 2 to 6 percentile of their nationwide peers), GATE students are already in the Advanced bracket in 2nd grade, which comprises roughly 28% of all California children. Therefore, the increase in percentage of Advanced scorers at Grade 6 comes from
1
p.2 of 3
% Increase in Advanced Scorers (ELA) 25
mixed teaching
self−contained
20 15 10 5
Rocklin
Davis
Palo Alto
Buckeye
Fremont
Lafayette
0
Figure 1: Percentage of Students Propelled into Advanced Tier between Grades 2 and 6 in 2012
Jump in Statewide Rank (ELA Advanced) 140
mixed teaching
self−contained
120 100 80 60 40 20
Rocklin
Davis
Palo Alto
Buckeye
Lafayette
Fremont
0
Figure 2: Improvement in Districts’ Statewide Rank between Grades 2 and 6
GATE Is Good For All Students
March 7, 2013
p.3 of 3
all students
additional students moved into Advanced
GATE, and Advanced
Advanced
non-GATE, and Advanced
Grade 2 STAR scores
Grade 6 STAR scores
Figure 3: Improvement between Grades 2 and 6 one source: children not in GATE. What my findings show is that districts with self-contained GATE propel a greater percentage of children into the Advanced tier by Grade 6, than districts where all children learn in a mixed environment. % Increase in Advanced (ELA, 2012)
% Increase in Advanced (ELA, 2003) 25
20 self−contained
mixed teaching
self−contained
self−contained 20
15
15
10 10
5
5
0
Davis
Palo Alto
Lafayette
Davis
Palo Alto
Lafayette
0
Figure 4: Improvement between Grades 2 and 6: 2003 vs. 2012. This striking improvement in test results in our neighborhood schools in Davis calls into question the notion that GATE students mixed into a regular classroom necessarily raise the academic achievements of other non-GATE students. But even stronger evidence on this front comes from Lafayette’s (and Palo Alto’s) own performance back in 2003, when both districts employed self-contained GATE. Davis’s 2nd grade scores, then, were nearly identical to Lafayette and Palo Alto’s. And the same at Grade 6. With a similar natural endowment and a similar educational model, they all achieved comparable progress! Chart 4, compared against Chart 1, tells a remarkable story: Lafayette and Palo Alto were performing better under a self-contained GATE approach. The performance drop in 2012 is on account of their switch away from self-contained GATE. Equal education for all children is a worthy objective. But one-size-fits-all education implies neither equal opportunity nor equal outcome. We should be wary of changing our self-contained GATE program without proof that alternatives will produce the same or better results.
GATE Is Good For All Students
March 7, 2013