Advanced students rebounded faster from learning loss. They still need our attention.
Don't abandon programs for advanced students because they’re rebounding and their peers aren't. Don’t help one group by hurting another. There are better ways to respond to declining achievement.
Countless articles have been written about students’ recent bleak performance on the Nation’s Report Card, most of which rightly bemoaned declines in reading and math, compared to 2019 and 2022 scores, especially among lower-scoring students. Yet little attention has been paid to the other end of the achievement spectrum—our high achievers—where the 2024 scores were less worrying and even contained some good news. Which complicates the situation for advocates of advanced leaders, ourselves included, as well as policymakers and school leaders, who may now be tempted to make decisions that needlessly harm advanced students.
Here's a snapshot table from the U.S. Department of Education that depicts these differing trends since 2022:
And here are graphs showing the trends in more detail since 2019:
Source: NAEP Data Explorer
In all four subject-grade combinations, scores at the 90th percentile were flat or improved compared to 2022. And in fourth grade math, the higher achievers recovered all the way back to their predecessors’ 2019, pre-pandemic score. Meanwhile, the 10th and 25th percentiles were flat in fourth grade math and were down everywhere else, often by wide margins.
What is causing high achievers’ very different trajectory? And how should school and policy leaders respond to it?
To the first question, it’s complicated. There’s nothing good about the declines among our lowest-scoring students, and many thoughtful people have written at length about the causes and effects of those drops. But the news at the high end? On the one hand, it’s undeniably positive. When a subset of students shows signs of recovering from the pandemic’s devastating effects on learning, it’s worthy of celebration. Full stop. On the other hand, the further widening of achievement gaps isn’t positive, especially when it’s caused by worrisome declines at the bottom (versus an instance in which all groups are improving and the high end is just improving more).
To the second question about causes, no one can be sure. Perhaps students at the high end fared better during the pandemic while learning virtually from home, thereby acquiring more of the requisite knowledge and skills to succeed in school today (although some research suggests the opposite, as least in places with lengthy closures, while others surmise that educational software disproportionately benefits high achievers). Maybe they spend less times looking at and interacting with screens outside of educational activities. Maybe they’re more likely to have advantages their lower-achieving peers don’t, such as affluent and highly-educated parents who have more time outside of school hours for enrichment and other forms of support. Maybe because school went OK for them over the last five years, they stayed engaged and motivated, which helps drive them now to do the work necessary to earn higher scores. Likely, it’s a combination of all of these factors, as well as umpteen variables I didn’t list or haven’t thought of.
Which brings us to the third question: How should school and policy leaders respond to this phenomenon? How should they treat the ongoing education of America’s high achievers even as they strive for belated recovery among lower achievers? This is a key issue, the more so because of the temptation—and political pressure—to make a choice that has long plagued advanced students: decide that they’ll be fine no matter and therefore slight or abandon any dedicated focus to their education and divert all attention and resources to lower-achieving students who are suffering declines.
This would be a mistake for three reasons. The first two I’ve written about more times than I can count: One, these students, like all students, deserve an education that maximizes their achievement and best prepares them for success later in life; and two, the country needs advanced learners to be highly educated to ensure our long-term competitiveness, security, and innovation.
The third reason, however, is less obvious. Not only would the abandonment of programs dedicated to advanced students endanger one of the few semi-success stories emerging from the pandemic—it would gravely threaten an equity challenge that American education was just starting to take on: ensuring that advanced students who are Black, Hispanic, low-income, and otherwise underserved are fully represented in them. Abolishing these offerings would eliminate benefits these young people can’t get elsewhere. As I demonstrated at length in a research brief last October, participants from these underrepresented groups gain the most from advanced education. It’s the best way to maximize their achievement.
In other words, abandoning programs for advanced students because they’re rebounding from learning loss while their peers aren’t would be unfair to these children, bad for the future of the country, and would do the most harm to the most marginalized among them. So, school leaders, don’t do it. Don’t try to help one group by hurting another. There are far better ways to respond to the nation’s declining achievement.
QUOTE OF NOTE
“All students, regardless of their background, deserve the opportunity to reach their full potential and excel in their educational pursuits, especially our Black gifted children who remain in the shadows due to a system that refuses to recognize them. When gifted Black boys are allowed to thrive in challenging academic environments, they develop a sense of self-efficacy and confidence that extends beyond the classroom. They become role models for their peers, demonstrating that excellence is attainable for everyone, regardless of their background. This positive ripple effect strengthens families and communities, fostering a culture of achievement and aspiration.”
—Gene Fashaw, “Black boys in gifted education deserve more—and my journey is proof of it” EdSurge, March 26, 2025
RESEARCH REVIEW
“A Mindful Approach to Students With Gifts and Talents: A Classroom Action Research Study,” by Dusty Columbia Embury, Michael Embury, Kelly Waterbury, and James Beers, Gifted Child Today, Volume 48, Issue 2, March 17, 2025
“In this study, we used an action research approach and quantitative and qualitative data to investigate the need for, implementation of, and outcomes of a mindfulness curriculum with 52 fourth-grade students identified as having gifts and talents. We gathered data throughout the 15-week semester of implementing a mindfulness curriculum. Regular check-ins, journaling with the four participating teacher-researchers, and creative responses from student participants were also used as data. Coming from an action research background, we were open to discovering new questions as they arose. Still, our primary question was: Will we see any measurable change in the behaviors and indicators of stress, emotional regulation, and mindfulness in our classrooms after implementing a mindfulness curriculum with our fourth-grade students? We discuss the results and the implications of our findings for future research and practice.”
“Parents of the Gifted: A Scoping Review of the Gifted Parent Literature,” by Celeste D. C. Sodergren and Todd Kettler, Journal for the Education of the Gifted, OnlineFirst, March 12, 2025
“This scoping review reflects on the extant research on parents of the gifted following the last critique of the literature offered by Jolly and Matthews in 2012. The method for the search followed the PRISMA-Scr protocol utilizing the SPIDER framework. Articles fell into two main themes of parental awareness and parental actions in the inductive content analysis. Using the a priori focus areas from the Jolly and Matthews article on the second-round content analysis, articles aligned with the five focus areas: examining attitudes and expectations of nontraditional families, studying the full range of satisfaction with school programming, investigating alignment of parental understanding of terms with researchers, determining how parental understandings translate into behaviors, and reviewing relationship dynamics that contribute to underachievement. There was insufficient evidence for a COVID-19 impact on publications. Findings reflect the importance of including international literature and lay the groundwork for a robust mixed-methods synthesis.”
“35 Years of State Funding in Gifted Education: A Descriptive Quantitative Study,” by Glorry Yeung and Jaret Hodges, Journal for the Education of the Gifted, OnlineFirst, February 28, 2025
“The State of the States in Gifted Education report is a biennial report that has been published by the Council of State Directors of Programs for the Gifted since 1985. The current study examines financial data from these reports relating to the funding of gifted and talented education (GATE) by state-level funding authorities descriptively. We found an increasing trend in GATE funding among the jurisdictions examined. The increases in funding were relatively modest when adjusted to 2021 real dollars. Further, force majeure events and macroeconomic conditions did not significantly impact GATE funding in jurisdictions that were examined. Finally, the increase in real dollar values of general education funding for K–12 from state allocation outpaced the increases in GATE funding for the same jurisdictions and period. Implication of our findings to practice and directions for future research has been included.”
WRITING WORTH READING
“Florida’s proposed cuts to AP, other classes leave schools ‘deeply concerned’” —Orlando Sentinel, Steven Walker, April 1, 2025
“McKinney students, parents appeal to district to spare cuts to gifted and talented program” —NBC 5 Dallas Fort-Worth, Katy Blakey, April 1, 2025
“Creating optimal conditions for advanced learners” —Wisconsin Association for Talented and Gifted, Jackie Drummer, March 31, 2025
“Black boys in gifted education deserve more—and my journey is proof of it” —EdSurge, Gene Fashaw, March 26, 2025
“Virginia pushes accelerated math enrollment” —RealClearEducation, Todd Truitt, March 26, 2025
“NAGC opposes efforts to abolish the Department of Education” —NAGC, March 25, 2025
“College Board’s CEO on how AP courses are changing for the AI era” —Education Week, Alyson Klein, March 19, 2025
“More than 40% of California’s class of 2024 took an Advanced Placement exam” —EdSource, Emma Gallegos, March 3, 2025
“Students, parents outraged after high school cuts Advanced Placement and honors courses” —EastIdahoNews.com, David Pace, February 20, 2025