Lengthy school closures were especially hard on high achievers
Lengthy school closures were especially hard on high achievers
A World Bank report examining PISA scores contained this counterintuitive finding about learning losses in math. We don't know its causes, but we can deduce some important implications.
To gauge the magnitude of global learning loss during the pandemic, a team at the World Bank examined data from the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) from 2018–2022, which tests fifteen-year-olds in math, reading, and science. Among the report’s many notable insights is a counterintuitive finding about math outcomes: in countries with the longest closures, high-achieving students experienced larger learning losses than their low- and medium-achieving peers.
Harry Anthony Patrinos, one of the authors, explained it like this in a Fordham Institute piece last month:
In countries with school closures of average duration—about 5.5 months—learning losses were similar for low-, average-, and high-achieving students. However, in countries with shorter closures, the best students experienced minimal setbacks, with the learning losses mostly being incurred by average- and low-achieving students. In countries with longer closures, the largest learning losses were experienced by high-achieving students.
And these achievement drops were sizable. “In countries with the longest closures, the low-achieving students lost around 16–17 points [on PISA’s score scale] or 20 percent of a SD,” note the authors, “while those at the top of achievement distribution lost 25 points or more (29 percent of a SD).” One-quarter of a standard deviation is approximately equal to a year’s worth of learning. (See figure 1, from the report.)
Figure 1. Learning loss estimates depending on student achievement quantiles and the length of closures
The U.S., at least as a whole, avoided this outcome, despite there being very lengthy closures in some places. Our learning losses by achievement group match the OECD average, Patrinos told me, meaning our low achievers lost more than our high achievers. But perhaps that’s because decisions were so locally determined and politically charged, with, for example, big red states like Florida and Texas keeping kids in classrooms far more than big blue states like California and New York. Indeed, because of this state autonomy, the U.S. was only one of three countries in the report that had zero “full closures,” per UNESCO, which defined these as “government-mandated closures of educational institutions affecting most or all of the student population” and tracked them worldwide throughout the pandemic.
Whatever the causes are, however, they’re beyond the scope of the report and my powers of divination, and speculation has limited value. Some takeaways and consequences, however, are worth exploring.
Perhaps the biggest takeaway is that being in school appears to be quite valuable for the learning of high achievers. This runs counter to cynical assumptions that these students attain their level of achievement primarily because of out-of-school factors, like household income, parent education level, and various forms of evening, weekend, and summer enrichment. Of course these things play a significant role, but the report’s findings suggest that classroom instruction is integral to the magnitude of their achievement.
If what happens in school matters for high achievers even more than for others, it follows that these students will not be fine regardless of the type of instruction that they receive. If formal schooling benefits high achievers this much, then the quality of that schooling—teachers, curriculum, rigor, etc.—likely matters greatly, as well. This is another way of saying that advanced education programs designed to maximize the achievement of these students are worth pursuing, and efforts to curb or scrap them are quite damaging.
Think of what these learning losses among high achievers mean for them, their nations, and the world.
First, the students themselves. Each and every child deserves an education that meets their needs and enhances their futures. They have their own legitimate claim on our conscience, our sense of fairness, and our policy priorities. When ill-considered policies and adult preferences led to pandemic-related school closures in many countries that were far longer and more numerous than necessary, all students were harmed, but none worse than those who had been high achievers.
Other significant costs were levied against countries’ (and perhaps U.S. states’) long-term competitiveness, security, and innovation—which translates to global impacts, too. High achievers are the young people most apt to become tomorrow’s leaders, scientists, and inventors, and to solve our current and future critical challenges. Most economists agree that a nation’s economic vitality depends heavily on the quality and productivity of its human capital and its capacity for innovation. While the cognitive skills of all citizens are important, that’s especially the case for high achievers. Using international test data, for example, economists Eric Hanushek and Ludger Woessmann estimate that a “10 percentage point increase in the share of top-performing students” within a country “is associated with 1.3 percentage points higher annual growth” of that country’s economy, as measured in per-capita GDP.
Recall that the World Bank’s PISA analysis focused on math scores. Considerable research suggests that “math skills better predict future earners and other economic outcomes than other skills learned in high school,” and as the Wall Street Journal has observed in reference to U.S. NAEP results, “math proficiency in eighth grade is one of the most significant predictors of success in high school.” This suggests that the huge drops shown in the PISA data may reverberate through the rest of these students’ lives, their countries’ futures, and even the fate of the globe.
Bottom line: We don’t dare minimize the importance of formal education, and by extension, the value of advanced programming for high achieving students. At a time when these opportunities are under attack, schools have lost their sense of purpose, and our relationship with education seems to have become optional, this is an important and sobering reminder of these truths.
QUOTE OF NOTE
“Seattle is getting rid of its specialized public schools in an effort to increase racial equity. Ironically, this decision may end up hurting the very students the policy change is intended to help.”
—Emma Camp, “Seattle Is Getting Rid of Gifted Schools in a Bid To Increase Equity,” Reason, April 4, 2024
RESEARCH REVIEW
“Who’s Got Talent for Identifying Talent? Predictors of Equitable Gifted Identification for Black and Hispanic Students,” by Scott J. Peters, Angela Johnson, Matthew C. Makel, and James S. Carter, Gifted Child Quarterly, OnlineFirst, April 3, 2024
“Students who are Black or Hispanic have long been disproportionately represented in K–12 gifted and talented services. However, there are schools that have diverged from this trend by identifying atypically high numbers of Black and Hispanic students. In this conceptual replication of Peters and Johnson, we present predictors of whether a school offers gifted services (i.e., access) and representation indices for Black and Hispanic students (i.e., equity) within schools that enroll 10 or more Black or Hispanic students. Our results show that state policy mandates for gifted education are predictive of higher levels of access to and equity within gifted services for these schools. The average achievement and socioeconomic status of the district were positive predictors of access and equity while the district proportion eligible for special education services was a negative predictor of both. Finally, we end with a description of how the top 5% most-equitable schools in the country look different from their peers.”
“Gifted Children and Psychiatric Disorders: Is the Risk Increased Compared With Their Peers?“ by Hasan Cem Aykutlu, Fatih Dereli, Bahadır Turan, Tuğba Türk Kurtça, and Onur Burak Dursun, Gifted Child Quarterly, OnlineFirst, April 3, 2024
“This study examined the prevalence and correlates of psychopathology in gifted children (GC) and explored whether giftedness confers protection or risk for mental health problems. We used a comparative design to analyze a population-based sample of 100 GC and 100 controls matched by age and sex in Turkey. We assessed psychiatric diagnoses with the Development and Well-Being Assessment (DAWBA), a valid diagnostic tool for child and adolescent mental health, and measured resilience and temperament with standardized scales. GC and controls did not differ significantly in the frequency of psychiatric disorders. However, GC showed lower resilience and higher negative reactivity and activity than controls. Negative reactivity was a significant predictor of psychopathology in GC. Sex did not moderate the effects of giftedness on mental health outcomes, resilience, or temperament. Our findings suggest that GC may have increased vulnerability to stress and reduced coping skills...”
“Voices From the Families: Strategies for and Challenges in Raising a Gifted Child,” by Denise de Souza Fleith, Daniela Vilarinho-Pereira, and Renata Muniz Prado, Journal for the Education of the Gifted, OnlineFirst, March 7, 2024.
“The purpose of this study was to investigate parenting styles and practices, strategies and resources used to develop a child’s potential, and family–school relationships. Nine families with gifted and talented students participated. The instruments used were a sociodemographic questionnaire, a parenting style scale, and a semistructured interview. The results indicated that the authoritative style was the most representative of parenting practices of this sample. The interviews generated six themes: (a) parental practices, (b) strategies and resources for student development, (c) family–school relationship, (d) challenges, (e) learning, and (f) advice. The findings suggested that parents were concerned not only with developing children’s talents but also with promoting their well-being. If schools were opposed to meeting their children’s needs, parent took their own initiative in meeting these needs. Seeking support from expert professionals in the field and other parents of gifted children was highlighted by the participants.”
WRITING WORTH READING
“Excellence with equity: The case for rethinking gifted education,” FutureEd, Peg Tyre, April 8, 2024
“Could our assumptions about who receives advanced education be wrong?” Education Next, Jonathan Plucker, Jennifer Madsen, and Paul DiPerna, April 8, 2024
“Seattle is getting rid of gifted schools in a bid to increase equity,” Reason, Emma Camp, April 4, 2024
“The gifted and talented program is flawed,” Michigan Daily, Vikki Amourgianos, April 4, 2024
“28 RCS teachers graduate Gifted Academy,” Rutherford [New Jersey] County School, April 3, 2024
“Spring Branch ISD parents raise $570K to fund programs cut in budget crisis [including a gifted program],” Houston Chronicle, Elizabeth Sander, March 28, 2024
“How can schools make sure gifted students get the help they need?“ The Conversation, Maria Nicholas, Andrew Skourdoumbis, and Ondine Bradbury, March 27, 2024
“Central High families, teacher file federal lawsuit over Arkansas LEARNS Act ‘indoctrination’ ban,” Arkansas Advocate, Antoinette Grajeda and Tess Vrbin, March 26, 2024
“12 signs of a gifted child,” Care.com, Robyn Correll, March 25, 2024
“A study has been following ‘gifted’ kids for 45 years. Here’s what we’ve learned.“ Upworthy, March 14, 2024
“Gifted students of all ages deserve enriched experiences,” Arkansas Advocate, Jadaci Henderson, March 5, 2024