That’s the impression I get from reading Karin Chenoweth’s post about Fordham’s high-achieving students study. First she spins our findings in as positive a light as possible (after all, No Child Left Behind was Ed Trust’s baby, and this spin fits its preferred “narrative”):

While the highest performing students in the county are making steady gains, the lowest performing students are improving even faster in math and early reading. This, even though most teachers say that the amount of attention that high-performing students receive in school has stayed the same or increased…. Loveless’s analysis indicates that we may have finally figured out some things about how to ensure that students who struggle master the basics of reading and math while pushing up the performance of those who easily master the basics. He provides some deeply disturbing findings about eighth-grade reading, which I’ll get to in a minute, but fourth- and eighth-grade math and fourth-grade reading show gains at both the top and bottom of the achievement scale, with the bottom showing the most gains.

Then she gets snarky:

You would think these findings would be cause for major celebration and some well-deserved thanks to elementary school teachers and middle school math teachers who have stepped up to the plate and delivered some solid results–results that we as a nation demanded. But, perhaps because Loveless’s sober analysis of test score data was accompanied by a rather silly, pity-the-poor-little gifted-children introduction by Chester A. [sic] Finn and Michael Petrilli of the Fordham Foundation, some press accounts said the report showed a “Robin Hood effect.” This, even though Loveless explicitly rejected that idea, saying, “The concern about a Robin Hood effect, in which students at the bottom of the achievement distribution make gains at the expense of high achievers, is not substantiated by NAEP data.”

“Pity-the-poor-little gifted-children”? Is it really considered okay for an estimable civil rights group to spout such condescension toward millions of minors? Education Trust in general and Chenoweth in specific are to be lauded for performing plenty of valuable services–among them showing that low-income kids can achieve at high levels–but this is outrageous. Consider what might happen if Fordham or Cato or Heritage complained that Education Trust’s reports present a “pity-the-poor-little poor children” narrative. The Left would scream!

But you be the judge. Here’s the heart of what Checker and I wrote in our “silly” introduction to the study:

No Child Left Behind appears to be meeting its objectives: narrowing achievement gaps from the bottom up. Some may declare this to be a wonderful accomplishment: the performance of low-achieving students is rising, while those at the top aren’t losing ground. But is that outcome good enough for a great nation? If we want to compete in a global economy, don’t we need all our young people–including our highest achievers–to make steady progress too? And if so, isn’t our current approach to standards-based reform in need of a make-over?

And this:

Let’s bring some honesty to this debate. How should we define “justice” in America’s public education system? Does it mean doing everything to bring up the performance of low-achieving students, or does it mean helping all students–rich and poor, black and white, low and high achieving–equally? Count us with the teachers on this one. If the United States is to compete with the rest of the globe, and, more crassly, if No Child Left Behind is to survive politically, then no students, even those at the top, can have their needs “left behind.”

Obviously Education Trust doesn’t want our country even to have this conversation, for it raises questions about its party line that “closing the achievement gap” should be the only objective our education system worries about. Education wonks across the ideological spectrum have been genuflecting at this altar for the better part of a decade. But this conversation is coming, like it or not, because even Education Trust can’t keep a lid on it. Yes, let’s keep the progress going for low-achieving students. But let’s also pity the “poor little gifted children” who have to sit in classrooms bored all day because Ed Trust thinks getting low-income and minority kids to “proficient” is the only thing that matters. Those gifted kids are, well, kids, and their futures matter, too.

Related posts:

1. High achieving kids need options, too
2. The children left behind
3. Andy, there you go again