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

Fre

mon

t

Lafa

yette

Buc

keye

Pal

o A

lto

Dav

is

Roc

klin

% Increase in Advanced Scorers (ELA)

0

5

10

15

20

25 mixed teaching self−contained

Figure 1: Percentage of Students Propelled into Advanced Tier between Grades 2 and 6 in 2012

Fre

mon

t

Lafa

yette

Buc

keye

Pal

o A

lto

Dav

is

Roc

klin

Jump in Statewide Rank (ELA Advanced)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140 mixed teaching self−contained

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

GATE, and Advanced

non-GATE, andAdvanced

additionalstudents

moved intoAdvanced

Grade 2STAR scores

Grade 6STAR scores

allstudents

Advanced

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.

Lafa

yette

Palo

Alto

Dav

is

% Increase in Advanced (ELA, 2003)

0

5

10

15

20self−contained self−contained

Lafa

yette

Pal

o A

lto

Dav

is

% Increase in Advanced (ELA, 2012)

0

5

10

15

20

25 mixed teaching self−contained

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