Are you the lucky one?

How placement in the Advanced Learning Program(ALP) is reliant on the mechanics of an

arbitrary system
By Maya Jhamb

System-wide failure to identify superbly bright students:

My brother Jai Jhamb is currently a fourth grade student at North Street Elementary
School. Last year in March, my parents received a recommendation from his homeroom teacher,
nominating him to take the Math Advanced Learning Program(ALP) identification test.
Although my parents were enthusiastic about the possibility of Jai being placed in an gifted
education classroom, my preceding experience with the system left them under the impression
that the program was poorly constructed. Nevertheless, they registered my brother for the series
of exams, hopeful that he may be able to overcome the obstacles that I couldn’t.
Throughout all my elementary school years, I was never accepted into ALP. Feeling
stuck in a general education classroom was ultimately an unpleasant experience, as I was
unchallenged and bored, breezing through on-level curriculum with minimal effort. Through my
elementary school years, all my teachers easily identified my instant proficiency on taught
concepts, but their insufficient power over student placement only got me so far. The testing was
my prime struggle, in which I performed highly on cognitive aptitude tests, but failed to score
adequately on the same performance assessments for four successive years. In 5th grade, the
middle school placement testing finally landed me into all honors and ALP classes.
Incidentally, two months after Jai took the series of assessments, the results arrived in the
mail. I know that my brother is an incredibly gifted, high aptitude child, but it was no surprise
when he didn’t get accepted into the program. A brief analysis of his scores is as follows: on the
Starz and CogAT, which are two nationally acclaimed aptitude tests, he placed in the 99th
percentile. The only prohibiting factor was his appallingly low score of 12% on an
uncorroborated performance achievement assessment(created by the Board of Education). It was
most definitely not a coincidence that this test was identical to the exam I struggled with years
ago. Additionally, a child who consistently performs in the top 1 percentile of their age group IS
GIFTED. I am dumbfounded to think otherwise.
When I overcame the system at the end of elementary school, I really didn’t think much
of it. My inability to be accepted into ALP throughout elementary schools wasn’t a mystery, and
I primarily blamed it on myself. Perhaps I wasn’t smart enough, or perhaps other students
outperformed me in previous years. But now that I know my brother is going to be bored and
unchallenged for his remaining elementary school years, I realize the system is at fault, not me.
Jai and I aren’t the outliers, in fact, it's quite the opposite. We represent the majority of gifted
students who aren’t in ALP. Needless to say, it's time for change.
Gifted education: Obscure and Unstructured
Educational programs oftentimes attempt to nurture students of varying cognitive
aptitudes. Because intelligent and capable students are extremely common, the offering of a
gifted program is an excellent addition to all school systems. The custom curriculum challenges
these students in a way that simply cannot be achieved in a general education classroom.
Nevertheless, giftedness is extremely dynamic and manifests in several varying domains, such as
intellectually, creatively or artistically. Additionally, under certain circumstances, it can develop
in a specific academic field such as language arts, mathematics or science. While the prevalence
of flairs and talents in distinct areas is naturally inevitable, it increases the difficulty of creating
an identification test that will successfully recognize all these students. Nationally, there is not
one testing procedure that is consistently used nor effective. A correct method is solely
dependent on the prime objective of each unique program. Despite this complication, proper
placement is school administrations responsibility, and it is an incredible disservice to deprive
students from reaching their full potential. Incidentally, the Greenwich Public School Advanced
Learning Program is a profoundly flawed and poorly constructed system. Their implementation
of imperfect testing methods in combination with an uncorroborated approach ensures the failure
of the system. Because the parameters of gifted education are loosely defined, the inability to
design an exam that identifies all of these students is usually the fundamental flaw of any
advanced learning system, especially in the Greenwich Public School Advanced Learning
Program.

A Bright vs Gifted Child: An unnecessary distinction

According to the National Association of Gifted Children, a student “is gifted when their
ability is significantly above the norm for their age(NAGC, 2015).” This denotation is quite
simple. A high aptitude child whose performance is superior to that of their peers is considered
gifted. Yet, from this single, articulate definition, a contentious debate has emerged: Bright vs
Gifted children.
The proposition side candidly argues that students who are considered gifted will exhibit
signs that are disparate from that of a bright child. According to Education Psychologist
Christopher Taibbi, “a bright child knows the answer, while the gifted learner asks the
questions(Taibbi, 2017). This quotation implies that bright learners comprehend at a high level,
and demonstrate expedient mastery with taught concepts. Conversely, ​gifted students have
outstanding memory for certain details and make keen observations with the taught content. In
other words, while the bright student accepts and retains the content, the gifted learner will
manipulate the material to draw unique inferences​. Taibbi continues by highlighting that “a
bright child enjoys school, while the gifted learner enjoys self-directed learning(Taibbi, 2015)”.
This quotation reveals that a bright child is attentive and immersed in school, while the gifted
learner is slightly engaged but not eagerly participating. Simply, the bright learner will enjoy the
curriculum, while the gifted student will tolerate it.
Although the following discrepancies may seem significant, the opposing side will argue
that these two types of learners share two consequential commonalities that capture the objective
of any program designed for high aptitude children. Any students who excel in school,
outperform their peers, and are under challenged in a general education classroom belong in a
gifted program. The assigned label of gifted or bright is irrelevant, and oftentimes fuels the
misplacement of students in Advanced Learning Programs. According to The National
Association for Gifted Children, “many times, educators are dealing with students who are
drastically under challenged in school but because they are not considered gifted (they’re “just”
bright), they are ignored by the very system that should be their champion(NAGC, 2014).”

An unvanquishable burden: The underrepresentation of minority students in gifted

education
Although placement into a gifted program should solely be based off of high aptitude and
qualifying test results, factors including socioeconomic status and race have unrightfully
deprived belonging children from learning an advanced curriculum. In the past, racism and
discrimination concerning social class prevailed, oftentimes preventing certain groups of people
from leading an equally successful and fulfilled life. Institutionalized racism is a specific form of
discrimination that is widespread in social and political institutions. The term denotes the
inability of an organization to provide objective, appropriate, and professional services based on
unwitting prejudice towards ethnic origin, culture, and race. While this inequity has greatly
reduced, race still becomes a burden in unfortunate circumstances, especially in youth education.
According to an article published in ​January of 2016 by U.S. News & World Report,
“when high-achieving black children were taught by a black teacher, they were just as likely as
similar high-achieving white children to be assigned to a gifted program” (2018). By revealing
that an African American teacher guarantees black students an equal chance at participating in a
gifted program, it implies that teachers of other races would impede these students from rightful
inclusion. Furthermore,​ a study by Vanderbilt University published earlier this year found a stark
difference among white and black students with similar test scores: When scholars surveyed
10,000 U.S. elementary children with the same math and reading scores, they found that a
high-scoring white student was ​twice​ likely as a high-scoring black student to get assigned to a
gifted and talented program. This study effectively illustrates the unadulterated racism that
unrightfully and unreasonably excludes high aptitude black students from gifted programs.
Contrary to popular belief, minorities aren’t underrepresented because they are less intelligent,
less developed, or less capable, but because authorities who make a joke out of the entire system
are feeble-minded and unable to vanquish their prejudices.
Bernie Froese-Germain, an esteemed researcher at the Canadian Teachers' Federation
suggests that “rather than incurring the expense of developing, administering, grading, and
ranking test scores to determine which schools score the highest, a socio-economic analysis of
census data of the communities where the schools are located would provide the same
information(Froese, 2018)”. Germain mentions an interesting point when referring to the
correlation between socioeconomic status and relative performance on achievement assessments.
Because standardized tests measure acquired knowledge, low-income students who can’t afford
tutoring or inside teaching simply will not perform highly when compared to those who can.
Ultimately, minorities are underrepresented in gifted programs because of uncontrollable
differences that become disadvantages and impeding factors in the pursuit of their own
education.
The lack of minority students in the Greenwich Public Schools Advanced Learning
Program is a perennial issue that has easily excluded several worthy students. As of 2015, 86%
of the program was occupied by caucasians, in both language arts and mathematics. ​ The
remaining percentage was merely scattered amongst other races, of that including Hispanics,
Asians, African Americans, and ESL students(Greenwich District Profile). Furthermore, while
minorities account for 36.8% of the student population, they only occupy 15% of ALP
program(Greenwich District Profile). This statistic is extremely disheartening, as Greenwich is
an affluent and developed town where racial disparity shouldn’t be a burden or struggle. The
demographics are not to blame.

Achievement vs Aptitude tests: An impossible conflict

Because​ gifted students exhibit a high aptitude and cognitive threshold in dissimilar
ways, the use of either achievement or IQ tests can easily be a misguided decision. Giftedness is
an extremely dynamic attribute that manifests in several disparate domains. For instance, it can
be intellectual or creative, and is occasionally expressed through a specific academic field
included mathematics, language arts, or science. According to Tonya R. Moon, an associate
professor in the Curry School of Education at the University of Virginia, intelligent children can
be categorized into 6 types of giftedness – “the successful, the challenging, the underground, the
dropouts, the double labeled, and the autonomous learners”(Moon 2017). While these several
groups undoubtedly contain profoundly gifted students, they are all unassociated, thus creating
an incredible challenge for administration; What kind of test will accurately recognize 90+% of
gifted learners? Ultimately, there are two types of tests popularly used for gifted student
identification: intelligence and achievement tests.
Achievement tests are used to measure acquired knowledge or skill development over
time. Standardized tests are the rawest form of achievement tests, as they measure a student's
proficiency and mastery of various concepts that have precedingly been taught. Achievements
tests are usually sensible exams that are incredibly helpful in providing a representation of what
a student has learned up to date, but when used for gifted identification testing, the prime
objective is easily warped. According to the National Association of Gifted Children, “c​hildren
are gifted when their ability is significantly above the norm for their age”(NAGC, 2019). Based
on this definition, using an achievement test for discernment is fallacious. This test can easily
exclude a gifted child, and misidentify the skills of another average student. Equal exposure is a
REQUIREMENT if these arbitrary tests are ever going to provide relevant, valid and accurate
data on a child’s intellect. How can one tell if a child is exceeding the standard for there age if
they are given an assessment that doesn’t measure potential, but simply the mastery of random
concepts?
Intelligence or cognitive aptitude measure a students potential and ability to think
critically, analyze new information, problem-solve, and reason. According to the United States
Department of Education, cognitive aptitude tests are able to provide unique and significant
information about a youth students intellectual development that can’t be recognized through
superficial analysis. The tests also provide a score that denotes how the child is performing in
several different cognitive processes. However, alike to achievement assessments, cognitive
aptitudes are FAR from perfect. These tests are structured identical to that of the Intelligence
Quotients tests(IQ), and recent studies have revealed that perhaps this optimal assessment of
human intelligence is imperfect.. According to a Canadian ​study​ published online in the journal
Neuron, ​the IQ test is “fundamentally flawed,” seeing that its questions “grossly oversimplify the
abilities of the human brain(2019).” This quotation suggests that perhaps the ultimate test of
human intellect is providing an inaccurate representation of aptitude.
Within the ALP system, there are currently three testing procedures used to identify
students for their math program: ​The Star test​, a performance task, and the ​Cognitive Abilities
Test(CogAT).​
Star t​ esting is a nationally qualified computer-adaptive test that is implemented as an
identification method for the ALP program. An adaptive assessment entails that the answers
given by the test-taker are analyzed, and based on accuracy, the questions increase in difficulty
and grade level. Because the increase in difficulty raises scaled score and percentile ranking, this
assessment favors students who have been exposed to higher level concepts. Therefore,
potentially gifted students who haven’t already been placed in ALP are disadvantaged compared
to current ALP students, who are learning an enriched curriculum in Mathematics or Language
Arts. Unfortunately, this unfavorable circumstance further escalates when teacher
recommendations are virtually 100% dependent on the child's scaled score. Higher learning
aptitude does not necessarily mean that a student can figure out concepts that have not been
taught to them.
The second exam used in the identification process for ALP is entitled the CogAT. This
“multiple-choice K-12 assessment measures reasoning skills with different types of verbal,
quantitative, and nonverbal questions”(Lohman,2013).” The cogAT is fundamentally an aptitude
test, as it measures a students ability to think both critically and logically under a significantly
pressing time limit. Scores are usually an accurate representation of a students cognitive
threshold/potential, and this exam is used nationwide for entry into gifted and talented programs.
The third and final assessment used for ALP identification is a homemade performance
task. Unlike the Star and CogAT exams, which are both used nationwide, this test is completely
uncorroborated, as there is absolutely no evidence that proves it has done an effective job in
recognizing higher aptitude students. After administering an exam with three exact questions
that appeared on a fourth grade ALP performance task, I found that ​the average score was 6.5%,
which is a stunningly low score, especially when the assessment is designed for students that
are learning 6 grade levels below us. Fundamentally, this means that 1 in every 7 students
answered one question correctly. Furthermore, 37% of all students in Geometry were not
former Math ALP students. This means that 37% of students who were deemed average by the
system, were eventually able to take an honors math course. Of the bottom 20% of the class, in
which said individuals received a grade of 85 or below, 5 of out 6 were previously in ALP. We
have done the most research on behalf of this system, and our findings are unacceptable.

Student struggle with misplacement: Unnecessary and unacceptable

Although gifted education programs nurture students of varying cognitive aptitudes, the
misplacement of certain belonging students ultimately plays a harmful role in one’s mental
health and development. When imperfect testing methods are implemented, the chances of
misidentification increase, which increases the likelihood that students will be wrongfully
excluded or included in these programs. When less capable students are mistakenly placed into a
gifted education program, unnecessary stress is placed on the youth students, “on a scale of 1-10
and 10 being the highest stress level, around a 9 ( Dellinger, 2018)”. Experiencing extreme
anxiety is harmful, and will eventually lead to a great, rapid decline of mental health. This quote
truly illustrates the hardships for students who have been failed by the mechanics of an arbitrary
system.
On the contrary, extremely intellectual and competent students may not be given the
opportunity to excel. Gifted students who are under challenged in a general education classroom
are “usually bored and unengaged in school, and ​tend to be highly critical of their teachers, who
they feel know less than they do(Dweck, 2018)”. Additionally, according to Becky Bracken, the
mischief and constant disruption caused by certain students is a potential indicator of giftedness.
Unfortunately, flawed testing methods will always fail certain children, which will inflict
unnecessary burdens on these students.
Incidentally, the offering of gifted education programs for youth students will frequently
undermine the values of tenacity and motivation. According to Tonya R. Moon, children need to
learn that hard work is more important than being born with a high IQ. Placing them into a gifted
program sends the opposite message”(Moon,2017). When the ALP system misidentifies the
ability of certain students, the emotional stress on these students automatically impedes them
from reaching their full potential. Overall, it is an incredible disservice to perpetually leave a
child misplaced and helpless in the incorrect classroom.

The journey to ending this defective, dramatically flawed program

It is of my concern that the current testing procedures for the Greenwich Public Schools
Advanced Learning Program(ALP) may be poorly constructed and therefore causing less than
optimal results. This substandard approach could potentially result in a system level failure to
identify higher aptitude students and cause inefficiency/underperformance and suffering as
students are not necessarily being placed according to their abilities. The ideal goal is to
convince Bonnie O’Regan, the ALP Facilitator, to alter the current identification methods in
order to reduce the chance of misplacement for potentially high aptitude children.
Because the structure of ALP is wrongfully designed to exclude high aptitude students,
confronting the initiator is the prime objective. The program facilitator and Board of Education
are ultimately responsible for the fundamental flaws of the system. The incorrect testing methods
and unproved effectiveness of their approach increases the chances of misplacement of their
student body. A reasonable way to prompt change for ALP is to collect data that will accurately
expose its defects. It is my intention to track the performance of former ALP students at
Greenwich High School/Central Middle School, and compare it to that of Non-ALP students in
these same settings. I am nearly certain that a significant number of students who were not
placed in ALP as elementary school students will be academically exceeding their peers who
were. In June of 2019, after this vast collection of data, I would present the newfounded
information at a Board of Education Meeting, while simultaneously proposing a revised version
of the system. The Board of Education is unaware that the system is unsuccessful because they
have neglected to thoroughly test it. The current system is actually a rough draft of what a
successful gifted education program should be. The statistics and data will indicate that the
current system is not optimal. I am hopeful they will attempt to alter the procedures currently
put in place. It is of incredible importance to change these identification methods. Not only did
my my experience with the program leave me feeling helpless and under-challenged in a general
education classroom, but in later years, jumping from 5th to 8th grade math left me with large
knowledge gaps. I am determined to prevent this possibility for posterity. When an alteration in
current testing methods is identified, my supreme goal will be achieved.
Accomplishing such change certainly won’t be easy, and it is quite possible that I will
encounter several obstacles during my pursuit of system-level change in ALP. My plan is heavily
reliant on data and statistics, which may not be as revealing as I presume. While this is the
worse-case scenario, a solution would be to conduct different investigations that will identify and
improve different aspects of the program. If my primary goal can’t be achieved, at the very least,
my action plan would prompt the Board of Education to reevaluate the primary objective of the
system; proper placement for every child.
During the Capstone Research Process, I achieved several components of the Vision of
the Graduate. When creating numerous research questions to guide my note-taking and analysis,
I posed and pursued substantive questions. Additionally, I was able to​ critically interpret,
evaluate, and synthesize information when I was able to associate statistics about nationwide
gifted programs to that of the ALP program. Furthermore, I have created an innovative idea
through my proposed action plan that will ideally eradicate the ALP systems defects. Besides
this, I have unequivocally mastered a core body of knowledge through my extensive research
about the successful attributes of gifted education programs. Because my topic is uniform to two
other of my classmates, we have shared our discoveries, and resolved each others confusions,
thus achieving collaboration with others in order to produce unified work and/or heightened
understanding. Throughout the entire process thus far, I have chosen a topic that I am extremely
passionate about, and that has a large-scale effect on members of my community.

ALP: A cry for help and demand for change

While the unstructured parameters of gifted education is supposed to enable
personalization for varying programs, the end result is usually a fundamentally flawed system
that misidentifies the abilities of certain students, especially in the Greenwich Public School
Advanced Learning Program. Underrepresentation of minority students is a widespread issue that
is present in all gifted education classrooms nationwide. In the Greenwich Public Schools
Advanced Learning Program, 86% of the students are caucasian, while the remaining percentage
is unevenly distributed amongst other races which include Hispanics, Asians, African
Americans, and ESL students. While minority students occupy 36.8% of the Greenwich
population, only 15% are included in the program. Socio-economic status, race, and ethnic origin
should not be depriving students of an apt education, yet the defects of identification testing
methods suggests otherwise. Scores on cognitive aptitude tests and achievement tests are
commonly used to assess a child's chances of acceptance into a gifted program, but the
credibility of these tests have lately been questioned. Achievement tests measure acquired
knowledge rather than a students potential, which isn’t suggestive of high aptitude, but
proficiency of arbitrary concepts. Additionally, cognitive aptitude tests may not provide an
accurate representation of a students overall intelligence, which can easily prohibit a gifted child
from entering this program. The Greenwich Public School ALP system is designed imperfectly,
which leads to the unrightful exclusion of a majority of gifted students. The significance of Stars
scores is extremely unfair as the assessment is structured to favor children who have been
exposed to high level concepts. Additionally, the performance tasks are designed to identify high
aptitude students, yet missing out on even one child is an incredible disservice and unfortunately,
Jai and I aren’t the only ones. ALP is defective, and the fact that the system has gravely
misidentified the abilities of certain students is a cry for help, and demand for change.
 Work cited :

Fields, Matthew Mugo. "Gifted and Talented Programs Dumb down Our Students." ​Time,​
6 Feb. 2025, time.com/3698686/gifted-and-talented/. Accessed 14 Mar. 2019.
Greenwich Public Schools.​ 2 Feb. 2017,
www.boarddocs.com/ct/greenwich/Board.nsf/files/AJKMGL5B3200/$file/E-001%20
Advanced%20Learning%20Program%20MR%20with%20Addendum%20and%20CS
%20022317.pdf. Accessed 6 Mar. 2019.
Howell, Anna. "The Stress of AP Classes." ​Wildcat Scratch Post,​ 24 Apr. 2017,
wjstudentmedia.com/stress-ap-classes/. Accessed 15 Mar. 2019.
Morin, Amanda. “What are Achievement Tests.” Thought.co, 18 Feb. 2019,
https://www.thoughtco.com/achievement-tests-620810​. Accessed 8 Mar. 2019.
New York Times Room for Debate.​ New York Times Company, 4 July 2010,
roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/04/the-pitfalls-in-identifying-a-gifted-chil
d/. Accessed 5 Mar. 2019.
The Washington Post​. Washington Post, 20 Mar. 2013,
www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2013/03/20/do-schools-for-the-gift
ed-promote-segregation/?utm_term=.daf55331b771. Accessed 8 Mar. 2019.