Learning with 'stronger peers' yields no boost

December 11, 2013
Students don't necessarily perform better just because they're surrounded by higher-achieving classmates, finds a study co-authored by Scott Imberman of Michigan State University. Credit: Michigan State University

A new study contradicts the popular theory that students perform better when surrounded by higher achieving classmates.

Michigan State University's Scott Imberman and colleagues found that marginal in a middle school gifted and talented program – despite learning alongside the "best and brightest" – performed no better on national tests than a similar group of students who didn't qualify for the program.

"This paper is part of a growing body of literature suggesting that just because you have stronger peers doesn't necessarily mean you are going to perform better," said Imberman, associate professor of economics and education.

Gifted and talented programs have grown in popularity, with more than 3 million students now enrolled nationwide. The study, in the American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, provides an important first step in understanding the effects of gifted and talented programs on students.

Using a sample of more than 14,000 fifth-graders in an urban school district, Imberman, Sa Bui of Cornell University and Steven Craig of the University of Houston analyzed the students' in math, science, reading, social studies and language arts.

The study targeted a group of students who qualified for a gifted and talented program by barely meeting a certain threshold based on past academic performance. Their test scores were compared to the students who just missed meeting the threshold – in other words, students who were very similar academically.

Imberman said the marginal students in the gifted and talented program showed no improvement in test scores over the non-qualifying students in any of the five subjects.

The study also looked at gifted and talented students who were picked in a lottery for a "magnet" program, which emphasizes a more intensive, specialized curriculum. The researchers compared of the magnet students who won the lottery to the gifted and talented students who lost the lottery and found no significant difference in four of the five subjects: math, reading, social studies and language arts. The magnet students did show improvement in science.

Explore further: New study reveals: Gifted children shape their personalities according to social stigma

Related Stories

Bilingual education has spillover effect

September 10, 2013

Bilingual education programs have a substantial spillover effect on the students they're not designed for, according to a groundbreaking study co-authored by a Michigan State University scholar.

Recommended for you

The hand and foot of Homo naledi

October 6, 2015

The second set of papers related to the remarkable discovery of Homo naledi, a new species of human relative, have been published in scientific journal, Nature Communications, on Tuesday, 6 October 2015.

Who you gonna trust? How power affects our faith in others

October 6, 2015

One of the ongoing themes of the current presidential campaign is that Americans are becoming increasingly distrustful of those who walk the corridors of power – Exhibit A being the Republican presidential primary, in which ...

The dark side of Nobel prizewinning research

October 4, 2015

Think of the Nobel prizes and you think of groundbreaking research bettering mankind, but the awards have also honoured some quite unhumanitarian inventions such as chemical weapons, DDT and lobotomies.

How much for that Nobel prize in the window?

October 3, 2015

No need to make peace in the Middle East, resolve one of science's great mysteries or pen a masterpiece: the easiest way to get yourself a Nobel prize may be to buy one.


Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.