In the 1960s, Canadian psychologist Keith Stanovich put forth an interesting theory. Stanovich was looking at kids who have a slow educational start, and found that when schoolchildren who start poorly for whatever reason perform even worse over the years.

It seems to make sense. After all, education builds on itself. Children who are less able to use basic educational tools will struggle to use the more advanced tools. Conversely, higher-achieving students will gain even more advantages over the years. Essentially, it’s a snowball effect that goes both ways. Or as Stanovich put it, quoting the Bible’s Book of Matthew: “For whoever has will be given more, and they will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what they have will be taken from them”.

The Matthew effect, as this came to be known, seems to make sense. Observational data seemed to confirm it too. It’s not only present in education, either — experiments have shown consumer activity follows the apparent popularity of different products. But there could be more to the effect than meets the eye. At the very least, a new study from Sally Larsen, Lecturer, at the University of New England, seems to suggest that it’s nowhere near universal.

The poor get richer

Larsen focused on schoolchildren in Australia. Australia offers a very good ground for this type of research because of the way its educational system is structured. Specifically, kids in Australia take a yearly test that tracks their progress over time. By comparing these results over time, you can see how kids are faring and whether the disparities are widening or not.

“This is rare internationally, and very powerful for answering questions about development,” Larsen writes in an article on The Conversation, describing her work.

The research compared results from almost 90,000 students in the state of New South Wales and just under 66,000 students from the state of Victoria. Overall, the researchers found no evidence of the Matthew effect in either reading or numeracy amongst all the studied students. Instead of widening gaps, they found the reverse pattern, called “compensatory growth”.

Essentially, students with below-average NAPLAN results were making more progress from Year 3 to Year 9 compared with students starting above average. This compensation was seen in both reading and numeracy, but was particularly strong in reading.

So what’s going on? Are parents doubling down on education, are they booking chemistry tutors for their struggling children, or is another mechanism at play? The answer is a bit of all of the above, but most significantly, it’s the teachers.

“There is a popular perception teachers are not effectively teaching students basic skills. But our research suggests students who begin with poorer literacy and numeracy skills are supported by classroom teachers and do make progress over time,” explains Larsen.

This fits with earlier findings that also contradicted the Matthew effect (at least in some cases). A 2014 meta-analysis examined almost 426,000 students from the US, Canada, and several European countries, finding evidence of Matthew effects in only a quarter of all samples.

This is encouraging news as it shows that struggling students can indeed catch up.

“Our finding that struggling students can make good progress over time rather than falling further behind should be a cause for optimism among educators and the community.”

But there’s another way of looking at this: high-achieving students aren’t growing up to their potential. It’s unclear whether the two aspects have a common root (ie teachers paying more attention to students who are struggling).

However, the researchers highlight that while both NSW and Victoria have clear policies and resources for teaching high-ability students, it can be difficult for teachers to focus on high achievers when too many students are struggling.

Ultimately, though, more research is required to figure out exactly how struggling students can recover best, while not sparing any effort for high-achieving students as well.

“Perhaps the progress of high-ability students is not a high priority for schools once these students have attained the basic skills expected of their age group. Further research in Australian schools is needed to identify the reasons for underachievement relative to the potential for high-ability students,” the researcher concludes.

The results are also site-specific. In other words, what’s happening for children in Australia may not be representative for children in other countries. This is why more local studies and interventions need to be tailored — in education, the “one size fits all” doesn’t really work.