ACCELERATIONTheories and basis

I Introduction A. What is the basis? 1. Long standing practiceover 100 years (Otto, 1950) (Kulik & Kulik, 1984) a. This date is not totally accepted. See Boland in Sternbergs Conceptions of GiftednessSecond Editionthat we read recently. He believes that giftedness is a late 20th century construct. 2. Can be used for all gifted students even those with uneven achievement scores or who are significantly advanced in one area and not others (Colangelo and others, 2010) 3. Not enrichment a. Acceleration is progress through an educational program at rates faster or at ages younger than conventional (Pressey, 1949), (Colangelo and others, 2010) b. Enrichment i. strategies that supplement or go beyond standard gradelevel work, but do not result in advanced placement or potential credit (Davis and others, 2011)(our textbook) II. Theories A. Most gifted programs are really just enrichment. B. Boland again, One central question regarding the utility of the construct of the gifted child
concerns the efficacy of gifted programs. I believe there is little evidence that such programs are effective. Most programs for gifted students in this country take the form of part-time pull-out programs, in which students spend most of their time in regular heterogeneous classrooms that they leave for a period of time each week to meet with a special teacher and other students identified as gifted to receive some form of enrichment (Shore, Cornell, Robinson, & Ward, 1991)In other words, there is ample evidence that acceleration, as a means of differentiating the curriculum for high-ability students, does what it is intended to do: match content to the instructional needs of advanced students. Similar evidence that enrichment is an effective means of meeting goals, other than the goal of providing enrichment, is exiguous at best (Horowitz & OBrien, 1986).

C. Any program for the gifted must have some form of acceleration as a part in order to meet the needs of the child due to advanced potential. 1. Csikszentmihalyi (1988)high IQ students can handle twice as many challenging tasks as average IQ students. Quoted in (Van Tassel-Baska 1992)

2. Kulik and Kulik (1984)The grade equivalent score of a typical accelerated student would, therefore, be about 0.88 grades (nearly one grade)higher than the score of a bright, nonaccelerated student of the same age. The overall, message is unequivocal:acceleration contributes to student achievment. a. No acceleration leads to a realized, overall decline in the potential of the nonaccelerate. 3. Slavin (1986)Mixing low-ability and high-ability students together typically results in no growth for the high-ability group. 4. Gross (1989)negative impact of mixed-ability classroom a. Neihart (2007)some high-ability students may want to stay in a mixed-ability classroom in order to maintain their perceived achievement status. 5. Baker, Bridger, and Evans (1999)reported decreased motivation and disinterest in school without acceleration. 6. Gross and van Vliet (2005)research suggests that a failure to accelerate some highly gifted children can cause relationship problems lasting well into adulthood. III. Social and emotional implications A. There have been hundreds of studies on accelerations but few find any negative emotional effects. Studies do not differentiate between various forms of acceleration because there is too much uncontrolled variability in how students are selected for these options. (Neihart, 2007) 1. Richardson and Benbow (1990) found that at age 23, 3% of respondents found that acceleration had had a negative impact on their life. 2. Gagne and Gagnier (2004) found that teachers of accelerates rated 30 % of early entrants as below average on two or more dimensions of adjustment. B. Jones & Southern (1992)majority of gifted program coordinators were found to be against acceleration. Acceleration is not a routine practice despite the positive research evidence in support of it, and studies that show the detrimental effects of its non-use. C. Rogers and Kimpston (1992)minimal social and emotional effects for gradeskipping and a small negative socialization effect for credit by examination. D. Kulik and Kulik (1984)academic challenge is something the children can handle, and that studies of non-academic effects are inconclusive. E. Colangelo, and others (2010)there is no

evidence that acceleration has a negative effect on a students social-

emotional development. (emphasis mine)

Longitudinal research has shown that accelerates achieve far beyond societal baselines. 1. Neihart (2007) asserts that you cant make blanket policy since there have been cases of students not adjusting well. IV. Advocacy A. Recommended elements of acceleration policy 1. Colangelo and others in the Winter 2010 edition of Journal of Advanced AcademicsNational Work Group on Acceleration a. The policy (hereafter it) is characterized by accessibility, equity, and openness. b. It provides guidelines for the implementation of acceleration. c. It provides guidelines on administrative matters to ensure fair and systematic use of accelerative opportunities and recognition for participation in those accelerative opportunities. d. It provides guidelines for preventing nonacademic barriers to the use of acceleration as an educational intervention. e. It includes features that prevent unintended consequences 2. Neihart (2007) has an extensive and well-written paper on recommendations for best practice. a. Acceleration should be routine b. Acceleration options should be available for capable students. c. All school districts should have written policies and procedures in place for acceleration. d. Students considered for acceleration should be evaluated for their readiness. i. Iowa Acceleration Scale e. When early college entrance is an option then students should have some exposure to college before going full-time. f. Students entering K early should have some experience with school such as preschool.

g. Students who demonstrate low motivation, social withdrawal or isolation, and negative attitudes toward school or academics may be great candidates for acceleration. h. All gifted students are not good candidates for all acceleration options. 3. Referral for acceleration should be separate from referral to a gifted and talented program. (Colangelo and others, 2010). It should be individualized so that a child is matched to their best form of acceleration. a. Rogers and Kimpston (1992) b. Stanley and Benbow (1983) c. Van Tassel-Baska (1992) B. Teachers, parents and other stakeholders who are familiar with the standards from the National Association for Gifted Children are better advocates for programming that includes acceleration. a. Standard 5 speciifically, but most of the Standards address acceleration in some capacity. C. Institute for Research and Policy on Acceleration