Shared benefits/concerns of all acceleration
options:
pros:
•
Inexpensive; cost-effective (Davidson 141), with potential savings for a
school district. "Most accelerative programs are well- documented for
effectiveness and cost." (Southern and Jones 11)
• Students
are less likely to be bored with school.
• Accelerated students are more likely to
earn advanced degrees than
equally gifted students who don’t accelerate.
(Kulik 21)
• No evidence to
support the notion of negative social and emotional consequences of acceleration
for talented students as a whole (Johns Hopkins)
•
Accelerative options may provide a better personal maturity match with
peers than do non-accelerated programs (Robinson 61)
•
"Acceleration is the most effective curriculum intervention for
gifted
children." (Colangelo et al. 1: 2)
cons:
• Educators in
most schools are unfamiliar with the research evidence on the benefits of
acceleration. "Many educators
have been largely negative about the practice of acceleration, despite abundant
research evidence for its success and viability." (Colangelo et al. 1: 2)
• Organizations
that train educators rarely prepare teachers and administrators to make decisions about
acceleration.
• Acceleration
should not be viewed as a stand-alone option; highly gifted children usually need some form of
ability grouping as well. (Gross)
1)
Early Admission to
Kindergarten/First Grade:
Students enter kindergarten or first grade
prior to achieving the
minimum age for school entry as set by
district or state policy.
pros:
•
Least disruptive in terms of friendships and curriculum (Colangelo 62)
•
Provides an appropriate degree of challenge for children who may be gifted,
but
who are not yet advanced readers (Colangelo et al. 2: 62)
• Students are
less likely to learn bad habits (“I never have to
work hard because everything is so easy for me”)
that may lead to underachievement in the future
• Almost all students who are carefully
selected perform very well, both
academically and
socially.
cons:
• Requires a
decision to be made when a child is still quite young (Colangelo et al. 1: 17)
• Best candidate
for early entrance has had experience in a preschool program
· Asynchronous
development
ex.: an early entrant may not have the
small-motor coordination of older classmates (Assouline)
2)
Grade-Skipping:
grade-level placement ahead of chronological
age peers.
pros:
• Studies show that grade skipping does
not lead to long-term
gaps in knowledge.
• When done correctly, the student who
grade-skips will likely
still be among the very best students in the
new, advanced grade. (Colangelo et al. 1: 21)
• Contrary to
popular belief, bright students are typically
happier with older students who share their
interests.
cons:
•
“Big-Fish-Little-Pond” effect, though this appears to be small and temporary
(Colangelo et al. 2: 21), and
perhaps healthy for the “often out-sized egos of highly talented students.”
(Thornburg)
3)
Subject Acceleration:
Student is placed in classes with older peers
for a part of the day in
one or more content areas.
pros:
• Similar to
benefits of grade skipping, though targets specific content areas
• Effective for
bright students who do not excel, or have an interest in, all
academic areas
• Flexible,
allowing easily for “trial periods” without much academic or
social disruption (Robinson 65)
cons:
• Similar to cons of grade skipping
• Schools often limit subject areas to be
considered for accelerative
practices - namely, math. (VanTassel-Baska)
Based
on two studies which statistically analyzed literature reviews on grouping, the
following conclusions regarding ability grouping were drawn:
·
Higher aptitude
students benefit from ability grouping.
·
Achievement is
greater when the curriculum has been adjusted to the ability of
the group.
·
Classes that entail
acceleration typically show the greatest academic gain.
·
"Ability
grouping...is shown to be effective only when the curriculum is
accelerated."
(Colangelo et al. 1: 21)
·
"Grouping may
benefit less able youth by providing some relief from the
intellectual dominance of the gifted
(Feldhusen and Kennedy, 1989;
Feldhusen and Sayler, 1990)."
(Feldhusen 2)
·
"Grouping provides a milieu...in which gifted or highly able
youth can
experience
instruction with peers...who will not ridicule or ostracize them for
their...intellectual
enthusiasm (Feldhusen, 1898a)."
(Feldhusen 2)
·
Grouping has less impact on the schoolwork of middle to lower
aptitude students (particularly in xyz grouping). Cross-grade and
within-class programs do raise test scores of these students (potentially due
to the curriculum adjustment that occurs in these classes).
1)
XYZ
classes
Children in a given grade are divided into
groups (high, middle, low), based on ability in a given subject. Similar
curricula are used for each group. (Kulik, "Analysis") For example, at Sacandaga Elementary
School, children in a grade 4 are typically divided into three reading groups
(high, middle, low). Sometimes,
there may only be two groups, while other times, there may be more.
pros:
·
Many times, a higher adult/student ratio is possible for lower
group.
·
Enrichment activities are possible with the high group.
·
Students are taught at their "comfort level".
cons:
·
Must be careful that ethnic minorities and economically
disadvantaged are not over-represented in the low group
·
Differences in moral of teachers assigned to different levels
(Rogers)
·
Teacher expectations may vary across the groups.
Ex:
a teacher may expect more from the high group, and therefore cover more
material in a given school year.
·
Little or no curriculum modification (Kulik, "Analysis")
2)
Within-class
grouping:
"A teacher forms ability groups within a
single (heterogeneous) classroom and provides each group with instruction
appropriate to its level of aptitude. The teacher usually uses different
rates of instruction and different instructional materials for the within-class
groups." (Kulik, "Analysis")
pros:
·
Meets student needs
·
Moderate amount of curriculum adjustment
·
Achievement gains of 2-3 months in grade scale. (Kulik,
"Analysis")
cons:
·
Teacher preparation time
3)
Enrichment
(pull out):
Students are pulled out of their regular
classroom for a specified amount of time each week. They receive a richer, more varied educational experience
than would be available to them in regular classes. (Kulik,
"Analysis") May
target children of high academic ability. Examples of pull out enrichment include Young
Scholars, Scotia Scholars, and our AEP class. Selection criteria may change depending on the
students targeted. Enrichment is
at times based on interests of students, but always should be topics that are
not covered in the classroom.
pros:
·
Opportunity for children to work at their academic skill level
·
Students are challenged
·
Qualified teacher
·
Depth and richness of curriculum
·
Achievement gains of about 4 months in grade scale (Kulik,
"Analysis")
cons:
·
If a pull out program, students miss regular class time/work.
·
Scheduling difficulties
·
Depending on the scope of enrichment, specific resources (i.e. an
enrichment
teacher) may be
required.
·
Does not address all of the needs of a high ability learner
4) Cluster
grouping within heterogeneous classrooms:
The top 5-8 gifted learners at a grade level
are placed within a regular class. The remainder of the students includes
a normal distribution of academic ability. Teacher has some training
in working with gifted students. (Rogers)
pros:
·
With a higher percentage of high ability students in
classroom, easier for
teacher to spend more instructional time
and curriculum development time on this group
·
Research supports a significant academic gain for these
students. (Rogers)
·
Scheduling becomes easier.
cons:
·
Perception of elitism in a given classroom
·
Potential pressure from parents to have their children placed in
the cluster
group, even if they are
not in the cluster (Winebrenner)
5. Cross-Grade
Grouping (reading, math):
Students are grouped between two or more
grade levels based on ability for these subjects (ex: In an elementary, all students have math at the same
time. Students in the building are
grouped based on their knowledge/skill – rather than on their grade level. A 1st grader may be in a 3rd
grade math class, a 5th grader may be in a 4th grade
reading class, etc.).
pros:
·
Students can work to next grade level or go at a slower pace if
necessary.
·
Moderate amount of curriculum adjustment
·
Achievement gains of 2-3 months in grade scale. (Kulik, "Analysis")
cons:
·
Difficult to schedule
OTHER
OPTIONS:
1. Curriculum
Compacting:
Modifying or "streamlining" the
regular curriculum in order to eliminate repetition of previously mastered
material, upgrade the challenge level of the regular curriculum, and provide
time for appropriate enrichment and/or acceleration activities while ensuring
mastery of basic skills. (Davis 173)
pros:
·
Challenging learning environment
·
Guarantees proficiency in basic curriculum
·
Buys time for enrichment and acceleration
cons:
·
With new emphasis on accountability, requires confidence that the
child has really mastered the curriculum.
2. Grade
Telescoping:
Overlapping content and skills from one grade
to another. This reduces the amount of time to cover curriculum. For example, a student completes high
school in three years instead of four (Davis 130)
pros:
·
Student learns at her/his own pace.
cons:
·
If student "caps out", there would need to be program to
follow in higher grades.
3. Differentiated
Instruction:
Instruction is based on individual needs and
learning styles of student. The curriculum is modified to meet the needs
of individual students. This usually takes place within the
classroom. (Davis 187)
pros:
·
Students work at their own pace and no hold backs of being lost in
instruction.
·
Student Centered.
Requires intimate knowledge of student learning styles, interests and
capabilities.
cons:
·
Extensive time required for teacher to develop
portfolios/curriculum for individual students
·
Requires teacher training and perhaps a change in teacher focus
and teaching style
·
"A differentiated curriculum in a mixed ability
classroom...is not likely to serve the (needs of the) students or the
teacher." (Davidson, Newsletter)
·
"'As Joyce Van Tassel-Baska, one of the leading experts on
differentiation notes, 'Without grouping in some form, differentiated
curriculum is difficult if not impossible to accomplish'. The more homogeneous the composition of
the classroom, the more successful differentiation is likely to be."
(Davidson, Newsletter)
4. Cooperative
Learning:
Students in a classroom are grouped
heterogeneously, for the purpose of working together on an assigned task or
project. (Davis 14)
pros:
·
Students learn to work together and take on different roles.
·
If students who participate in an enrichment group (i.e. Young
Scholars), are sub-grouped for specific project, cooperative learning
experiences can be powerful.
cons:
·
The bright and/or motivated students may do most of the assigned
tasks.
·
Bright students can end up “teaching”, to the detriment of their
own education.
·
Requires teacher training and careful consideration of student
placement in groups to work successfully
·
Research has not shown this option to enhance learning for gifted
students. (Holloway)
5. Non-graded
classes:
Students are together based on
interests. There may or may not be an identification process. These
classes can take place after school, on weekends or over holiday or summer
breaks. If they are geared toward solving a real world problem, they are
generally called enrichment clusters (ex:
Students may work together to create books for a pediatric ward at a
hospital) If they are geared toward students' hobbies (ex: chess club,
“Fabulous Fridays” at Sacandaga Elementary), they are not enrichment clusters.
pros:
·
Many students can participate based on their interest in a topic.
·
Teacher is often an expert in a particular field
cons:
·
May be
difficult to find someone to teach these classes, since teacher is typically a
volunteer.
Assouline, et al.
Colangelo. 77-86.
Colangelo,
N., Assouline, S., & Gross, M., eds.
A Nation Deceived: How
Schools Hold
Back America's Brightest Students. 2 volumes. Iowa City, IW: The University of
Iowa, 2004.
Davidson,
Jan and Bob. Genius Denied. New York: Simon and Schuster, 2004.
Davidson,
Jan and Bob. Genius Denied
Newsletter. May 2005. The Davidson Institute.
October 2005
<news.ditd.org/GDeNewsletter/May2005/May2005.htm>.
Davis,
Gary A. and Rimm, Sylvia B. Education
of the Gifted and Talented.
Boston, MA:
Pearson Education, Inc., 2004.
Feldhusen,
John F. "Gifted Students Must
Have Time Together in Learning
Activities at Their Level and Pace." IMAGES. Winter 1991. 2-13.
Gross, Miraca U.M.
Colangelo. 87-96.
Holloway, John H. “Grouping Gifted Students". October 2003. Educational Leadership
Vol. 61 Issue 2. July 2005 <web27.epnet.com>
Kulik, James A.
Colangelo. 21.
Kulik,
James. "An Analysis of the
Research on Ability Grouping".
Spring 1993. The
National Research
Center on the Gifted and Talented Newsletter. Fall 2005
<www.gifted.uconn.edu/nrcgt/newsletter/spring93/sprng935.html>.
Robinson, Nancy A.
Colangelo. 61-2.
Rogers, K. "Grouping the gifted and
talented: Questions and Answers". Roeper
Review. September 1993 vol.16, No. 1.
Southern, W. Thomas and Eric D. Jones. Colangelo. 11.
Thornburg,
John Cloud. (2004, Sept. 27). Saving the Smart Kids. Time, 56-61.
Winebrenner, Susan and
Devlin, Barbara. "Cluster
Grouping of Gifted Students: How to
Provide Full-time Service on Existing
Budgets" ERIC Digest. The Council for
Exceptional Children. Fall 2005 <www.ericec.org/digests/e607.html>.
"What
We Know About Academically Talented Students: A Sample of Our Findings."
January 2004. Johns Hopkins University Center for
Talented Youth. Fall 2005
<http://cty.jhu.edu/research/whatweknow.html>.
Works Consulted
Berger,
Sandra L. "Differentiating
Curriculum for Gifted Students."
ERIC Digest. The
Council for Exceptional Children. December 1991.
Rogers,
K. "Grouping the gifted and
talented: Questions and
answers." Roeper
Review 16.1. September 1993.
Strip,
Carol A., Ph.D. Helping Gifted
Children Soar. Scottsdale,
AZ: Great Potential
Press, Inc., 2000
Tomlinson,
Carol Ann. "Differentiating Instruction for Advanced Learners in the
Mixed-
Ability Middle School
Classroom" October 1995.
ERIC Digest. The Council for
Exceptional Children. Fall 2005 <www.hoagiesgifted.org/eric/e536.html>.
VanTassel-Baska,
Joyce, Ed.D. "Basic
Educational Options for Gifted Students in
Schools."
College of William and Mary.
July 2005
<www.cfge.wm.edu/documents/Basic_Educational_Options.htm>