Issues – Acceleration

Acceleration vs Differentiation

Acceleration is distinct from differentiation, but the two terms are often used interchangeably. Acceleration is one way to differentiate instruction, but the La Canada Unified School District (LCUSD) prohibits teaching more advanced material when differentiating instruction in the elementary grades.

Differentiation is based on the premise that every child in a classroom is unique, and may be at a different level of understanding or readiness to learn a new topic. Ideally each child should learn at the level appropriate to his or her level of understanding and readiness. Differentiated instruction involves tailoring lessons or instructional strategies to meet the individual needs of each student.

Acceleration, on the other hand, is “progress through an educational program at rates faster or at ages younger than conventional.” (Pressey, 1949).

How Does LCUSD Differentiate?

LCUSD’s mission statement is “We are a learning community committed to personal growth and academic excellence.” The district is also committed to differentiation for all of its students:

The district believes all students deserve an education that challenges them to meet their full potential. As such, the district is committed to differentiating the core curriculum for all students during the regular school day.

[Source: LCUSD GATE Master Plan, June 2008. ]

At the same time, it prohibits teaching more advanced material to students in the same heterogeneous classroom in the elementary grades. How to reconcile this apparent contradiction? The answer lies in the different ways to differentiate. The three general approaches to differentiating instruction according to expert Carol Ann Tomlinson are content, process and products (see, for example Tomlinson’s The Differentiated Classroom: Responding to the Needs of All Learners (1999) summarized by the ASCD here.) District teachers are told to teach the same topics to different learners with varying depths of understanding. “Go deeper!” is an oft-heard exhortation. Recognizing the commitment to differentiation embraced by almost all school districts, most textbook curricula offer at least three levels of differentiation built in for every lesson plan, one of “extra practice” for students on target but who want extra practice, “re-teach” targeted at students who have difficulty understanding the lesson, and “enrichment” targeted at students who need more challenge. In this context, enrichment means teaching the same topic at a greater depth of understanding.

While the standard curricula like Everyday Mathematics and Math In Focus provide teachers ready-made differentiation options in the daily lesson plan, the results in the classroom are uneven at best. Some teachers ignore the differentiated materials and teach the same lesson to all children. Others differentiate beyond what the curriculum prescribes and provide even more differentiated materials, pulling supplemental materials from other sources. But no teacher, at least officially condoned, provides accelerated materials due to the policy prohibiting acceleration as an acceptable form of differentiation.  In the “Elementary Math Parent Survey” conducted by La Canada Math Parents in May 2017 (click here for an overview of the survey and its results), 71% of parents reported that their child either did not receive differentiated instruction in mathematics in their K-6 classroom, or they were unaware of it. In response, some LCUSD teachers insist that they do differentiate, but parents are merely unaware of it.

Regardless of how it it implemented across the district, it is widely acknowledged that differentiation in the classroom is a difficult if not impossible challenge. At best, teachers can simultaneously manage differentiation of three groups, not 20 to 30 tailored to each student’s unique need.

Why Prohibit Acceleration?

Upon first glance, the prohibition against acceleration as an acceptable form of differentiation would seem at odds with the recommendations of larger, more scholarly bodies. For example, the 2008 National Mathematics Advisory Panel recommended just the opposite:

“The studies reviewed provided some support for the value of differentiating the mathematics curriculum for students with sufficient motivation, especially when acceleration is a component (i.e., pace and level of instruction are adjusted).”

The National Association of Gifted Children’s (NAGC) strongly supports acceleration as an instructional practice:

“Educational acceleration is one of the cornerstones of exemplary gifted education practices, with more research supporting this intervention than any other in the literature on gifted individuals. The practice of educational acceleration has long been used to match high level student general ability and specific talent with optimal learning opportunities.”

[Source: http://www.nagc.org/about-nagc/nagc-position-statements-white-papers. A longer white paper expounding on this position statement is located here. ]

Indeed, as discussed on the LCMP page Issues – Homogeneous vs Heterogeneous Grouping, the summary of research on the efficacy of homogeneous grouping for mathematics instruction found that “Assigning students to separate classes by ability and providing them with the same curriculum has no effect on achievement. When the curriculum is altered, tracking appears to benefit high ability students.” (Loveless, 1998) Thus homogeneous grouping without acceleration will likely not improve achievement.

So why the prohibition on acceleration of mathematics instruction?

On page 829 of Appendix D of the California Mathematics Framework (2013), the following dire warning appears:

Decisions to accelerate students into the Common Core State Standards for higher mathematics before ninth grade should not be rushed. Premature placement of students into an accelerated pathway should be avoided at all costs. In order to ensure that students are developmentally ready for accelerated content, it is not recommended to compact the standards before grade seven.

The justification for this strong language is not given, nor is any research cited. However, the proscription against acceleration before high school is widely supported by curriculum directors and educators in public schools throughout California public schools. Even more extreme, opponents assert that acceleration in mathematics is potentially dangerous to children since it is “developmentally inappropriate.” Opponents worry about the social-emotional well being of children accelerated too fast in mathematics.

Other objections to acceleration include:

  1. Teachers lack familiarity with acceleration.
  2. Confidence about acceleration as a practice is not high.
  3. Acceleration runs counter to personal beliefs.
  4. Age trumps everything else.
  5. Safe is better than sorry (i.e. given the lack of confidence on the efficacy of acceleration, it is a safer option not to accelerate.)
  6. Acceleration is not taught in colleges of Education.
  7. It’s bad to push kids.
  8. New friends are hard to make.
  9. Individual kids are less important than equal opportunity for all.
  10. It will upset other kids.
  11. There will be gaps in the child’s knowledge.
  12. Disasters are memorable.

[Source: Colangelo, N., Assouline, S., & Gross, M. U. M., A Nation Deceived: How Schools Hold Back America’s Brightest Students (2004), Iowa City: University of Iowa, Connie Belin & Jacqueline N. Blank International Center for Gifted Education and Talent Development. Summarized here. ]

What Does the Research Show?

In spite of many educators lack of familiarity with research on acceleration, it is one of the most thoroughly researched instructional practices. Summaries from the research include:

  • No other arrangement for gifted children works as well as acceleration.
  • Acceleration is far more effective in raising student achievement than the most successful school reform models.
  • A review of 380 studies revealed that almost all forms of acceleration result in growth in achievement.
  • Acceleration is a virtually cost-free intervention.
  • When advanced students are presented with curriculum developed for age-peers, they can become bored and unhappy and get turned off from learning.
  • Testing, especially above-level testing (using tests developed for older students), is highly effective in identifying students who would benefit from acceleration.
  • The 18 types of acceleration available to bright students fall into two broad categories: grade-based acceleration, which shortens the number of years a student spends in the K-12 system, and subject-based acceleration, which allows for advanced content earlier than customary.
  • The Iowa Acceleration Scale (IAS) is a proven and effective instrument for helping schools make decisions about grade acceleration.
  • Intellectually precocious students who experience educational acceleration in middle and high school view their pre-college education experiences much more positively than their non-accelerated intellectual peers.
  • Accelerated students are more likely than non-accelerants to aspire to advanced educational degrees.
  • For many gifted students, acceleration provides a better personal maturity match with their peers than do non-accelerated programs.
  • There are no deleterious social-emotional effects of acceleration.
  • There is no indication of social or emotional maladjustment arising from well-planned programs of radical acceleration.
  • Research on early entrance to college has shown extensive evidence of short-term academic success, long-term occupational success, and few social and emotional difficulties.
  • It is important for parents to be fully involved in the decision-making process about their child’s acceleration.
  • For developing world-class scientific leaders, accelerative experiences appear to be critical.

[Source: Research highlights from Templeton National Acceleration Report – A Nation Deceived: How Schools Hold Back America’s Brightest Students. ]

Select studies and a summary of their findings are below:

  • Rogers, Karen B., “The Academic, Socialization, and Psychological Effects of Acceleration: Research Synthesis”, Chapter 2 in Assouline, Colangelo, VanTassel-Baska, and Lupkowski-Shoplik (2015), University of Iowa Press.

ABSTRACT: In the last decade, educators and policymakers have demonstrated an increased acceptance of academic acceleration as a viable evidence-based practice in schools. The purpose of this chapter is to determine if the increased attention on academic acceleration has been supported by well-designed studies.

The author synthesizes the results and draws conclusions from a large number of studies on the variety of forms of academic acceleration. The research investigates whether or not the various forms of academic acceleration resulted in improved academic, social, and psychological outcomes for gifted students; if the continued use of acceleration options since earlier meta-analyses are supported with similar effects; and which forms of academic acceleration show the greatest promise in the current educational environment. As demonstrated by the results of these research syntheses, academic acceleration produces notable academic gains for students with gifts and talents. Additionally, academic acceleration produces small-to-moderate social-emotional gains for these students. This research provides educators and educational decision makers with a large, research-supported menu of accelerative options that may result in substantial academic achievement for gifted learners. This information may help to overcome the myths of social maladjustment and psychological problems that seem to be a concern of educators and parents faced with a decision about acceleration.

  • Cross, Tracy L., Andersen, Lori, and Mammadov, Sakhavat, “Effects of Academic Acceleration on the Social and Emotional Lives of Gifted Students,” Chapter 3 in Assouline, Colangelo, VanTassel-Baska, and Lupkowski-Shoplik (2015), University of Iowa Press.

ABSTRACT: Decades of research have provided evidence that acceleration has positive effects for gifted students both in the cognitive (academic) and affective (social and emotional) realms. The data on the affective are not as robust or straightforward as the findings for the cognitive realm; therefore, for many parents and educators the affective is the major concern regarding acceleration. The purpose of this chapter is to provide a review of the effects of acceleration on the “social and emotional lives” of gifted students. The authors provide a detailed and nuanced understanding of the generally positive effects of acceleration by indicating how the type of acceleration can impact the social and emotional development of students. In addition, gender, ethnicity and developmental level can have a differential impact. The authors provide information on research limitations in terms of samples and research design. Despite the limitations, they conclude that there is enough research evidence to guide our understanding about the general effects of acceleration including a more differentiated and qualified understanding of its impact on the social and emotional lives of gifted students.

  • Wai, Jonathan, “Long-Term Effects of Educational Acceleration”, Chapter 6 in Assouline, Colangelo, VanTassel-Baska, and Lupkowski-Shoplik (2015), University of Iowa Press.

ABSTRACT: Educational intervention comes in many forms. Educational acceleration is an important class of interventions that comprise the appropriate educational dose for an individual. Dosage implies that one specific intervention may not be as relevant as the right mix, number, and intensity of educational interventions for any given person. This chapter reviews findings from the Study of Mathematically Precocious Youth (SMPY), a longitudinal study of thousands of intellectually talented students followed for many decades to the present. The long-term educational-occupational impact and positive subjective impressions about educational acceleration from academically advanced participants reported in these studies supports the importance of educational acceleration and, more broadly, an appropriate educational dose. The longitudinal research findings reveal that an educational program designed to move students at a pace commensurate with their rate of learning is educationally appropriate and necessary. Exceptionally talented students benefit from accelerative learning opportunities, have few regrets about their acceleration, and demonstrate exceptional achievements. What matters for each student is a consistent and sufficient educational dose across a long span of time, what we think of as life-long learning, or learning at a pace and intensity that matches a student’s individual needs. All students deserve to learn something new each day, and if academically talented students desire to be accelerated and are ready for it, the long-term evidence clearly supports the intervention.