Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America's Brightest

Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America's Brightest Students

VOLUME 2

Susan G. Assouline, Nicholas Colangelo, Joyce VanTassel-Baska, and Ann Lupkowski-Shoplik

Editors



A Nation

Empowered

Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students

VOLUME 2

Susan G. Assouline, Nicholas Colangelo, Joyce VanTassel-Baska, and Ann Lupkowski-Shoplik

Editors

Belin-Blank Center, College of Education, University of Iowa

Endorsed by the National Association for Gifted Children

1331 H Street NW, Suite 1001, Washington, DC 20005

(202) 785-468, www.nagc.org

Cover art by Robyn Hepker, Benson & Hepker Design, Iowa City

Published at Colorweb Printing, Cedar Rapids, Iowa

April 2015

The Connie Belin & Jacqueline N. Blank International Center for Gied Education and Talent Development

College of Education

The University of Iowa

600 Blank Honors Center

Iowa City, Iowa 52242-0454

800-336-6463

http://www.education.uiowa.edu/belinblank

http://nationempowered.org

ISBN: 978-0-9961603-0-8

A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2

A Nation Empowered:

Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students

Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................iii

Introduction ...................................................................................................................1

Susan G. Assouline, Nicholas Colangelo, Joyce VanTassel-Baska, and Ann Lupkowski-Shoplik

General Topics 7

Chapter 1: Types of Acceleration: Dimensions and Issues .........................................................................9

W. Thomas Southern and Eric D. Jones

Chapter 2: The Academic, Socialization, and Psychological Eects of Acceleration: Research Synthesis ..............................19

Karen B. Rogers

Chapter 3: Eects of Academic Acceleration on the Social and Emotional Lives of Gifted Students ..................................31

Tracy L. Cross, Lori Andersen, and Sakhavat Mammadov

Chapter 4: The Role of Acceleration in Policy Development in Gifted Education ...................................................43

Joyce VanTassel-Baska

Chapter 5: Whole-Grade Acceleration: Grade-Skipping and Early Entrance to Kindergarten or First Grade ..........................53

Ann Lupkowski-Shoplik, Susan G. Assouline, and Nicholas Colangelo

Chapter 6: Long-Term Eects of Educational Acceleration .......................................................................73

Jonathan Wai

Applications of Acceleration 85

Chapter 7: Professional Development for Teachers and School Counselors: Empowering a Change in Perception and

Practice of Acceleration .....................................................................................................87

Laurie Cro and Susannah M. Wood

Chapter 8: Content Acceleration: The Critical Pathway for Adapting the Common Core State Standards for Gifted Students .........99

Joyce VanTassel-Baska and Susan K. Johnsen

Chapter 9: Talent Searches and Accelerated Programming for Gifted Students .................................................... 111

Paula Olszewski-Kubilius

Chapter 10: Acceleration and STEM Education ................................................................................123

Lori M. Ihrig and Katherine M. Degner

Chapter 11: State Residential STEM Schools: A Model for Accelerated Learning ..................................................137

Julia Link Roberts and Corey Alderdice

Chapter 12: Early Entrance to College: Academic, Social, and Emotional Considerations ...........................................153

Linda E. Brody and Michelle C. Muratori

Special Issues in Acceleration 169

Chapter 13: Early to Rise: The Eects of Acceleration on Occupational Prestige, Earnings, and Satisfaction .........................171

Katie Larsen McClarty

Chapter 14: Acceleration and Economically Vulnerable Children .................................................................181

Jonathan A. Plucker and Bryn Harris

Chapter 15: Acceleration Practices With Twice-Exceptional Students. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189

Megan Foley-Nicpon and Charles Cederberg

Chapter 16: Radical Acceleration ..............................................................................................199

Jae Yup Jung and Miraca U. M. Gross

Chapter 17: Academic Acceleration in Europe: A Comparison of Accelerative Opportunities and Activities ......................... 209

Lianne Hoogeveen

Chapter 18: Acceleration in Australia: Flexible Pacing Opens the Way for Early University Admission ...............................225

Marie Young, Karen Rogers, Katherine Hoekman, Helen van Vliet, and Lye Chan Long

Appendices 241

A. Biographies ...............................................................................................................243

B. The National Association for Gifted Children Position Paper on Acceleration ..................................................249

C. Guidelines for Developing an Academic Acceleration Policy ...................................................................251

D. About the Belin-Blank Center and the Acceleration Institute ..................................................................257

E. Resources for Parents and Educators ........................................................................................259

Author index .................................................................................................................267

Subject index .................................................................................................................271

A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2

A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students evolved from the

seminal publication, A Nation Deceived: How Schools Hold Back America’s Brightest Students (Colangelo, Assou-

line, & Gross, 2004). Therefore, the ﬁrst acknowledgement is to the editors and authors of that publication

for opening the door to a much-needed and long-overdue conversation about the intervention of academic

acceleration for high-ability students. In particular, we acknowledge the important role that Professor Emer-

ita Miraca U. M. Gross played in creating A Nation Deceived. We also acknowledge the John Templeton Foun-

dation for funding the establishment of the University of Iowa Belin-Blank Center’s Acceleration Institute;

the publication of Guidelines for Developing an Academic Acceleration Policy; and the publication and distribution

of A Nation Deceived, Volume I, in 10 languages, and Volume II, in English. None of these advances in the ﬁeld

would have been possible without the private funding from the John Templeton Foundation.

Similarly, A Nation Empowered would not have been possible without private support from several Belin-

Blank Center Advisory Board Members. Speciﬁcally, we express our gratitude to Thomas Belin, Advisory

Board Chair, and his sister, Laura Belin; Je Perry and his mother, Beverly Perry; and Chuck Peters, CEO

of the Gazette Company. Without their funding and support, we would not have been able to produce A

Nation Empowered.

A Nation Empowered is a ten-year follow-up to A Nation Deceived (2004). The new publication emphasizes

updated research, policy, and practice regarding acceleration. A Nation Empowered uses a two-volume format.

The evidence in Volume 2 is the basis for dismissing the often used excuses that result in our nation’s brightest

students being held back. The goals of A Nation Empowered mirror those of A Nation Deceived; speciﬁcally, to

create a publication that would be widely distributed to multiple stakeholders, including educators, school

board members, and legislators, for the express purpose of revealing the evidence about the eectiveness of

academic acceleration as an intervention for highly capable students.

Several individuals contributed to both volumes of A Nation Empowered and we want to give special recogni-

tion to them. We are grateful to the expertise of the Volume 1 writing consultant, Mary Sharp, whose contri-

butions to Volume 1 were based upon the 18 chapters in Volume 2. We are also highly appreciative of the con-

tributions from all of the authors for Volume 2. The entire central sta of the Belin-Blank Center contributed

to the project in direct and indirect ways. Drs. Laurie Croft, Megan Foley-Nicpon, and Lori Ihrig are among

the distinguished authors or co-authors of Volume 2 chapters. Two advanced doctoral students, Staci Fosen-

burg and Katherine Schabilion, served as the editorial assistants and their contributions are immeasurable.

Robyn Hepker, of Benson & Hepker Design, created the cover art for both volumes as well as all the art for

Volume 1. Kelli Parsons, Advertising Production Supervisor, and Michele Maakestad, Graphic Designer, both

of Fusionfarm, were always gracious and encouraging and seemingly tireless in their extraordinary eorts to

format and proof and re-format and re-proof the chapters in Volume 2. Fusionfarm is credited with printing

and distributing both volumes under the leadership of Steve Lorenz, Project Manager.

Finally, we acknowledge the students, parents, educators, researchers, and policy-makers who are dedi-

cated to ﬁnding the most appropriate interventions for highly-able students. They are our inspiration and

empower our eorts.

Susan G. Assouline

Nicholas Colangelo

Joyce VanTassel-Baska

Ann Lupkowski-Shoplik

Acknowledgements

iii

A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2

A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2 1

Introduction : Assouline, Colangelo, VanTassel-Baska & Lupkowski-Shoplik

Academic acceleration is both a curriculum model and an in-

tervention model. Pressey (1949) deﬁned it as an educational

intervention based on progress through an educational pro-

gram at rates faster or at ages younger than typical. This el-

egant deﬁnition applies to at least 20 types of acceleration,

which are presented in the ﬁrst chapter of this volume. Each

form of acceleration is recognition of the impact of individu-

al dierences on the cognitive and social-emotional develop-

ment of students. Implementing acceleration demonstrates a

positive response to these dierences and appreciation that

we have the tools available to tailor interventions to meet the

needs of individuals or groups.

Many forms of acceleration are applicable for small or larg-

er groups of students, whereas other forms are more appro-

priately applied to the individual student. Some forms, e.g.,

Advanced Placement coursework, may be implemented indi-

vidually through online courses, or as a group, when taught to

an entire class. The burgeoning technological sophistication

of the past decade has produced a highly adaptable format

for accelerating both the content and delivery of curriculum.

Technology, a multi-dimensioned advancement, is a logical

partner in addressing the individual dierences among stu-

dents, including our brightest. Many students will beneﬁt

from multiple opportunities to experience various forms of

acceleration in their educational setting. The forms are not

mutually exclusive nor do they need to be applied at the same

time in a student’s schooling.

In 2004, when A Nation Deceived: How Schools Hold Back

America’s Brightest Students was published, we were not yet

able to determine the impact of the federal re-authorization

of the Elementary and Secondary Student Education Act

(named No Child Left Behind) despite the advocacy eorts

on behalf of gifted learners who were being ignored and left

behind. However, the 2008 publication of High-Achieving

Students in the Era of NCLB, published by the Thomas B. Ford-

ham Institute, revealed that the gains of high-achieving stu-

dents languished throughout the prior 10-year period.

A 2015 report from Fordham tackles head on the education-

al issue du jour: Does Common Core eliminate the need for

gifted education? Although there is little doubt that the stan-

dards and tests associated with the Common Core represent

an improvement in rigor and accountability, they were not de-

veloped for our brightest students and will not, nor can they,

go far enough to address the needs of our most capable stu-

dents. Navigating the complex educational landscape, with

constant shifts, continues to be challenging for our nation’s

most highly able students and their educators. However, low-

cost/high-impact interventions such as acceleration provide

multiple pathways to the common goal of being challenged

and engaged in the learning process.

This report is presented as two volumes. Volume 1 gives voice

to the issues facing high-ability students in the current educa-

tional climate and is a condensation of the evidence present-

ed in the 18 chapters in Volume 2. The chapters in Volume 2

were authored by 33 dierent experts in the ﬁeld. The theme

throughout the chapters is striking: acceleration is the most

eective intervention for high ability students. In 2004, the

evidence about the eectiveness of academic acceleration as

an intervention was unequivocal and strong. Today, that evi-

dence continues to accrue and demonstrate positive results

that are robust and unambiguous.

Overview of Chapters

A Nation Empowered, Vol. 2 is comprised of 18 chapters that

fall into three broad categories: (a) General Topics, (b) Appli-

cations of Acceleration, and (c) Special Issues in Acceleration.

Each chapter focuses on a speciﬁc topic related to accelera-

tion. Although each chapter can stand alone as evidence sup-

porting the eectiveness of the intervention, the collection

presents a powerful message about the application of accel-

eration in multiple educational settings.

Section I: General Topics

Chapter 1: Types of Acceleration: Dimensions and

Issues (Southern & Jones)

• There are 20 types of acceleration practices.

• As many as ﬁve dimensions provide a perspec-

tive about the ways in which the options vary.

Introduction

Susan G. Assouline, Nicholas Colangelo, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA

Joyce VanTassel-Baska, College of William & Mary, Williamsburg, VA

Ann Lupkowski-Shoplik, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA

2 A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2

Introduction : Assouline, Colangelo, VanTassel-Baska & Lupkowski-Shoplik

• There are very few problems experienced with

acceleration, and those that occur are typically

attributed to incomplete or poor planning.

• Most acceleration practices are well-docu-

mented for eectiveness.

• Acceleration is cost-eective.

Chapter 2: The Academic, Socialization, and Psychologi-

cal Eects of Acceleration: Research Synthesis (Rogers)

• A Nation Deceived (2004) led to increased

attention and acceptance of academic acceler-

ation and new research has contributed to the

evidence base.

• The main conclusion from results across six

previous meta-analyses or best-evidence syn-

theses is that academic acceleration produces

notable academic gains regardless of the cate-

gory of acceleration or form.

• Academic acceleration produces small-to-mod-

erate social-emotional gains for gifted and

talented students.

• The research on the eects of acceleration is

overwhelmingly positive; however, decisions

about individual students must be based on

more than research.

Chapter 3: Eects of Academic Acceleration on the

Social and Emotional Lives of Gifted Students (Cross,

Andersen, & Mammadov)

• Extensive research has indicated that accelera-

tion has positive eects on the academic as well

as aective lives of students.

• The data indicate that the eects on the

aective realm (social and emotional) are not

as robust and straightforward as eects on the

cognitive realm.

• Results of acceleration on psychological adjust-

ment (i.e., feelings about self and measures of

well-being) are positive but small in terms of

eects.

• While we can be conﬁdent of the positive cog-

nitive and aective impact of acceleration on

white students, we do not have enough studies

of diverse students to make the same claim

regarding these students.

Chapter 4: The Role of Acceleration in Policy Develop-

ment in Gifted Education (VanTassel-Baska)

• Currently, there is no existing federal or nation-

al policy on gifted education.

• Gifted education policy is comprised of the

rules, statutes, codes, and regulations adopted

by state legislatures, and interpreted by various

agencies in the state.

• While few policy studies regarding gifted

education exist, they provide two consistent

ﬁndings: mandates matter and perceptions

matter.

• Development of appropriate policies in gifted

education provide the structure that holds

gifted education together.

• Acceleration policies and practices can be

critical in ensuring measurable outcomes and

research-based options for gifted students.

Chapter 5: Whole-Grade Acceleration: Grade-Skipping

and Early Entrance to Kindergarten or First Grade

(Lupkowski-Shoplik, Assouline, & Colangelo)

• Whole-grade acceleration (grade-skipping) is

a main example of grade-based acceleration in

that it reduces the number of years a student

spends in the K-12 system.

• Whereas there is considerable research

evidence on the eectiveness of whole-grade

acceleration, the prevalence of this interven-

tion is relatively low because of controversy

and lack of awareness of the research.

• The Iowa Acceleration Scale (3rd edition) provides

an eective, systematic, and objective proce-

dure for determining readiness for whole-grade

acceleration.

• Eective decisions about whole-grade acceler-

ation take into account both ability and social

factors. A grade-skip is a public (social) event

as well as an educational event.

• Early entrance to school is a form of whole-

grade acceleration and has special issues

because of the very young age of the child.

A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2 3

Introduction : Assouline, Colangelo, VanTassel-Baska & Lupkowski-Shoplik

Chapter 6: Long-Term Eects of Educational

Acceleration (Wai)

•

Dosage of intervention recognizes that a single

speciﬁc intervention may not be as important

as the right mix or intensity of the intervention.

• Longitudinal studies indicate that students

who were accelerated have few regrets about

their acceleration.

• In the long-term, students who were acceler-

ated demonstrate exceptional achievements as

adults.

• Acceleration has a positive impact on both

careers and life-satisfaction.

• The longitudinal studies stemming from the

Study of Mathematically Precocious Youth

(SMPY) provide some of the most comprehen-

sive research on the positive long-term eects

of educational acceleration.

Section II: Applications of Acceleration

Chapter 7: Professional Development for Teachers and

School Counselors: Empowering a Change in Percep-

tion and Practice of Acceleration (Croft & Wood)

• Professional development is the cornerstone of

ensuring appropriate programs and services to

gifted learners, especially regarding the issue of

acceleration.

• Counselors as well as other educators need a

research-based understanding of acceleration

in order to serve and counsel the gifted and

their families eectively.

• The most eective delivery systems for profes-

sional development may be professional learn-

ing communities and independent learning

options including online options.

• Content understandings that need to be em-

phasized in professional development include:

(a) acceleration is beneﬁcial to gifted learners in

both cognitive and aective ways, (b) accelera-

tion is a cost-eective option, and (c) accelera-

tion may be accomplished through systematic

procedures.

Chapter 8: Content Acceleration: The Critical Pathway

for Adapting the Common Core State Standards for

Gifted Students (VanTassel-Baska & Johnsen)

• Common Core State Standards (CCSS) create

an opportunity for gifted educators to dieren-

tiate learning for the gifted.

• The CCSS provide many opportunities to

accelerate content in both language arts and

math from K-12, including the use of Advanced

Placement (AP) and International Baccalaure-

ate (IB).

• Speciﬁc approaches to dierentiation of the

standards include applying acceleration ﬁrst,

followed by the use of other dierentiation

strategies.

• Content-based curriculum must be accelerat-

ed for the gifted through using the CCSS and

Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) as

a point of departure.

• Examples of accelerated content in reading

and mathematics, using the CCSS standards,

are readily available to assist teachers in the

process.

Chapter 9: Talent Searches and Accelerated Program-

ming for Gifted Students (Olszewski-Kubilius)

• The Talent Search Model, through multiple

studies over nearly 50 years, has demonstrated

its eectiveness as a system for talent identiﬁ-

cation and talent development of academically

advanced learners ages seven to 13.

• The basic tenets of the Talent Search Model in-

volve above-level testing of students to discov-

er their ability in speciﬁc domains of learning

(e.g., verbal and mathematical), followed by

a set of opportunities for advanced learning,

calibrated based on their test scores, to be at

their optimal learning level.

• Research has shown the short- and long-term

beneﬁts of participating in talent development

programs that are accelerative and fast-paced in

nature both during the secondary school years

and beyond in respect to college aspiration

levels and achievement.

4 A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2

Introduction : Assouline, Colangelo, VanTassel-Baska & Lupkowski-Shoplik

• Longitudinal research, conducted on talent

search populations, also documented the

importance of individual score dierences in

respect to creative productivity in adulthood,

suggesting that the top one percent outper-

form the top ﬁve percent on most relevant

measures.

• Talent search information should be routinely

used by schools for purposes of programming

for accelerative options.

Chapter 10: Acceleration and STEM Education

(Ihrig & Degner)

•

The authors highlight and refute four major

excuses for not accelerating students who are

talented in STEM subjects, including being

concerned that acceleration causes academic

harm, thinking the new standards or a focus on

enrichment provides enough challenge for gifted

students, and assuming that only students who

get everything right are ready for acceleration.

• Research ﬁndings reveal that acceleration leads

to increased levels of achievement in STEM,

both in the short-term (while accelerated stu-

dents are still in school) as well as many years

later (during the careers of individuals who had

previously been accelerated).

• Although the Common Core State Standards

for Mathematics and the Next Generation

Science Standards introduce more rigor into

the curriculum, these standards are not

suciently challenging for academically

advanced students.

• Tools used to support decisions about STEM

acceleration include: the Talent Search Model,

the Diagnostic Testing -> Prescriptive Instruc-

tion model, IDEAL Solutions, above-level

testing, and distance learning programs.

Chapter 11: State Residential STEM Schools: A Model

for Accelerated Learning (Roberts & Alderdice)

• The central mission of state residential schools

is to serve academically talented students,

often through the use of accelerated approach-

es that include early admission, AP and IB, and

various forms of personalized learning.

• Sixteen states have state residential schools

for the gifted, the majority in the STEM areas,

although a few in the arts and humanities.

• Admissions criteria vary but involve the use of

multiple criteria that typically include SAT or

ACT scores, teacher recommendations, and

past record of high school course–taking, cri-

teria consistent with research on identiﬁcation

eectiveness for the schools.

• Digital learning is a ﬁxture of residential acad-

emies with multiple types of formats available

for accelerated study.

• Research has demonstrated that many more

gifted students (30% more) seek STEM careers

if they attended a residential school than if

they did not.

• Opportunities for research work, mentorships,

and other one-on-one collaboration is a key

feature of these schools.

• Outreach eorts to other K-12 schools is also a

central part of the mission of these schools.

Chapter 12: Early Entrance to College: Academic, Social,

and Emotional Considerations (Brody & Muratori)

• Early college entrance provides young people

who are ready for the demands of college an op-

portunity to move forward on their educational

trajectories one or more years earlier than is

typical.

• Programs speciﬁcally designed to facilitate

early entrance to college for talented students

have become more widely available in recent

years; these programs support the students

academically, socially, and emotionally.

• Options are varied, including living at home

and taking college courses, participating in

state-supported residential high schools, or

entering college early and living on campus

with other early entrants. At least 23 dier-

ent programs dedicated to early entrance for

high-ability students are available.

A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2 5

Introduction : Assouline, Colangelo, VanTassel-Baska & Lupkowski-Shoplik

Section III: Special Issues in

Acceleration

Chapter 13: Early to Rise: The Eects of Acceleration

on Occupational Prestige, Earnings, and Satisfaction

(McClarty)

• Research has previously shown that accelerated

students are more successful than same-age

peers of similar ability who did not accelerate;

data presented in this chapter demonstrate

that accelerated students also have an advan-

tage over older peers of similar ability who

began their careers at the same time.

• Accelerated students have higher rates of

productivity, work in more prestigious occu-

pations, are more successful, and earn more

money and increase their income faster than

older, similar-ability, non-accelerated peers.

• Acceleration provides short-term beneﬁts

while students are still in school as well as long-

term beneﬁts in the workplace, and accelerated

students are satisﬁed with their work.

Chapter 14: Acceleration and Economically Vulnerable

Children (Plucker & Harris)

• High-ability students who are economically

vulnerable achieve considerably less academi-

cally than economically secure students.

• Non-poor students are more likely to enroll in

advanced courses, skip grades, and participate

in other accelerative strategies.

• Very little research has been conducted exam-

ining speciﬁc acceleration strategies and how

eective they are when used with economically

vulnerable children.

Chapter 15: Acceleration Practices with Twice-Excep-

tional Students (Foley-Nicpon & Cederberg)

• Twice-exceptional students have co-existing

high ability and disability, which presents

several challenges in identiﬁcation and inter-

vention.

• Over the past decade, the number of empirical

studies examining twice-exceptional students

has increased, but eorts have not caught up

with the need for such studies, especially with

respect to academic acceleration.

• Implementation of acceleration varies accord-

ing to the disability, with gifted students with

a diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder (ASD)

more likely to experience acceleration than

gifted students with a diagnosis of attention

deﬁcit hyperactivity disorder (ADHS) or spe-

ciﬁc learning disability (SLD).

• Providing appropriate accommodations that

address the challenges presented by the

disability is critical to the implementation

of successful acceleration.

Chapter 16: Radical Acceleration (Jung & Gross)

• Radical acceleration is a combination of op-

tions that results in a student graduating from

high school three or more years earlier than

usual.

• Empirical studies of radical acceleration

demonstrate overwhelmingly positive

academic, socio-aective, career, and later

life outcomes for highly able individuals.

• Students who radically accelerate often have

IQs at least three standard deviations above

the mean.

• Educators who specialize in gifted and talented

students are especially important in the identi-

ﬁcation process and in facilitating the various

interventions.

Chapter 17: Academic Acceleration in Europe: A Com-

parison of Accelerative Opportunities and Activities

(Hoogeveen)

• Current approaches to gifted education across

the 51 countries that comprise the European

continent reﬂect the evolution over several

centuries of general education models, begin-

ning in ancient Greek and Rome.

• Current models reﬂect country-speciﬁc

systems and goals for working with gifted and

talented students, which are reﬂected in dier-

ent levels of acceptance for and approaches to

acceleration.

• Speciﬁc examples of program implementation

and best-practice serve as models.

• Similar to the U.S.A., academic acceleration is a

cost-eective option.

6 A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2

Introduction : Assouline, Colangelo, VanTassel-Baska & Lupkowski-Shoplik

• Similar to the U.S.A., professional development

lags behind the evidence supporting the eec-

tiveness of the intervention.

Chapter 18: Acceleration in Australia: Flexible Pacing

Opens the Way for Early University Admission (Young,

Rogers, Hoekman, van Vliet, & Long)

• Early admission to university is less likely to

occur in Australia than in the United States.

• Intensive interviews with 12 Australian stu-

dents who received early university admission

indicate a generally positive attitude about

acceleration to university.

• Research indicates that early university en-

trance can work well for academically talented

students in Australia.

• Accelerated Australian students found the uni-

versity setting to be a stimulating and positive

experience.

• The results of the study reported in this

chapter correlate with research ﬁndings in the

United States, which suggest that accelerated

students welcome the opportunity to enter

university early and cope well with the new

environment.

A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2 7

Early Entrance to College : Brody and Muratori

General

Topics

8 A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2

Early Entrance to College : Brody and Muratori

A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2 9

Types of Acceleration : Southern & Jones

Introduction

Pressey’s (1949) deﬁnition describes acceleration as “prog-

ress through an educational program at rates faster or at

ages younger than conventional” (p. 2). According to that

deﬁnition, Southern, Jones, and Stanley (1993) identiﬁed 17

educational types of accelerative options. In this chapter, we

discuss those 17 applications and three others. Speciﬁcally,

entrance to school is now distinguished between early en-

trance to kindergarten and early entrance to ﬁrst grade; also,

we have included two other options outlined by Karen Rog-

ers in this volume, International Baccalaureate and Acceler-

ated/Honors High School, for a total of 20 options (see Table

1). The chapter also considers ﬁve dimensions of acceleration

that characterize and may aect their availability to students

who demonstrate academic precocity.

Types of Acceleration

1. Early Admission to Kindergarten: Students enter kin-

dergarten prior to achieving the minimum age for school en-

try as set by district or state policy. The entry age speciﬁed

varies greatly throughout the country and is generally stated

in terms of birth date. For example, entry to kindergarten will

be allowed for prospective students who will achieve the age

of ﬁve years on or before September 30 of their entry year.

2. Early Admission to First Grade: This practice can result

from either skipping kindergarten entirely or from moving a

student from kindergarten into ﬁrst grade in what would be

the student’s ﬁrst year of school.

3. Grade-Skipping: A student is considered to have grade

skipped if he or she is given a grade-level placement ahead of

chronological-age peers. Grade-skipping may be done at the

beginning of or during the school year. Radical acceleration

is any whole-grade acceleration that is two (Stanley, 1976) or

more (Gross, 2004) years above the student’s grade based on

chronological years.

4. Continuous Progress: The student is given content pro-

gressively as prior content is completed and mastered. The

practice is accelerative when the student’s progress exceeds

the performance of chronological peers in rate and level.

5. Self-Paced Instruction: With this option, the student

proceeds through learning and instructional activities at a

self-selected pace. Self-paced instruction is a sub-type of

continuous progress acceleration. Self-paced instruction is

distinguishable from the more general continuous progress

in that the student has control over all pacing decisions. Most

self-paced instructional opportunities are provided within a

larger instructional plan or Individualized Education Plan

(IEP) for the younger student.

Types of Acceleration:

Dimensions and Issues

W. Thomas Southern, Miami University of Ohio, Oxford, Ohio

Eric D. Jones, Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, Ohio

Abstract

Acceleration allows academically talented students to move ahead through the curriculum at a pace commensurate with their abilities.

“Acceleration” is a term that encompasses many different educational options, including early entrance to kindergarten, moving up a grade for

math, concurrent enrollment in middle school and high school, or entering college early. It typically results in the student completing curriculum

at a younger age than most students. The authors describe 20 different types of accelerative options, as well as the dimensions of acceleration.

Issues in implementing one or more acceleration interventions, such as unintended consequences, pacing, curricular decisions, and costs are

also considered.

An earlier version of this chapter appeared in V.II of A Nation Deceived: How

Schools Hold Back America’s Brightest Students (Colangelo, Assouline, &

Gross, 2004). This revision of the original chapter was completed by the editors of

A Nation Empowered.

Chapter 1

10 A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2

Types of Acceleration : Southern & Jones

6. Subject-Matter Acceleration/Partial Acceleration:

Also known as content-based acceleration, this practice al-

lows students to be placed in classes with older peers for a

part of the day (or with materials from higher grade place-

ments) in one or more content areas. Subject-matter accel-

eration may be accomplished by the student either phys-

ically moving to a higher-level class for instruction (e.g., a

second-grade student going to a ﬁfth-grade reading group) or

using higher-level curricular or study materials while remain-

ing in the original classroom. Subject-matter acceleration

may also be accomplished outside of the general instruction-

al schedule (e.g., summer school or after school) or by using

higher-level instructional activities on a continuous progress

basis without leaving the placement with chronological-age

peers. Often content-based acceleration is accomplished by a

whole class where the materials are deliberately advanced by

one year. Honors classes at middle and early high school may

choose to provide such advanced learning.

7. Combined Classes: While not in and of itself a practice

designed for acceleration, in some instances (e.g., a fourth-

and ﬁfth-grade combined classroom), this placement can

allow younger students to interact academically and social-

ly with older peers. It may or may not result in an advanced

grade placement later.

8. Curriculum Compacting: The curriculum is adjusted so

the student’s instruction entails reduced amounts of intro-

ductory activities, drill, and practice. Instructional experi-

ences may also be based on relatively fewer instructional ob-

jectives compared to the general curriculum. The time saved

may be used for more advanced content instruction or to par-

ticipate in enrichment activities. Instructional goals should

be selected on the basis of careful analyses for their roles in

the content and hierarchies of curricula. The parsing of ac-

tivities and goals should be based on pre-instructional assess-

ment. Often the pre-assessment is accomplished through

individual unit testing, followed by advanced activities for

students who score near the ceiling.

9. Telescoping Curriculum: The student is provided in-

struction that entails less time than is normal (e. g., com-

pleting a one-year course in one semester, or three years of

middle school in two years). Telescoping diers from cur-

riculum compacting in that it involves larger chunks of time

for the act of acceleration and the resulting time saved from

telescoping always results in advanced grade placement. It is

planned to ﬁt a precise time schedule. Curriculum compact-

ing, on the other hand, does not necessarily advance grade

placement.

10. Mentoring/Tutoring: A student is paired with a mentor

or expert tutor who provides advanced or more rapid pacing

of instruction. The student may or may not receive credit for

advanced work with a mentor.

11. Extracurricular Programs: Students elect to enroll in

coursework, after school programs, or summer programs

that confer advanced instruction and/or credit. Talent search

programs are a good example of an extracurricular program

oering accelerated classes during the summer. Most of these

classes employ fast-paced learning and are content-based

(Olszewski-Kubilius, this volume).

12. Distance Learning Courses: The student enrolls in

coursework oered by an outside-of-school organization.

Traditionally called correspondence courses and oered by

mail, courses are increasingly oered online by a number of

university-based and for-proﬁt entities. The student may

work on the computer at home or during school time. Local

teachers are not responsible for instruction, although they

may be responsible for supervising the students while they

are working on the computer and are often responsible for

assigning grades and assuring credit. Parents often pay for

these courses, and the typical goal is for the student to earn

advanced credit for the work completed.

13. Concurrent/Dual Enrollment: The student takes a

course at one level and receives concurrent credit for a par-

allel course at a higher level (e.g., taking algebra at the middle

Table 1: Types of Acceleration

1. Early Admission to Kindergarten

2. Early Admission to First Grade

3. Grade-Skipping

4. Continuous Progress

5. Self-Paced Instruction

6. Subject-Matter Acceleration/Partial

Acceleration

7. Combined Classes

8. Curriculum Compacting

9. Telescoping Curriculum

10. Mentoring

11. Extracurricular Programs

12. Distance Learning Courses

13. Concurrent/Dual Enrollment

14. Advanced Placement

™

15. International Baccalaureate program

16. Accelerated/Honors High School or

Residential High School on a College Campus

17. Credit by Examination

18. Early Entrance into Middle School, High

School, or College

19. Early Graduation from High School

or College

20. Acceleration in College

A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2 11

Types of Acceleration : Southern & Jones

school level and receiving credit at both the middle school

and the high school level). Another example of dual enroll-

ment courses is provided by a College in High School pro-

gram, where a high school student takes a class taught by a

high school teacher who has been specially selected and

trained by a local college or university; college credit is award-

ed to the student upon successful completion of the course.

This option is most often used to compress high school and

college coursework.

14. Advanced Placement (AP

™

): The student takes a course

(usually while in high school) that may confer college credit

or placement upon successful completion of a standardized

examination (e.g., achieving a three or higher on a scale of

one to ﬁve). High school teachers receive specialized training

before teaching AP courses. Students may take an AP exam-

ination without ﬁrst taking the AP course at whatever age

they wish as long as prerequisites have been met for math and

science courses.

15. International Baccalaureate

: Schools are authorized

by the International Baccalaureate (IB) program (see http://

www.ibo.org/) to oer a specialized educational program.

Students who successfully complete an IB high school diplo-

ma may receive advanced standing at selected universities

worldwide if they perform well on the IB exams. Students

may also select key courses for IB credit at some schools.

16. Accelerated/Honors High School or Residential High

School on a College Campus

: Students attend a selective

high school program designed speciﬁcally for gifted stu-

dents, which may be provided as a residential program on a

college campus or as a Governor’s School. Both day schools

like Thomas Jeerson High School in Alexandria, Virginia

and residential schools such as The Illinois Mathematics and

Science Academy oer advanced coursework that is often

correlated to college level work, mentorships with scientists,

and internships at national labs. Students may complete re-

quirements for high school graduation at the same time as

they complete college courses. The Texas Academy of Math

and Science (https://tams.unt.edu/) is an example. Students

enter after their sophomore year of high school; at the end

of the two-year program, students have completed two years

of college in addition to earning their high school diploma.

17. Credit by Examination: The student is awarded ad-

vanced standing credit (e.g., in high school or college) by

successfully completing some form of mastery test or ac-

tivity. The College Board’s CLEP tests (see http://clep.col-

legeboard.org/exam) are an example of a national program

available to students to earn college credit by examination.

Students typically have mastered material through indepen-

dent study or internship experiences and the tests document

their level of mastery.

18. Early Entrance into Middle School, High School,

or College: The student is provided an advanced level of

instruction at least one year ahead of normal. This may be

achieved with the employment of other accelerative tech-

niques such as talent search classes for which they receive

credit, dual enrollment and credit by examination, or by de-

termination of teachers and administrators.

19. Early Graduation from High School or College: The

student graduates from high school or college in three-and-a-

half years or less. Generally, this is accomplished by increas-

ing the amount of coursework undertaken each year in high

school or college, but it may also be accomplished through

dual/concurrent enrollment (see above) or extracurricular

and distance learning coursework.

20. Acceleration in College: The student completes two or

more majors in a total of four years and/or earns an advanced

degree along with or in lieu of a bachelor’s degree.

Dimensions of Acceleration

Despite conceptual distinctions that have been drawn, the

practices of acceleration also overlap. For example, a mentor

(see #10) may provide advanced instruction on a continuous

progress basis (see #4). The mentor may function as an in-

structor, as a facilitator, or as a monitor of progress. On the

other hand, even a cursory look at the list shows a variety of

acceleration practices. There are several dimensions along

which accelerative options dier. The ﬁve dimensions are:

pacing, salience, peers, access, and timing (see Table 2).

Pacing

The pacing or rate of instruction deﬁnes acceleration, and it

is along this dimension that acceleration practices diverge.

Some of the practices cited in Table 1 do not represent dier-

ential curriculum pacing. For instance, credit by examination

and acceleration in college are not necessarily dierential

pacing; rather, they are forms of administrative recognition

of a student’s past achievement. In fact, Southern and Jones

(1991) have noted that, given the resistance to acceleration

by parents and practitioners, even the forms of acceleration

This form of acceleration did not appear in the original Southern and Jones chapter.

It was added by the editors of A Nation Empowered.

This form of acceleration did not appear in the original Southern and Jones chapter.

It was added by the editors of A Nation Empowered.

12 A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2

Types of Acceleration : Southern & Jones

that look as if they increase the pace of instruction are re-

ally forms of administrative recognition. Students are rarely

grade-skipped, and those who are represent students with an

extreme mismatch between their readiness for higher-grade

curriculum and the curriculum oered by the grade level for

their age. The mismatch may be so extreme, in fact, that even

an advanced grade placement represents no great academic

challenge for the student and other accelerative options are

needed in addition to the whole-grade acceleration. Con-

cerns about the pace of instruction and the potential for

harm to children’s social and emotional well-being would

seem unfounded for accelerative practices that merely recog-

nize what students have already accomplished. So, too, would

the concerns that students would suer from instructional

“gaps” that might deter later learning experiences.

Several acceleration practices do involve changes in pacing,

such as continuous progress, curriculum compacting, and

subject-matter acceleration. However, even many of these

practices dier in terms of the degree of dierentiation and

the control of pacing dierences. In self-paced instruction,

the student controls the pace toward completion of the

learning experience. In other types of acceleration, such as

curriculum compacting, a teacher is required to ﬁrst assess

the adequacy of the student’s prior learning and then pres-

ent materials at more traditional rates when students do not

demonstrate prior accomplishments or more rapid learning.

In telescoped classes, one might expect to see more potential

failure from participants resulting from an inappropriate pace

of instruction. After all, a group of students is put through a

curriculum in half or two-thirds of the time. In practice, how-

ever, such problems rarely occur. Telescoped curricula tend

to be employed in large urban areas where it is most likely

one could assemble a highly homogeneous group of learners

(Southern, Jones, & Stanley, 1993). Whenever a cohort group

needs to be identiﬁed, the criterion level of students selected

is set at very high levels. In the national talent searches (see

Olszewski-Kubilius, this volume), students are given college

admissions tests at the middle-school level, and qualiﬁca-

tions for fast-paced mathematics courses are set at about the

same level as the average score of college-bound seniors. This

results in very few false positives in these programs (although

it may result in larger numbers of students who might have

been able to do the work but who did not meet the criteri-

on). The most rapidly paced programs, therefore, often have

the most stringent criteria for participation. This reduces

the likelihood that students will experience stressful levels of

challenge, or even perceive a rapid pacing of instruction.

Salience

Accelerative options vary by the degree to which they are no-

ticeable to others, particularly to peers, and the acceptabili-

ty of options tends to vary depending on their prominence.

The degrees to which accelerative options are readily notice-

able are apt to raise concerns about the risks of acceleration

to the student’s adjustment and achievement. The salience

of acceleration may also bring it into conﬂict with values

issues such as elitism and egalitarianism. Practices such as

grade-skipping and early entry are particularly salient, while

Advanced Placement (AP) or distance-learning courses are

not likely to attract much attention, partially based on the

age of the accelerant. The older the accelerant, the less sa-

lience is usually present. The salience of acceleration practic-

es are noticeable depending on how they are employed. For

example, self-paced instruction may be readily apparent to

peers if it is provided only to students in the gifted education

programs or if it is labeled as an “honors” class. If it is more

broadly available or more modestly labeled, few if any peers

are likely to be aware of the practice. Grade-skipping seems

more salient and controversial. However, it is also possible

to speculate that subject-matter acceleration is more salient

in that the physical move may be required daily over an en-

tire school year rather than all at one time. In point of fact,

neither process has been demonstrated to cause academic or

Table 2: Dimensions of Acceleration and Related Concerns

Dimension Concerns

Pacing Calibration, reporting, continuity of the process over years

Salience Age of student, stage of schooling, type of acceleration

Peers Knowledge of the acceleration by others, type of acceleration, group or

individual, degree of acceleration

Access Population centers, acceptability by schools, state policy, cost, availability

of courses or programs, transportation

Timing Age-related issues, during school vs. outside of traditional school time

Table was modiﬁed by the editors of A Nation Empowered.

A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2 13

Types of Acceleration : Southern & Jones

social/emotional diculties (e.g., Kulik & Kulik, 1984; Rog-

ers, 2002, 2004, this volume).

Peers

The degree to which acceleration will result in social separa-

tion from peers is the issue that raises the greatest concern

with parents, educators, and students themselves (Jones &

Southern, 1991; Southern, Jones, & Fiscus, 1989a, 1989b).

There is a lack of empirical research to support the notion

that separation from age-/grade-level peers is associated with

diculties in adjustment or achievement (Kulik & Kulik,

1984; Robinson, 2004; Southern, et al., 1993), but the con-

cerns persist because the decisions to accelerate individual

children are made by parents and educators regarding a child

they know. This is not an abstract exercise. It is important

to consider two issues regarding the dimension of separation.

First, acceleration options vary in the degrees to which they

involve separation. For example, early admission, grade-skip-

ping, and some forms of content acceleration result in a com-

plete separation from a chronological peer group for some or

all of the academic day. On the other hand, subject-matter

acceleration or telescoped curriculum is generally managed

for groups of individuals, and leave a core chronological peer

group intact.

Early entrance to school or skipping one grade level would

arguably cause less dramatic separations from chronological

peers than multiple grade-level placements. Those students

who are placed at least two grade levels above chronological

peers are considered to be radically accelerated (Stanley, 1976;

Jung & Gross, this volume). For example, the Early College

Program at the University of Washington allows students to

enter college when they typically would be entering 8th or

9th grade (Hertzog & Chung, 2015; Janos & Robinson, 1985;

Robinson & Janos, 1986).

While marked divergence from age-peers would seem to be

an extraordinary intervention and potentially could result in

serious diculties, the separation can be managed and its in-

ﬂuence can be mitigated. Consistent with best practices, pro-

grams that employ radical acceleration only admit students

who score extremely high on appropriate entrance criteria.

Support services in counseling and academic adjustment

should be provided. Programs that recruit cohorts of stu-

dents for radical acceleration have some advantage in dealing

with the issue of separation from age-/grade-level peers com-

pared to programs that are intended to provide for the needs

of an individual student (Hertzog & Chung, 2015). Support

services are generally easier to provide to groups of students,

and the groups themselves provide opportunities to develop

friendships and peer support. Some proponents of radical ac-

celeration also advise that the radically accelerated student

be able to reside at home or with close supportive relatives,

and to maintain some social and extracurricular contact with

age-/grade-level peers (Brody & Stanley, 1991).

Access

School districts vary widely in the kind of program oerings

they make available to students. The number of AP classes is

only a small part of the variance. The extent to which foreign

languages are available (in range and depth) as well as the kind

of mathematics courses that schools can oer students dif-

ferentiate how students access accelerative options.

Access to accelerated educational opportunities is easier for

students attending school districts where all school buildings

are on one campus and a student can walk from one building

to another for the necessary class if the student is accelerated

in one subject, such as math. In the case where school build-

ings are across town from each other, transportation issues

can limit student access to advanced courses.

Geographic isolation also limits the kinds of resources one

might be able to access in given settings. Classically, rural

schools have extensive bus networks to bring students to

school. They also are more likely to have a limited number of

teachers with advanced content expertise, thus oering few-

er advanced courses in math, sciences, or foreign languages.

Though a number of options are available to provide distance

instruction, these often have cost implications that preclude

their use by many families. For example, some online courses

cost as much as $1,000 per semester. If a school district does

not pay the cost of the classes, they can be prohibitively ex-

pensive for most students. Family income also limits access to

summer programs and other accelerative options that might

have high costs. Although many academic summer programs

provide generous scholarships, the cost of partial tuition plus

transportation to the program may still be prohibitive.

Cost can also be an issue for dual enrollment programs in-

tended for high school students needing college-level cur-

riculum. Even if the college is conveniently located, the cost

of a semester course can be too expensive for some students.

Certain states, such as Michigan, provide programs for high

school students to take college courses, and the school dis-

trict pays for the majority of the costs associated with taking

the courses (see http://www.michigan.gov/documents/mde/

Early_College_Credit_3.2.07_188778_7.pdf).

14 A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2

Types of Acceleration : Southern & Jones

The growing popularity of accelerated/honors high schools

or Governor’s schools (Roberts & Alderdice, this volume)

has made it possible for students from rural areas to have ac-

cess to higher-level curriculum and intellectual peers in states

that provide these special schools. These schools, which are

state-funded, are frequently available for free or a low cost to

the participants. The trade-o is that the student would move

away from home two or three years younger than is typical.

Timing

The age at which the student is oered accelerative options

is associated with additional complications. Skipping ﬁrst

grade might have vastly dierent consequences from early

graduation from college. Intuitively, one might suspect that

the former would carry more potential risk than the latter.

Few researchers have given careful consideration to the tim-

ing of acceleration, although some attention has been given

to the timing of grade-skipping. Feldhusen, Proctor, and

Black (1986) provided guidelines for grade-skipping. They

suggested that grade advancements should take advantage

of natural administrative and curricular breaks (e.g., entering

ﬁrst grade early, or skipping the last year of the intermediate

grade into the ﬁrst year of middle school). They also consid-

ered that early in the academic year may be better than later

in the year. While the recommendations seem logical, a re-

view of the literature does not reveal systematic comparison

studies for students who are grade skipped at various levels or

at various times of the year. Nor do studies reveal that some

forms of acceleration present more risk to adjustment or

achievement than others.

It would also be well to remember that types of acceleration

dier not only by dimension, but by degree on each dimen-

sion. For example, salience of acceleration may be more rel-

evant when considering early entrance to school than when

considering early high school or college graduation even

though both types of acceleration result in placements with

older peers. Similarly, both curriculum compacting in early

grades and telescoping curriculum in middle school may im-

pact students very dierently. An additional complication is

that many of these options can be applied simultaneously. For

example, students may be engaged in online learning, fast-

paced summer coursework, and concurrent enrollment at the

same time. Sometimes the eect of participating in multiple

forms of acceleration is cumulative and increases the salience

of the dierentiations in the student’s educational program.

Some students amass enough credits through concurrent

high school/university enrollment and extracurricular oer-

ings to be able to ﬁnish university degrees extremely rapidly.

Students in self-paced mathematics instruction may exhaust

the district’s curricular options long before they graduate

from high school (Assouline & Lupkowski-Shoplik, 2011). In

other instances, students may not use their participation in

accelerative opportunities to move quickly through levels of

schooling. Instead, they may elect to take extra coursework

or achieve additional content majors.

Another set of limitations arises from school district poli-

cies, some explicit and some tacit. Many schools have formal

policies that severely limit students’ abilities to enter school

early or to access content acceleration across various levels

of school (e.g., intermediate students accessing content at

the middle or high school level or policies that do not allow

course credit to be ocially awarded to students taking high-

er-level coursework while in lower grades). Even where poli-

cies do not explicitly limit accelerative opportunities, district

personnel may informally limit their use. Teachers or prin-

cipals who have concerns about accelerative practices may

actually discourage their use by employing alarmist rhetoric

about consequences or even denying that it is possible or legal

to accelerate students. Thus, districts may have de facto prohi-

bitions that deny students accelerative options. Also, schools

may simply choose not to recognize some forms of accelera-

tive options as equivalent. High school credits earned in sum-

mer programs have been rejected by some high schools, for

example, even though the same body that accredits the high

school also accredits the program provider. The Guidelines

for Developing an Academic Acceleration Policy (see Colangelo

et al., 2010; National Work Group on Acceleration, 2009)

are helpful in assisting school districts to develop acceler-

ation policies, in order to avoid some of these issues. (See

www.accelerationinstitute.org for more information.)

In other cases, state laws or regulations may impede access.

These laws often expressly limit accelerative options. Many

states have laws that limit early entrance to school based on

a calendar cuto. States also may place limits on the kind of

concurrent enrollment opportunities students may access.

For example, not allowing credit earned from a high school

class taken while in middle school to be recognized on a later

high school transcript would discourage students from using

that resource. In addition, certain regulations may uninten-

tionally discourage students from participating in acceler-

ative options. For example, regulations that govern extra-

mural athletics may reduce the time students are eligible to

participate in team sports. While the intent of the law was

to manage reasonable eligibility terms, its eect might be to

discourage students who are also interested in sports from

taking large numbers of high school credit early.

A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2 15

Types of Acceleration : Southern & Jones

Ironically, use of a variety of accelerative options might end

up limiting opportunities available to students. The more

acceleration is employed, the more likely the student will

exhaust the district’s curriculum. This, in concert with the

limitations of family income, geographic isolation, school

policies and state regulations, can result in a student having

no realistic options other than accessing university-level

coursework. If students are very young when this occurs, par-

ents and university admissions personnel may be reluctant to

allow full-time placement. This can result in a student “mark-

ing time” in high school.

Issues in Accelerative Practices

When outlining the dimensions and complications above,

one might note that there are points that raise issues for em-

ploying the various practices. In general, issues arise from the

deliberate consequences of employing accelerative options

and the unintended consequences that might ensue. Still oth-

er complications are related to the types of decisions that are

required in pacing and recognition of student learning. Other

issues surround the interaction of accelerative practices and

other bureaucratic structures that might be triggered. The

following sections outline some of these issues.

Unintended Consequences

Since much of the educational community views acceleration

with some skepticism (Southern et al., 1993), it is likely that

these practices (especially those of grade-skipping and the

various forms of early entry) will be employed with a great

deal of reluctance. Since some accelerative options seem to

present some risk, systematic plans to address concerns and

potential consequences need to be developed prior to imple-

mentation. Unfortunately, plans often are implemented ad

hoc, without knowledge or concern for later consequences.

As a result, educators learn very little about the problems

with acceleration that concern them the most.

Other problems occur from not planning ahead. For exam-

ple, curriculum compacting in science at the intermediate

level may appear to be educationally justiﬁable for a highly

precocious elementary student with a penchant for scientiﬁc

pursuits. However, when the student outstrips the ability of

that school to provide appropriate laboratory and learning

resources, or to provide appropriate mathematics required

to support the science instruction, it might result in an un-

scheduled hiatus from learning new scientiﬁc content until

such resources are available at higher levels.

Sometimes students are placed in coursework without con-

sideration of subsequent sequences of instruction. For ex-

ample, a high school student might be placed in a universi-

ty-level composition course while in high school, but might

actually qualify for a higher-level course, one that would grant

more advanced standing. Without adequate counseling and

without considering issues of high school articulation, stu-

dents may actually be put behind by the practice. As students

gain more advanced standing at earlier ages, the potential dif-

ﬁculties increase. Students who qualify for dual enrollment

programs might be selecting high school/university credit

courses as early as eighth grade, and they will need advisors

who are familiar with the articulation of requirements for

both high school graduation and university majors. With the

current bureaucracy of public school education, it is possi-

ble that a student completes all the mathematics available in

the district through extracurricular options only to discover

that a low-level mathematics course is still required to fulﬁll a

district or state requirement for graduation. It is also helpful

for advisors to understand how to navigate the bureaucracies

of universities since issues such as the transfer of university

course credit frequently need to be negotiated. In other in-

stances, the process may be not open to negotiation and may

inﬂuence decisions about attendance at one institution over

another. Awarding of AP credit is often in the hands of in-

dividual departments at universities that may establish their

own score levels to receive credit. Thus, a score of ﬁve may

be required by some departments in some universities even

though a three would be accepted by the same department

at a dierent institution. Comprehensive planning and artic-

ulation of the various accelerative practices should be done

not only to provide advantages for students, but also to avoid

unfortunate and unanticipated bureaucratic complications.

Pacing and Curriculum Decisions

Many of the accelerative options employ dierential pacing

procedures. In some, the teacher would seem to control the

pace, and in others, the student controls the pace. However,

in both cases, the decisions about optimal pacing may pres-

ent diculties. Teachers have to decide if the rate of learning

for the student is matched to the presentation pace. For ex-

ample, in the case of curriculum compacting, decisions need

to be made concerning:

• selecting the important elements of the curriculum to be

pre-tested and monitored;

• interpreting the results of pretests and ongoing assess-

ments to determine if the student has adequate knowl-

edge to move on, or inadequate knowledge to move on

16 A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2

Types of Acceleration : Southern & Jones

but easily remedied gaps, or must go through the entire

instructional process.

The teacher must also give consideration to the summative

assessment of mastery that will allow a student to proceed to

levels of the curriculum that are not under that teacher’s pur-

view. Normally, the teacher allows a student to proceed after

a set period of instruction.

Analyzing and modifying curricula are challenging tasks for

which many teachers are not prepared. When a teacher cer-

tiﬁes that a student has met mastery requirements in shorter

periods of time, the teacher also implicitly assumes substan-

tial responsibility for that student’s continued success. As

the content becomes more complex and abstract, it becomes

increasingly dicult for the teacher to maintain conﬁdence

unless he or she has substantial expertise in the content area.

Uncertainties are apt to be more problematic if teachers are

required to predict the success of an accelerated student

across the school levels. For example, elementary school

teachers are likely to be conﬁdent in certifying that a student

has mastered elements of fourth-grade mathematics, but

may feel considerably less conﬁdent certifying that a nine-

year-old student has mastered algebra concepts. Moreover,

assessment of mastery of sequenced content, such as math-

ematics and science, are less complex than assessment of

mastery of less well-sequenced content, such as social studies

and language arts. The responsibilities for modifying curric-

ula and certifying mastery may, however, be well beyond the

expertise and the tolerance of individual teachers. It is better

if teachers at dierent levels can collaboratively share the re-

sponsibilities for modifying curricula and assessing mastery

of material across levels of schooling rather than leaving the

responsibilities to a series of individual teachers.

One way to ensure that students continue to advance their

skills in the language arts area is to employ research-based

curriculum materials that are calibrated to be one year ad-

vanced for such students. Reading selections are calibrated

to be two grade levels above the age and grade level provid-

ed, using Lexile levels to document. Activities, projects, and

questions are then calibrated to be at advanced dierentiat-

ed levels as well (VanTassel-Baska & Little, 2011). All units

are aligned with Common Core State Standards and other

sets of standards employed by states (see VanTassel-Bas-

ka & Johnsen, this volume). Additional supportive materi-

als have also been developed for students from low-income

backgrounds (VanTassel-Baska & Stambaugh, 2006). Perfor-

mance assessments for each unit of study also document the

level of learning in analyzing literature, persuasive writing,

grammar and usage, and speaking and listening skills. These

data can be available for each subsequent teacher in the pro-

gram to ensure that students continue to advance. Since the

program is also calibrated to AP and IB coursework, a scope

and sequence is available in the use of the units to ensure

coverage into relevant AP and IB courses. Advanced and dif-

ferentiated curricula are also available in other subject areas

(see cfge.wm.edu).

Student-managed pacing also has a concomitant set of issues.

Most revolve around the student’s own ability to recognize

mastery. Entry-level learners in any discipline may not real-

ize the precise demands of the ﬁeld. As the work increases

in complexity and amount, easy conﬁdence of precocious

students will frequently give way to more conservative as-

sessment of mastery. Most practices outlined above have

some external review of student self-assessment inherent in

the practice. For example, self-paced learning generally al-

lows for some benchmark testing, and the same issues that

beset teacher-assessed mastery of content also apply with

student-managed pacing. The testing dimensions must con-

sider sucient content and have sucient criterion validity

to support the student’s self-assessment of mastery. It may be

that for some content or for assessments where the conse-

quences of inadequate certiﬁcation of mastery present too

much risk, the teacher-directed assessments should augment

or replace the student’s self-assessments.

The problems associated with pacing overlap with those of

recognition of mastery. Bureaucratic recognition of achieve-

ment must, at some point, coincide with credibility at an-

other level of recognition. Elementary schools must be able

to convince middle and high schools that the student has

credibly met standards of which the secondary schools are

the usual arbiter. High schools must convince post-second-

ary institutions that they are credible arbiters of standards

normally imposed by two- and four-year colleges. The result

is that performance criteria must be explicitly and credibly

documented.

Interaction with Bureaucratic Entities

The ﬁnal area of concern about types of acceleration involves

the interaction of outcomes of acceleration with impinging

rules and regulations. Early school entrance for academically

precocious students is considered good educational practice.

However, it may violate state regulations to admit students

who are younger than four-and-a-half years old. Similarly, it

may be permissible to allow gifted students to enter post-sec-

ondary option programs while they are in middle and high

school, but they might also risk loss of athletic opportunity

or eligibility in middle school and high school. The unfore-

A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2 17

Types of Acceleration : Southern & Jones

seen outcomes of acceleration are a natural issue of the inter-

play of regulation and the age/grade assumptions of modern

American education. It is generally assumed that a student

will be of a certain age in a certain grade. A large range of

school policies and practices are built upon this expectation.

They may determine such things as when a student can en-

ter school training programs, participate in grade-level pro-

grams, and even when students enter programs for the gifted.

Although academic acceleration options can provide edu-

cational opportunities for gifted students, they also can run

afoul of the schooling bureaucracy. Planning for acceleration

should also consider the possibility that with acceleration,

gifted students may ﬁnd themselves in bureaucratic and so-

cial environments that have very dierent expectations. For

example, the students who participate in dual enrollment or

early entrance to college will confront dierences in academ-

ic expectations, bureaucratic organization, and peer social

behavior that are likely to be very dierent from their sec-

ondary schools. They may need assistance and supervision

beyond what was formerly provided.

Summary

There is a broad range of accelerative options to address the

varied academic needs of gifted students. Most types of ac-

celeration have been well documented for eectiveness, and

oer relatively low cost options to meet the needs of gifted

students. Accelerative options, such as curriculum compact-

ing and continuous progress, take advantage of the gifted stu-

dent’s capacity to learn more quickly and with less direction

from the teacher. Accelerative programs may allow the stu-

dent to move through and complete the standard curriculum

more quickly than age-/grade-level peers. Some accelerative

options will allow the student to clear the school’s curricular

requirements quickly and make time for participating in en-

richment opportunities. They also allow students to explore

multiple majors and degrees economically without delaying

the beginning of their careers. Because the options serve a va-

riety of purposes, educators should develop as broad a range

of options as possible. Certainly, it will not be possible for

some schools to develop the whole range. Rural schools, for

instance, face challenges of distance and resources that may

not be issues in suburban and urban schools (Jones & South-

ern, 1994; Hubbard & VanTassel-Baska, 2015). In developing

options, it is important that educators recognize that acceler-

ative programs will need to succeed in the context of school-

ing. The issues involved with pacing, salience, peers, access,

and timing will need to be addressed deliberately. Issues in-

clude the range of curricular opportunities, popular beliefs

about giftedness, and institutionalized assumptions that may

be woven into the bureaucratic fabric of the schools will also

need to be taken into consideration. Planning and collabora-

tion among professionals, parents, and students in articulation

and decision making are crucial, because failure to address

issues that are implicitly associated with the variety of accel-

erative options will diminish the ecacy of accelerative pro-

grams. It is important to remember that most gifted students

should beneﬁt from some form of acceleration during their ca-

reer in K-12. Making these options available and making them

work is one of the central tasks of educators of the gifted.

References

Assouline, S. G., & Lupkowski-Shoplik, A. E. (2011). Developing math tal-

ent: A comprehensive guide to math education for gifted students in elemen-

tary and middle school (2nd ed.). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

Brody, L. E., & Stanley, J. C. (1991).Young college students: Assessing fac-

tors that contribute to success. In W.T. Southern & E. D. Jones (Eds.),

e academic acceleration of gifted children. (pp. 102–132). New York:

Teachers College Press.

Colangelo, N., Assouline, S. G., Marron, M. A., Castellano, J. A., Clinken-

beard, P. R., Rogers, K., & Smith, D. (2010). Guidelines for developing

an academic acceleration policy.Journal of Advanced Academics,21(2),

180-203.

Feldhusen, J. F., Proctor,T. B., & Black, K. N. (1986). Guidelines for grade

advancement of precocious children. Roeper Review. 9, 25–27.

Gross, M. U. M. (2004). Radical acceleration. In N. Colangelo, S. G. As-

souline, & M. U. M. Gross (Eds.) A Nation deceived: How schools hold

back America’s brightest students (V.II., pp. 87-96). Iowa City, IA: e

Connie Belin & Jacqueline N. Blank International Center for Gifted

Education and Talent Development.

Hertzog, N.B. & Chung, R.B. (2015). Outcomes for students on a fast

track to college: Early college entrance programs at the University of

Washi ng ton. Roeper Review, 37(1), 39-49.

Hubbard, G. & VanTassel-Baska, J. (2015). Curriculum for the gifted in

rural areas: A challenge of geography. In T. Stambaugh & S. Wood

(Eds). Serving gifted students in rural settings. Waco, TX: Prufrock

Press.

Janos, P. M., & Robinson, N. M. (1985).e performance of students in

a program of radical acceleration at the university level. Gifted Child

Quarterly, 29, 175–179.

Jones, E. D., & Southern, W.T. (1991). Objections to early entrance and

grade skipping. In W.T. Southern & E. D. Jones (Eds.), e academic ac

celeration of gifted children (pp. 51–73). New York: Teachers College Press.

Jones, E. D., & Southern, W.T. (1994). Opportunities for rural gifted stu-

dents: Improving educational options through acceleration. e Journal

of Secondary Gifted Education, 5(4), 60–66.

Kulik, J. A., & Kulik, C. C. (1984). Eﬀects of acceleration on students.

Review of Educational Research, 54, 409–425.

National Work Group on Acceleration (2009). Guidelines for developing an

academic acceleration policy. Iowa City, IA: Institute for Research and

Policy on Acceleration, Belin-Blank Center for Gifted Education and

Talent Development.

Pressey, S. L. (1949). Educational acceleration: Appraisal of basic prob-

lems. Bureau of Educational Research Monograph No. 31. Columbus,

OH: e Ohio State University Press.

18 A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2

Types of Acceleration : Southern & Jones

Robinson, N. M. (2004). Eﬀects of academic acceleration on the so-

cial-emotional status of gifted students. In N. Colangelo, S. G. As-

souline, & M. U. M. Gross (Eds.) A Nation deceived: How schools hold

back America’s brightest students (V.II., pp. 59-67). Iowa City, IA: e

Connie Belin & Jacqueline N. Blank International Center for Gifted

Education and Talent Development.

Robinson, N. M., & Janos, P. M. (1986). Psychological adjustment in a

college-level program of marked academic acceleration, Journal of Youth

and Adolescence, 15, 51–60.

Rogers, K. B. (2002). Re-forming gifted education: Matching the program to

the child. Scottsdale, AZ: Great Potential Press.

Rogers, K. B. (2004). e academic eﬀects of acceleration. In N. Colange-

lo, S. G. Assouline, & M. U. M. Gross (Eds.) A Nation deceived: How

schools hold back America’s brightest students (V.II., pp. 47-57). Iowa

City, IA: e Connie Belin & Jacqueline N. Blank International Center

for Gifted Education and Talent Development.

Southern, W.T., & Jones, E. D. (1991). Academic acceleration: Background

and issues. In W.T. Southern & E. D. Jones (Eds.), e academic accel-

eration of gifted children. (pp. 1–28), New York: Teachers College Press.

Southern, W.T., Jones, E. D., & Fiscus, E. D. (1989a). Academic accelera-

tion: Concerns of gifted students and their parents. Paper presented at

the annual meeting of the National Association for Gifted Children,

Cincinnati.

Southern, W.T., Jones, E. D., & Fiscus, E. D. (1989b). Practitioner objec-

tions to the academic acceleration of young gifted children. Gifted Child

Quarterly, 33, 29–35.

Southern, W.T., Jones, E. D., & Stanley, J. C. (1993). Acceleration and en-

richment: e context and development of program options. In K. A.

Heller, F. J. Mönks, & A. H. Passow (Eds.), International handbook of

research and development of giftedness and talent (pp. 387–405). New

York: Pergamon.

Stanley, J. C. (1976).e case for extreme educational acceleration of intel-

lectually brilliant students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 20, 65–75.

VanTassel-Baska, J. & Little, C. (2011) Content-based curriculum for the

gifted. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

VanTassel-Baska, J. & Stambaugh, T., (2006). Project Athena: A pathway

to advanced literacy development for children of poverty. Gifted Child

To d a y . Spring, 58-65.

A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2 19

Academic Eects Research Synthesis : Rogers

Introduction

In A Nation Deceived: How Schools Hold Back America’s Bright-

est Students (Colangelo, Assouline, & Gross, 2004), academ-

ic acceleration was deﬁned as a series of options falling into

two general categories of instructional management: (a)

subject-based acceleration, options that expose the learner to

advanced content, skills, and understandings before expect-

ed age or grade level in a speciﬁc content area or areas; and

(b) grade-based acceleration, options that shorten the number

of years a learner remains in the K-12 school system before

entering a university or other postsecondary training. Several

authors in the publication (e.g., Brody, Muratori, & Stanley,

2004; Colangelo, Assouline, & Lupkowski-Shoplik, 2004;

Lubinski, 2004: Robinson, 2004; Rogers, 2004) argued that

the category of accelerative options that will be most success-

ful with an individual learner with academic gifts and talents

depends upon the interaction of the learner’s cognitive func-

tioning levels, learning strengths, personal characteristics,

interests inside and outside school, and general attitudes

toward learning and school. A learner without the positive

catalysts described will not likely be “cured” academically

by shortening his/her years in the K-12 system (grade-based

acceleration), no matter what his or her level of ability may

be. On the other hand, this same learner might improve in

academic achievement overall if provided with direct daily

challenge beyond grade level in his/her speciﬁc academic tal-

ent area (subject-based acceleration). Likewise, a learner who

is self-directed, motivated to learn new things, and working

well beyond grade level in most academic areas might beneﬁt

equally well from more than one accelerative option in either

category of academic acceleration (Rogers, 2002).

Since the 2004 publication of A Nation Deceived, there has

been increased attention on viewing academic acceleration

as an intervention and educator acceptance of acceleration

as a viable evidence-based practice in schools. In recent State

of the States reports (NAGC & CSDPG, 2009, 2013), there

has been an increase in the number of states mandating ac-

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.

The Academic, Socialization, and

Psychological Eects of Acceleration:

Research Synthesis

Karen B. Rogers

University of St. Thomas, College of Education, Leadership, and Counseling, Minneapolis, Minnesota

Chapter 2

20 A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2

Academic Eects Research Synthesis : Rogers

celeration as a state-wide practice. Minnesota, for example,

has mandated that every district will include in their gifted

program policy a statement of the forms of acceleration (i.e.,

early entrance to kindergarten, grade-skipping, concurrent

enrollment) the district provides. But if the increase in atten-

tion and acceptance has been shown, what is not known is

(a) whether the research that has followed this increase in at-

tention has been positive and robust, and (b) whether or not

there is general acceptance that academic acceleration must

be individually considered, child-by-gifted-child, in its use.

The argument for an idiosyncratic approach to accelerative

decision-making for the gifted learner is most certainly en-

hanced by the large body of informative studies that support

a variety of accelerative forms from which to choose. Under-

standing and being able to interpret the general academic ef-

fects of these accelerative forms and treating them as a menu

of management options can be an eective ﬁrst step in deter-

mining the “best” form (or forms) of academic acceleration

for individual learners with gifts or talents. Instruments such

as the Iowa Acceleration Scale (IAS) (Assouline, Colangelo,

Lupkowski-Shoplik, Lipscomb, & Forstadt, 2009) have prov-

en viable and valid in predicting the success of an individual

acceleration decision. For example, the IAS was reported to

predict substantial academic, socialization, and motivational

improvements when students recommended in the “excel-

lent” and “good” categories of the instrument were followed

up in their schools after an acceleration decision had been

made (Forstadt, Assouline, & Colangelo, 2007).

The purpose of this chapter is to determine if the increased

attention on the variety of forms of academic acceleration

has been supported by well-designed studies on the direct ef-

fects of practice implementation upon learners with gifts and

talents. To be answered are the following questions:

1. Have the more recent research studies of

academic acceleration contributed new data

on the most viable forms of acceleration for

learners with gifts and talents?

2. Have new forms of academic acceleration

provided by states and schools resulted in

improved academic, social, and psychological

outcomes for learners with gifts and talents?

3. Has the continued use of acceleration options

since Rogers’ (1992) initial meta-analysis been

supported with equivalent eects?

4. Which forms of academic acceleration show

greatest promise in the current learning envi-

ronments in this nation’s schools?

Methodology

Rationale for the Current Study

In this update of acceleration practices, the results of six pre-

vious meta-analyses or best-evidence syntheses are the foun-

dation for the research synthesized. As indicated in Table 1,

there has been a fairly consistent set of conclusions from each

of these syntheses, even though the selection details for each

synthesis dier. For example, Rogers (1992, 2004) analyzed

each form of acceleration separately, based only on those

studies of each respective form of accelerative option, where-

as Steenbergen-Hu and Moon (2011) considered the form of

accelerative option a moderating variable. Nevertheless, the

ﬁrst conclusion across these syntheses is that academic ac-

celeration produces notable academic gains for students with

gifts and talents, regardless of the category of acceleration or

actual acceleration option provided. The second conclusion

is that academic acceleration produces small-to-moderate

social-emotional gains for these students, for most categories

of acceleration option provided. It is important to note that

this table combines little of the sophisticated analysis con-

ducted by these meta-analysts, and it is important to go di-

rectly to the source for the study authors’ more sophisticated

analyses than reported in this table.

In 2006, a research grant from the Institute for Policy and Re-

search on Acceleration (IRPA; renamed Acceleration Insti-

tute) at the University of Iowa’s Belin-Blank Center allowed

for an update to the meta-analyses previously conducted by

Rogers (1992, 2004). A brief synopsis of this research was re-

ported in the IRPA 2008 Wallace Symposium Proceedings (Rog-

ers, 2010). The updated report presented in the following

pages provides the details of that analysis, beyond the 2008

Wallace presentation, and includes additional studies that

have been conducted for each of the accelerative options.

Procedure for Current Study Update

In the eort to collect all publications on the forms of ac-

celeration, seven database searches were undertaken to

cover the years 1990 through 2013. Citations produced

from ERIC, PsychINFO, Dissertations and Theses, Sociolog-

ical Abstracts, Child Development & Adolescent Studies, Edu-

cation FullText, and Academic Search Premier were collect-

ed. The general descriptors for “gifted education” and for

“academic acceleration” listed for each database, as guided

by its respective thesaurus, included all keywords involving

the acceleration provisions practiced in the ﬁeld of gifted

education. The publications were categorized by type of

A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2 21

Academic Eects Research Synthesis : Rogers

Table 1: Summary of Meta-Analytical Synthesis 1984-2010

Study Methodology Number of

Studies

Academic

Effect Size

Social-Emotional Effect Size Study Types

Included

Kulik & Kulik, 1984 Analysis of

comparison

studies of

accelerants

(As) and non

accelerants (NAs)

26 0.88

0.03 Popularity

-0.03 Adjustment

0.07 School Attitude

-0.02 Subject Attitude

0.17 Vocation

-0.13 Extracurricular participation

(inconsistency among studies of each S-E

factor)

Published, unpublished;

did not include

pre-experimental

case studies or

correlational studies.

Rogers, 1992 Analysis of all

studies of gifted

accelerants

1862-1990

380 0.50

grade-based;

0.46

subject-based

0.14 grade-based

0.21 subject-based

Published, unpublished;

including case

studies, correlational

Kent, 1992 Analysis of studies

that focused on

social-emotional

issues in

elementary gifted

learners, 1928-

1987

23 Not Reported 0.13 short-term

0.28 longitudinal

0.15 telescoping

0.14 early entrance

0.12 grade-skipping

Published, unpublished;

including case

studies, correlational

Kulik & Kulik, 2004 Analysis of

comparison

studies of

accelerants with

same age or

older age like

ability peers

26 0.80

same age

NA peers;

-0.04

older age

NA peers

0.28 same age NAs on school motivation

-0.17 same age NAs on self-acceptance

0.29 older age NAs on school motivation

-0.38 older age NAs on self-acceptance

Published, unpublished;

did not include

pre-experimental

case studies or

correlational studies

Rogers, 2004 Analysis of all

quantitative

studies of gifted

accelerants,

accelerative

option by

accelerative

option

103

grade-

based

205

subject-

based

0.40

grade-based

options

combined;

0.38

subject-

based options

combined

None reported in this analysis Published, unpublished;

including case

studies, correlational

Steenbergen-Hu &

Moon, 2011

Analysis of

comparison

studies 1984-

2008 for high-

ability accelerants

38 0.40

comparisons

with same age

high ability

peers

0.14 comparisons with same age high ability

peers

Published, unpublished;

did not include

case study effects

(pre-post, pre-

experimental)

22 A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2

Academic Eects Research Synthesis : Rogers

publication, form of accelerative option, whether or not the

“study” was research or non-research, type of research de-

sign, sample sizes of comparison groups, and research ques-

tion(s) asked about the acceleration practice. Not included in

this study collection were evaluation studies of gifted curric-

ulum, such as the William & Mary language arts, mathemat-

ics, social studies, and science units, which are not speciﬁcal-

ly instructional management options that require subject or

grade-based acceleration to take place consistently; although

this curriculum may make it possible for subject acceleration

to occur. Between 1990 and 2008, a total of 22 forms of accel-

eration had been quantitatively researched during the period

(Rogers, 2010), with an additional 42 studies found since the

2010 IRPA meta-analysis report. The data reported here as

Table 2 include both sets of studies covering this period, 1990

– 2013. Because a preliminary report was provided as part of

the 2008 Wallace Symposium Proceedings (Rogers, 2010) and no

other publication was pursued following that report, the two

sets of data have been combined.

In order to be included as a research study in the current

synthesis, the manuscript, published or unpublished, had

to report the author’s method for systematically collecting

quantitative data about the purpose described in the study.

Second, each report had to describe a recognizable study

design, but designs were not limited to experimental and

quasi-experimental studies only; case study observations

with pre-and post-data, pre-experimental design, as well as

correlation, regression, causal-comparative, and survey de-

signs were included. No studies were eliminated because of

methodological ﬂaws, if a recognizable research design was

evident. Third, to be included as research, each study had to

yield dependable, quantitatively summarized results, either

descriptive or inferential. Fourth, if several publications de-

scribed the same research data, the most complete report

was used for further analysis. When a single study reported

ﬁndings from several dierent instruments or samples, sep-

arate eect sizes were ﬁrst computed for each outcome, fol-

lowed by a mean eect size estimate across all academic or

social/emotional eects in that study, respectively. In cases

where the ﬁndings of several instruments described a single

outcome, such as mathematics achievement, the results were

pooled to compute a composite eect size result. The meth-

od recommended by Strube (1991) was followed in this calcu-

lation of a composite eect size. When a study collected data

from more than one accelerative option type or used more

than one distinct comparison group, the report was counted

as a distinct study under each acceleration option. Finally, the

accelerative option described in each study had to have been

used with gifted learners, with speciﬁcations included as to

how the subjects were identiﬁed.

The majority of the qualifying studies reported quantitative

results that could be reduced to the metric of eect size (ES).

In general, calculating an eect size requires the subtraction

of the mean achievement of the control group from the treat-

ment group’s mean achievement. This dierence is divided

by the pooled standard deviation of the two groups, i.e.,

M experimental group gain – M control group gain

SD pooled

ES =

(Glass, McGaw, & Smith, 1981). For studies reporting cor-

relations, eect size was calculated by dividing the square

root of 1-r

into 2r. As each study’s eect sizes were combined

to one median eect, Hedges’ g (Hedges, 1981) was used to

combine the composite eect sizes across studies for a single

overall eect size for academic, social, and emotional, respec-

tively, because it weights for sample size (Hedges, 1981; Hedg-

es & Olkin, 1985; Hedges, Shymansky & Woodworth, 1989).

Correspondingly, a chi square analysis indicates whether the

combined eect sizes dier signiﬁcantly from each other or

act as outliers among the studies. This analysis was the ﬁnal

step in the combination process.

Eect size can be interpreted in a variety of ways. In general,

most meta-analysts recognize an eect size of .30 or higher

as being of practical signiﬁcance to classroom practice. Ac-

cording to Glass, McGaw, and Smith’s (1981) interpretation,

an eect size of .30 would suggest the grade equivalent im-

provement in a given outcome for one group of about three

additional months of achievement of the experimental group

over the control group or to suggest that the experimental

group was that much further into the school year’s teaching

eorts. This could suggest that were the current teaching ef-

fort to continue for three years, the experimental students

would be a full school year ahead of their equally able con-

trols. When eect sizes are reported for social or emotional

outcomes, it is often more understandable to interpret eect

size in terms of how much additional growth was found on

the measure of a social or emotional factor. For example, if a

learner had scored a 50 on the initial measure (e.g., measure

of social maturity) an eect size of .10 reported would indi-

cate improvement of score to 54, an eect size of .30 would

suggest a score of 62, and an eect size of 1.00 would suggest

a score of 84 (Coe, 2002).

The Effects of

Acceleration Options

Rogers (2010) identiﬁed 12 forms of subject-based accelera-

tion and six forms of grade-based acceleration. Subject-based

A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2 23

Academic Eects Research Synthesis : Rogers

acceleration allows gifted learners to ﬂexibly progress

through the general K-12 curriculum or exposes these learn-

ers to knowledge, skills, and understandings beyond expect-

ed age or grade levels. Grade-based acceleration allows gifted

learners to progress more quickly through the general K-12

curriculum, leaving the system anywhere from one to four

years earlier than the normal age/grade lockstep system pro-

vides. Since 2010, the number of forms of acceleration has

increased. The forms

are listed below and Table 2 provides

a summary of the available research-based eects, i.e., eect

sizes, for most of the forms.

• Accelerated/Honors High School

Classes: Advanced students are grouped to-

gether for curriculum that extends and moves

more rapidly through general or advanced ed-

ucation outcomes. These courses may also be

oered as College-in-the-Schools programs, col-

lege coursework oered on the high school site

(usually by a local university), utilizing either a

high school teacher trained to oer this course

or a college faculty member, and giving credit

for successful completion of the course, usually

restricted to the university that provides the

instruction.

• Accelerated Residential High School: Pro-

grams are provided on a university campus as a

residential program or as a Governor’s School,

for which students can complete both high

school requirements and college courses as part

of their program of study.

• Advanced Placement (AP) Courses: Stu-

dents take AP classes in speciﬁc content areas

and take external national exams to attain

scores that qualify for advanced standing in

those content areas at selected universities.

• Compacted Curriculum: The regular cur-

riculum of any or all subjects is tailored to the

speciﬁc gaps, deﬁciencies, and strengths of an

individual student. The learner “tests out” or

bypasses previously learned skills and content,

focusing only on mastery of deﬁcient areas,

thus moving rapidly through the curriculum of-

fered in the educational setting. Replacement

activities are provided to ﬁll in the learner’s

classroom time.

• Competition Programs: Co-curricular, aca-

demically-oriented programs allow students to

work at their limits against others with similar

talents for local, state, national, or interna-

tional standing. It is to be noted that among

the eight studies on competitions, most of

them through the Olympiads, none have data

that can be calculated in terms of eect size.

Nonetheless, the research in this area must

be recognized as supportive of academic and

psychological gains for learners with gifts or

talents.

• Computer Online Courses: Students enroll

in online advanced, often individualized, cours-

es during the school day in lieu of courses taken

at the school site.

• Concurrent/Dual Enrollment: Gifted learn-

ers are allowed to attend classes in more than

one building level during the same school year.

For example, a junior high student attends high

school for part of the school day and junior

high classes for the remainder of the day. In

some states, the term Postsecondary Enrollment

Options is used when this dual enrollment oc-

curs for high schoolers who are given both high

school and community college or university

credit for their work on a community college,

college, or university campus. Another varia-

tion of this option is Distance Education Cours-

es, which allow gifted learners to work with

outside materials provided by a college or other

organization in lieu of the regular grade-level

curriculum of the school. Many schools award

credit for this type of coursework.

• Credit by Examination: Students take a test

to ensure mastery of the content area in order

to place them at a higher content level. This is

often oered as a course placement option at

the university level (e.g., the College Level Ex-

amination Program [CLEP]). As with distance

learning studies, there were two studies on the

academic and psychological impact of credit

by examination, but the data provided could

not be calculated into an eect size metric for

the most recent study. Nonetheless, the two

studies merit attention.

1. Editors’ note: Rogers’s forms are highly similar to the 20 forms reported by

Southern and Jones (this volume). However, there are some important distinctions,

including elaborations about various forms. Therefore, the two lists are included in

the respective chapters of the volume.

24 A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2

Academic Eects Research Synthesis : Rogers

• Distance Education Courses: Students take

televised or Skype courses from their home

school along with students from other sites

enrolled in the same course. Correspondence

courses are also considered a form of distance

education. None of the studies found since

2004 have had quantiﬁable data that could be

converted to eect size metrics.

• Early Entrance to Kindergarten or First

Grade: Gifted learners demonstrating a

readiness to perform school work are allowed

to enter kindergarten or ﬁrst grade one to two

years earlier than the usual beginning age.

• Early Entrance to University: A student

enters college as a full-time student without

completing a high school diploma. Students

matriculate to university a minimum of one

year earlier and participate in full-time academ-

ic work there.

• Grade-Skipping: Gifted learners bypass one

to two grade levels, either in tandem or in sepa-

rate years in the K-12 system.

• Grade Telescoping: Students progress more

rapidly through the curriculum of several grade

levels, either individually or in groups. A middle

school student or group of students, for exam-

ple, would complete the three years of middle

school curriculum in two years’ time.

• Homeschooling: Students study at advanced

levels outside of the regular school, often using

an external, commercial curriculum.

• Honors Classes at University: Advanced

classes are oered to gifted students upon

entering university programs as a full-time

student.

• Independent Study: Gifted learners are pro-

vided with a structure for studying in depth a

topic of interest on their own during the school

day, in lieu of the regular school curriculum.

• Individualized Acceleration: Students work

at their own pace through continuous progress

content and skill outcomes.

• International Baccalaureate Program: Stu-

dents participate in full college-level curricu-

lum in high school, receiving advanced standing

at selected universities if they score highly on

the international diploma examination.

• Mentorship/Coaching: Students are placed

with a content expert to extend learning in the

expert’s content area (one-year placement).

This option connects high school students who

have exhausted all high school curriculum in

their talent areas with a community or univer-

sity “expert” who oversees the student’s studies

and learning over the course of a year, usually

outside of school time.

• Multi-Grade/Combination Classrooms:

Learners of all ability levels are placed in a

classroom that covers two years’ curriculum,

such as a combined ﬁrst/second grade

classroom.

•

Non-Graded/Multi-Age Classrooms: Learn-

ers of all ability levels are placed in a classroom

undierentiated by grade levels. Students work

through the curricular materials at a pace appro-

priate to individual ability and motivational levels.

• Radical Acceleration: Students complete the

four years of high school and four years of uni-

versity in four years’ time; another permutation

would be an individualized progression through

K-16, not necessarily only occurring during the

secondary years of school.

• Saturday Classes on University Campus:

Students attend weekly all-day class in ad-

vanced subject area across an entire year.

• Single-Subject Acceleration: Gifted learners

are allowed to bypass the usual progression of

skills and content mastery in one subject where

great advancement or proﬁciency has been

observed. Often the learner continues to prog-

ress at the regular pace through the remaining

subject areas.

• Summer University Classes: Students attend

a one- to six-week summer enrichment pro-

gram working on advanced subject matter,

often receiving credit in their home schools for

their work.

• Talent Search Programs: Students demon-

strating talents in one or more areas participate

in above-level testing, for example, by taking

the SAT or ACT in middle school through a

university-based talent search program. Those

students who achieve high scores are invited

to attend advanced courses and programs that

A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2 25

Academic Eects Research Synthesis : Rogers

typically occur outside of regular school time

and often on a college campus or online.

Table 2 summarizes the type of eect, number of quantitative

studies, number of outcomes, and average eect size found

for many of these forms of acceleration for the years between

2008 and 2013. In some cases, this has resulted in eect sizes

considerably dierent from those initially reported, particu-

larly in Rogers’ earliest synthesis (1992).

Mean academic eect sizes are strong for gifted participants

in accelerated/honors high school classes, AP classes, computerized

online classes, grade-skipping, honors classes at university, Interna-

tional Baccalaureate diploma programs, radical acceleration; and

Saturday enrichment classes (n=1 study). In these most recent

years, the number of studies for subject-based accelerative

strategies has ranged from three to six per acceleration op-

tion (with the exception of AP). Strong eect sizes for social

adjustment outcomes are shown for one option: mentorships.

Psychological eects were found to be strong for accelerated/

honors high school classes and homeschooling (n=1 study).

Moderate academic eects were found for accelerated res-

idential high schools (usually on college campuses), dual/con-

current enrollment, early entrance to kindergarten, homeschooling

(n=1 study), individualized acceleration, single subject acceleration,

summer classes on university campuses, and participation in tal-

ent search programs. Moderate social eects were found for

grade-skipping, honors classes at university, and summer classes on

university campuses. One option reported a moderate nega-

tive social eect: Accelerated residential high schools. Moderate

psychological eects were found for AP classes, computer on-

line classes, honors classes at university, single subject acceleration,

and summer university courses. Moderate psychological eects

also were found for three grade-based acceleration options

researched during this period: early admission to university,

grade-skipping, and radical acceleration.

Slight, but positive academic eects were found for curric-

ulum compacting, individualized acceleration, and mentorships,

while slight, but positive social eects were found for acceler-

ated/honors classes, early entrance to kindergarten, early entrance to

university, and radical acceleration. Slight, but positive, psycho-

logical eects were found for AP classes, curriculum compacting,

and mentorships. A slight negative eect was found for early

entrance to kindergarten. (See Table 2.)

One last analysis makes the attempt to ﬁnd the patterns of

eects among the variety of subject-based and grade-based

acceleration options. As Table 3 summarizes, there was no

dierence between the general academic eects of sub-

ject-based acceleration options and grade-based options.

Both categories of acceleration produce moderate academ-

ic eects for learners with gifts and talents; however, grade-

based acceleration produces stronger (moderate) socializa-

tion and psychological eects, while those eects are smaller

for subject-based acceleration. When the studies that col-

lected data on students at dierent school levels (elementary,

middle school, high school) were synthesized, it was discov-

ered that there were some dierences in various summary ef-

fects. For elementary school gifted learners, grade-skipping

was the only metric that measured academic eects of grade-

based options (gauged as “strong”), but for subject-based ac-

celeration and socialization and psychological eects at the

elementary level, the eects were moderate. All academic,

socialization, and psychological eects were moderate at

the middle school level for both subject-based and grade-based

acceleration. And at the high school level, there were strong

academic eects for both subject-based and grade-based

options, and a strong psychological eect for grade-based

options, but the remaining socialization and psychological

eects are slight across both subject-based and grade-based

options. In sum, grade-based acceleration has a slight aca-

demic advantage in eect at all three school levels and some-

what more positive socialization and psychological eects at

all three school levels. (See Table 3.)

Conclusions, Discussion,

and Future Directions

The research on academic acceleration since 2008, as report-

ed here, provides educational decision-makers with a large,

research-supported menu of accelerative options that may

result in substantial academic achievement for gifted learn-

ers. When one looks at the academic eects of the various

subject-based and grade-based options, there are several sub-

ject-based acceleration options with at least moderate mean

eect sizes, and three grade-based acceleration options with

moderate-to-strong eect sizes.

Considering the social eects that have been studied for

some of these options, there also are several subject-based

and grade-based options that produce moderate improve-

ments in this domain. Whereas for psychological adjustments

(e.g., self-ecacy, personal well-being, stability, etc.) there are

2 Three forms of acceleration are not reported in Table 2: grade telescoping,

multi-grade classrooms, and nongraded classrooms because there were no new

studies since 1991 on these forms. The previous academic eect sizes of +.40, +.21,

and +.39, respectively, are the most recent evidence of academic eects for these

three options.

26 A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2

Academic Eects Research Synthesis : Rogers

Acceleration Option Type of Effect Number of Studies Number of Outcomes Mean Effect Size

Accelerated/honors high school classes A

+0.69

+0.11

+0.60

Accelerated residential high school on

university campus

+0.29

-0.27

+0.07

Advanced Placement courses A

+0.60

+0.01

+0.19

Compacted curriculum A

+0.20

+0.17

Computer on-line courses A

+0.72

+0.24

Concurrent/dual enrollment A

+0.41

-0.04

Early entrance to Kindergarten or ﬁrst grade A

+0.30

+0.20

-0.20

Early entrance to university A

+0.23

+0.18

+0.35

Grade-skipping A

+0.67

+0.34

+0.42

Homeschooling A

+0.42

+0.82

Honors classes at university A

+0.56

+0.38

+0.37

Individualized curriculum A 2 6 +0.25

International Baccalaureate program A

+0.70

-0.08

+0.03

Mentorship/coaching A

+0.22

+0.71

+0.16

Radical acceleration A

+0.61

+0.18

+0.42

Saturday classes on university campus A 1 1 +1.56

Table 2: Mean Effect Sizes for Acceleration Options

A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2 27

Academic Eects Research Synthesis : Rogers

Acceleration Option Type of Effect Number of Studies Number of Outcomes Mean Effect Size

Single-subject acceleration A

+0.42

+0.07

+0.35

Summer university courses A

+0.43

+0.31

+0.40

Talent search programs A 6 21 +0.34

Table 2: Mean Effect Sizes for Acceleration Options (continued)

Note: A – academic eects, including achievement, time on academic task, subsequent choice of advanced courses, grade point average, academic competency measures, perceptions

of challenge, school satisfaction, concept attainment, clarity of instruction, honors/awards/scholarships received, intellectual eciency, school aptitude, grasp of main idea, infor-

mation processing speed, perceptions of school climate, success on exams, number of university credits awarded, school/subject aptitude, academic progress, education level attained,

educational/career aspirations, college graduation age, sense of preparation for advanced coursework, college ranking, PhD received, adult income, patents received, caliber of career.

S = social adjustment eects, including social cognition level, social maturity, engagement/leadership in organizations, co-curricular participation, iendship, peer acceptance,

socialization, social presence, family harmony, social conﬁdence, introversion or extraversion, social skill level, level of social problems, perceptions of social interference in learning,

perceptions of parent/social support, level of social interaction, social self-concept, level of competitiveness, perceptions of popularity.

P = psychological adjustment eects, including perceptions of appeal and meaning of academic eort, task commitment, trait anxiety, positive/negative emotions, perceptions of

well-being, self-ecacy, self-regulation levels, worry, attitude toward subject, satisfaction with teachers, life satisfaction, global satisfaction, cheer, seriousness, mood levels, indepen-

dence/autonomy, self-acceptance, ﬂexibility, mental health, self-concept, self-conﬁdence, stability, self-worth, mental attention, conduct, sense of integration, responsibility, persistence,

distress, perceptions of relevance, perceptions of diculty, locus of control, academic interest, motivation to learn, perceptions of readiness, priorities, intellectual satisfaction, happi-

ness, intrinsic motivation, sensitivities, levels of psychological distress (i.e., depression, phobia, paranoia).

several subject-based and all grade-based options reporting

moderate-to-strong eect sizes. What is promising about

this most recent meta-analysis is the remarkable focus on so-

cial and psychological outcomes that was not as evident and

consistent in previous syntheses. The reported results bode

well for helping to overcome the “myths” of social maladjust-

ment and psychological problems, which may have deterred

educational leaders from considering more of their brightest

students for some form of acceleration, whether grade-based

or subject-based.

In terms of the quality of research reported in more recent

years, there seems to have been a decline in qualitative stud-

ies on the nature and outcomes of acceleration options; for

Rogers (2010) report, approximately one- third of the stud-

ies were qualitative. With the years between 2008 and 2013,

approximately one-tenth of the studies were qualitative in

this area of educational practice. Some concerns must be

raised, however, about the quantitative designs employed.

Very large data bases have served as the student populations

under study, for dual enrollment and AP studies in particular.

For residential high schools, honors classes at both high school and

university, International Baccalaureate diploma programs, single

subject acceleration, summer university courses, talent search, rad-

ical acceleration, and early admission to college, survey data have

been administered, usually across several cohorts, compar-

ing participants with either “traditional” students or “gifted,

non-accelerated” students. Usually structural equation mod-

eling, Logit modeling, or regression studies are used for data

analysis with what may be considered little regard for what

is actually occurring for the gifted learners who participate.

The individual student and best practice for that student is

often unconsidered, despite the many calls over the years to

“match” our acceleration decision to the cognitive, social, and

emotional needs of individual learners with gifts or talents

(e.g., Benbow & Lubinski, 1995; Kent, 1992; Rogers, 2002).

The forms of academic acceleration for gifted learners have

shifted in research focus during this most recent period as

well. Advanced Placement, now a more widespread program

oered to underserved populations as well as more main-

stream high ability learners, dual/concurrent enrollment with

college credit, International Baccalaureate diploma programs, ear-

ly admission to university, single subject acceleration, and summer

university courses have focused on high school students, pri-

marily, with some consideration given to middle schoolers,

especially with single-subject acceleration and summer university

courses. Currently, studies of elementary students, the main-

stay of the previous century’s research, are relatively few,

with only early entrance to school and computerized on-line courses

producing more than one to two studies. If the “answers” to

our accelerative decisions were clear, this set of circumstanc-

es might be appropriate, but the research on such options as

curriculum compacting, nongraded classrooms, grade telescoping,

28 A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2

Academic Eects Research Synthesis : Rogers

Table 3: Summary Effect Sizes by Category of Acceleration and School Level

Subject-Based

Acceleration

Grade-Based

Acceleration

Effect Size Variables, All Levels Combined, Elementary, Middle, and High School

Summary Academic Effets +0.51 +0.50

Summary Socialization Effects +0.16 +0.23

Summary Psychological Effects +0.24 +0.34

Effect Size Variables, Elementary Level

Academic Effects: Elementary +0.42 +0.67

Socialization Effects: Elementary +0.33 +0.34

Psychological Effects: Elementary +0.31 +0.42

Effect Size Variables, Middle School Level

Academic Effects: Middle School +0.39 +0.45

Socialization Effects: MiIddle School +0.29 +0.26

Psychological Effects: Middle School +0.36 +0.39

Effect Size Variables, High School Level

Academic Effects: High School +0.56 +0.50

Socializaton Effects: High School +0.16 +0.23

Psychological Effects: High School +0.21 +0.34

Note: Actual numbers of elementary vs. middle school vs. high school students were not parsed out and recalculated across various acceleration options. A secondary analysis to

do such calculations is recommended. The composite eect size for those forms of acceleration that included elementary students, for example, were separated out, averaged, and

reported in this table.

mentorships, individualized acceleration, homeschooling, and Sat-

urday classes at the elementary school level is scant with major

sets of eects, particularly social and emotional outcomes,

basically unaddressed. At the high school level, more needs

to be studied concerning accelerated/honors classes and residen-

tial high schools about actual academic as well as social and

psychological eects.

The numbers of gifted students studied regarding the impact

of acceleration practices is quite extensive, however. In a

previous meta-analysis, a criticism of the work conducted on

academic acceleration was that the sample sizes in the stud-

ies were small. With recent access to NELS data as well as

university admissions records as sources for data, the sizes of

studies have increased substantially. Across the subject-based

acceleration option eects reported here, 50,660 students

were studied (not including their comparison groups), while

for grade-based acceleration option eects 2,811 students

were studied.

Even though the research in the gifted ﬁeld on accelera-

tion practices is substantial, an important caveat needs to

be repeated. It is imperative that decisions about both sub-

ject-based and grade-based acceleration be formulated on

more than the research alone. Although the limitations of

the studies found on the various forms of acceleration have

been reported here, it is possible that the studies themselves

do not match the speciﬁc settings and contexts of every state,

district, or school. Therefore, it is important that those re-

sponsible for decisions collect adequate supplementary in-

formation about an individual learner’s cognitive functioning

levels, learning strengths, learning preferences, and interests

and involvement inside and outside of school. With this ad-

ditional information, the “best” decision for meeting the

learner’s educational needs through some form of accelera-

tion provided at the right time and in the right place will most

likely be made.

A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2 29

Academic Eects Research Synthesis : Rogers

References

Assouline, S. G., Colangelo, N., Lupkowski-Shoplik, A., Lipscomb, J., &

Forstadt, L. (2009). e Iowa Acceleration Scale, 3rd edition: Manual.

Scottsdale, AZ: Great Potential Press.

Benbow, C., & Lubinski, D. (1995). Optimal development of talent: Re-

spond educationally to individual diﬀerences in personality. Educational

Forum, 59, 381-392.

Brody, L. E., Muratori, M. & Stanley, J. C. (2004). Early entrance to college:

Academic, social, and emotional considerations. In N. Colangelo, S. G.

Assouline, & M. U. M. Gross (Eds.), A Nation deceived: How schools

hold back America’s brightest students (V.II., pp. 97-107). Iowa City, IA:

e Connie Belin & Jacqueline N. Blank International Center for Gift-

ed Education and Talent Development.

Coe, R. (2002). It’s the eﬀect size, stupid: What eﬀect size is and why it is

important. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the British

Educational Research Association. Exeter, UK Retrieved from https://

www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/00002182.htm

Colangelo, N., Assouline, S. G., & Gross, M.U.M. (2004). A Nation de-

ceived: How schools hold back America’s brightest students (V.II.). Iowa

City, IA: e Connie Belin & Jacqueline N. Blank International Center

for Gifted Education and Talent Development.

Colangelo, N. Assouline, S. G. & Lupkowski-Shoplik, A. E. (2004).

Whole-grade acceleration. In N. Colangelo, S. G. Assouline, & M. U.

M. Gross (Eds.), A Nation deceived: How schools hold back America’s

brightest students (V.II., pp. 77-86). Iowa City, IA: e Connie Belin

& Jacqueline N. Blank International Center for Gifted Education and

Talent Development.

Forstadt, L., Assouline, S.G., & Colangelo, N. (2007). Evaluation of the

eﬀectiveness of the Iowa Acceleration Scale (IAS) in determining the ap-

propriateness of whole-grade acceleration. Paper presented at the annual

conference of the National Association for Gifted Children. Minneap-

olis, Minnesota.

Glass, G.V., McGaw, B., & Smith, M.L. (1981). Meta-analysis in social re-

search. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Hedges, L. V. (1981). Distribution theory for Glass’s estimator of eﬀect

size and related estimators. Journal of Educational Statistics, 6, 107-128.

Hedges, L., & Olkin, I. (1985). Statistical methods for meta-analysis. NY:

Academic Press.

Hedges, L., Shymansky, J., & Woodworth, G. (1989). A practical guide to

modern methods of meta-analysis. Washington, DC: National Science

Teachers Association.

Kent, S. D. (1992). e eﬀects of acceleration on the social and emotional de-

velopment of gifted elementary students: A meta-analysis. (Unpublished

doctoral dissertation). University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.

Kulik, J. A., & Kulik, C-L. C. (1984). Eﬀects of accelerated instruction on

students. Review of Educational Research, 54, 409-425.

Kulik J. A., & Kulik, C-L. C. (2004). e comparative eﬀects of academic

acceleration and ability grouping. Paper presented at the biennial Inter-

national Wallace Symposium for Talent Development. Iowa City, IA.

Lubinski, D. (2004). Long-term eﬀects of educational acceleration. In N.

Colangelo, S. G. Assouline, & M. U. M. Gross (Eds.), A Nation de-

ceived: How schools hold back America’s brightest students (V.II., pp. 23-

37). Iowa City, IA: e Connie Belin & Jacqueline N. Blank Interna-

tional Center for Gifted Education and Talent Development.

National Association for Gifted Children & Council of State Directors of

Programs for the Gifted (NAGC & CSDPG; 2009). State of the states

in gifted education: 2008-2009. Washington, DC: Authors.

National Association for Gifted Children & Council of State Directors of

Programs for the Gifted (NAGC & CSDPG; 2013). State of the states

in gifted education: 2012-2013. Washington, DC: Authors.

Robinson, N. M. (2004). Eﬀects of academic acceleration on the so-

cial-emotional status of gifted students. In N. Colangelo, S. G. As-

souline, & M. U. M. Gross (Eds.), A Nation deceived: How schools hold

back America’s brightest students (V.II., pp. 59-67). Iowa City, IA: e

Connie Belin & Jacqueline N. Blank International Center for Gifted

Education and Talent Development.

Rogers, K.B. (1992). A best-evidence synthesis of the research on accel-

eration options for gifted learners. In N. Colangelo, S.G. Assouline, &

D. L. Ambroson (Eds.), Talent development: Proceedings from the 1991

Henry B. and Jocelyn Wallace National Research Symposium on Talent

Development. (pp. 406-409). Unionsville, NY: Trillium.

Rogers, K.B. (2002). Re-forming gifted education: How parents and teach-

ers can match the program to the child. Scottsdale, AZ: Gifted Potential

Press.

Rogers, K. B. (2004). e academic eﬀects of acceleration. In N. Colange-

lo, S. G. Assouline, & M. U. M. Gross (Eds.), A Nation deceived: How

schools hold back America’s brightest students (V.II., pp. 47-58). Iowa

City, IA: e Connie Belin & Jacqueline N. Blank International Center

for Gifted Education and Talent Development.

Rogers, K. B. (2010). Academic acceleration and giftedness: e research

from 1990 to 2008: A best-evidence synthesis. In N. Colangelo, S. As-

souline, D. Lohman, & M. Marron (Eds.), Proceedings of the acceleration

poster session at the 2008 Wallace research symposium on talent develop-

ment. Iowa City, IA: e Connie Belin & Jacqueline N. Blank Interna-

tional Center for Gifted Education and Talent Development.

Steenbergen-Hu, S., & Moon, S. M. (2011). e eﬀects of acceleration on

high-ability learners: A meta-analysis. Gifted Child Quarterly, 55, 39-

53.

Strube, M. J. (1991). Multiple determinants and eﬀect size: A more general

method of discourse. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61,

1024-1027.

* A complete reference list of all studies included in the current meta-analysis can be

found on the Nation Empowered website (www.nationempowered.org/authors/

rogers).

30 A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2

Academic Eects Research Synthesis : Rogers

A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2 31

Social-Emotional Eects of Acceleration : Cross, Andersen, & Mammadov

Introduction

Dr. Nancy Robinson, eminent scholar from the University of

Washington, contributed a thoughtful chapter, “Eects of Ac-

ademic Acceleration on the Social-Emotional Status of Gifted

Students” (Robinson, 2004) to A Nation Deceived: How Schools

Hold Back America’s Brightest Students. Dr. Robinson’s chapter

created a solid foundation for the current chapter; however,

the authors frame the topic slightly dierently with a focus on

the social and emotional lives of gifted students. The change,

while subtle, actually opened up additional perspectives on

the topic. Social and emotional lives are deﬁned as a category

that includes all aspects of the psychology of human experi-

ence from traditional social and emotional indicators to phe-

nomenology to personality. For example, Rogers (2010) used

three distinct categories of eects in her meta-analysis of the

literature on acceleration: academic, social adjustment, and

psychological adjustment. In this chapter, by using the head-

ing of “social and emotional lives of gifted students,” we shed

light on the social and psychological adjustment eects of

acceleration, which is more comprehensive than traditional

emphases on social and emotional indicators alone.

Considerations Before

Examining the Research

To organize the research base on the topic, it was necessary

to consider the fact that there are numerous types of accel-

eration practices (Southern & Jones, 2004). Similar types of

acceleration may aect students in multiple developmental

stages. For example, early entrance to preschool or kinder-

garten versus early entrance to college impacts students 10 to

12 years apart in age. There are myriad factors and variables

applicable in sorting out the potential impact of acceleration

on the social and emotional lives of gifted children. For ex-

ample, one could consider naturally occurring characteristics

of gifted students such as asynchronous development (Silver-

man, 1997) and view them in light of diering acceleration

techniques such as subject-area acceleration, grade-skipping,

radical acceleration, and so on.

In addition to considering the interaction of varied stu-

dent characteristics and types of acceleration, experience

is another applicable variable. In some studies, the gifted

students had considerable experience among students with

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.

Eects of Academic Acceleration

on the Social and Emotional

Lives of Gifted Students

Tracy L. Cross, Center for Gied Education, William and Mary, Williamsburg, Virginia

Lori Andersen, University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas

Sakhavat Mammadov, William and Mary, Williamsburg, Virginia

Chapter 3

32 A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2

Social-Emotional Eects of Acceleration : Cross, Andersen, & Mammadov

similar abilities in a selected setting, and in other studies this

was not the case. Another issue is related to the variability

in the ways in which acceleration may aect students across

cultural groups, including both those that encourage individ-

ual achievement and those that encourage community-based

group performance, such as students from Native American

backgrounds. The challenge in organizing the information

for this chapter was representing the research base in an or-

ganized manner that addresses as many of the permutations

as reasonable and to illustrate where more research is needed.

Results from meta-analyses, which examine a large number

of studies (see Rogers, 1992; 2010; this volume) on the various

subtopics of acceleration, elicit conﬁdence about the inter-

vention. Moreover, the growing corpus of qualitative studies

is slowly building from compelling speciﬁc examples, where-

in students who experience acceleration opportunities seem

to beneﬁt from them psychologically.

The research conducted on acceleration over the past 40

years has uncovered new factors and variables and raised im-

portant issues about the interpretation of data collected. For

example, the role of context in inﬂuencing the ﬁndings; the

relative developmental ages of the students being studied;

students’ previous experiences with nongraded or home-

schooled environments; the changing referent group and

how to interpret it appropriately across settings (e.g., the Big-

Fish-Little-Pond Eect; Dai & Rinn, 2008; Marsh & Craven,

2002); the limitations of the instruments used to study ac-

celeration; and the need to parse out nonaccelerative eects

from the ﬁndings within speciﬁc studies.

The most obvious lesson learned from a perusal of research

from the past 40 years has been that the ﬁndings have re-

ﬂected samples largely absent of diversity (McCain, 2012).

This phenomenon is particularly problematic due to the fact

that many of the studies rely on convenience samples from

programs run by universities and/or schools. Ultimately, the

ﬁndings of the research in this area are treated as a “yes” or

“no” phenomenon, when it is time to provide responses that

are more speciﬁc to the condition and samples used. The re-

search focusing on some groups, and/or permutations of fac-

tors and variables, leave researchers unable to fully address

the question about the nature and degree of eects of accel-

eration on the social and emotional lives of gifted students.

The ﬁeld of gifted education is becoming increasingly nu-

anced in its research into matters of a psychological nature,

but we still use the terms social and emotional as a reposito-

ry rather than as two categories under the broader heading

of psychological changes, eects, inﬂuences, and so forth.

Consequently, the authors chose the descriptive term “social

and emotional lives” to represent the larger, more expansive

framework, which includes both social and psychological ad-

justment, to better understand the many ways acceleration

aects gifted students. This broader framework can include

traditional topics such as self-concept, but also allows for

other topics to be included such as resilience, lived experi-

ence, social coping, and impression management, while also

allowing for increasingly nuanced and culturally speciﬁc top-

ics that are more contemporary to the literature.

The Research Base

Effects Across Acceleration Strategies

Acceleration strategies are based on an assumption that a

standard curriculum, as delivered in heterogeneous class-

room settings, is insucient to address gifted students’

diverse needs. The complex cognitive, personal, and social

characteristics of gifted students suggest that provision of

dierent accelerative options should be carefully designed

in a way that will build personal and social competencies.

Although numerous acceleration strategies are available and

studies continue to show positive outcomes as well as a lack

of negative outcomes on social-emotional development for

any form of acceleration (see Rogers, 2010; this volume),

the best acceleration option should be chosen and tailored

to the academic and social-emotional strengths of the in-

dividual child. Some of the acceleration strategies demand

changes in the school curriculum (e.g., subject acceleration),

whereas other strategies focus on student placement in more

advanced levels of the existing curriculum (e.g., grade-skip-

ping); the saliency of the social-emotional impact varies ac-

cording to the strategy.

Early entrance to school. Analyses of now-classic studies

(Hobson, 1963; Worchester, 1956) on early admission to kin-

dergarten or ﬁrst grade report positive results on social and

emotional outcomes. These studies revealed that younger

students had more positive or better social and emotional

adjustment than their older classmates (Daurio, 1979; Eisen-

berg & George, 1979; Worchester, 1956) and were actively

engaging in extracurricular activities and occupying school

positions of leadership (Hobson, 1963). Rogers’s (2010)

meta-analysis that included studies of early entrance revealed

positive academic and social adjustment, but negative psy-

chological adjustment eect sizes (.30, .10, and -.24 respec-

tively). Gagné and Gagnier (2004) investigated teachers’ per-

ceptions of the social-emotional and academic eects of early

entrance to school. Kindergarten and second grade teachers

from 18 school districts in the Canadian Province of Quebec

A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2 33

Social-Emotional Eects of Acceleration : Cross, Andersen, & Mammadov

evaluated the ﬁve best-adjusted and least-adjusted students

within their classes on conduct, integration, maturity, and ac-

ademic achievement. The group of students included 98 early

entrants and 1,723 regular entrants. Early entrants were rated

higher than regular entrants and, as a group, showed no evi-

dence of greater risk for adjustment problems. However, sex

dierences in the adjustment of early entrants were identi-

ﬁed, favoring girls. Robinson (2004) recommended that early

entrance to kindergarten should be limited to children who

were not younger than the cut-o birth date by more than

three months.

Grouping. Grouping students by ability (homogeneous

grouping) allows them to work at a pace of learning that often

exceeds the school’s typical curriculum. There is a long-stand-

ing controversy regarding the eectiveness of homogenous

versus heterogeneous grouping on gifted students’ academic

and social-emotional lives (Benbow & Stanley, 1996; Feldhu-

sen & Moon, 1992; Kulik & Kulik, 1997; Oakes, 1990, 1992;

Rogers, 1991; Slavin, 1990). Although some scholars advocate

heterogeneous grouping (Oakes, 1990, 1992; Slavin, 1990),

research suggests that this type of grouping has negative im-

pacts on gifted students’ social and emotional lives. Boredom

and demotivation due to the lack of challenge (Baker, Bridg-

er, & Evans, 1998), social ostracism (Gross, 1989), being mis-

understood (Kulik & Kulik, 1987), and teasing and bullying by

peers (Moon, Nelson, & Piercy, 1993) are among the negative

impacts. Many researchers in the ﬁeld of gifted education

believe that gifted students beneﬁt from homogenous group-

ing both academically and socioemotionally (Adams-Byers,

Whitsell, & Moon, 2004; Feldhusen & Moon, 1992; Kulik &

Kulik, 1997; Rogers, 1991; Sayler & Brookshire, 1993).

Special classes. Special classes provide a range of opportu-

nities for high-ability students with an intense and focused

interest to master challenging materials in various content

areas. Several studies included aective variables to investi-

gate the social and emotional outcomes of the special class-

es. Moon, Swift, and Shallenberger (2002) examined gifted

fourth and ﬁfth graders’ perceptions of a self-contained class.

Qualitative and quantitative analyses of the data suggested

that the self-contained classroom provided a challenging

learning environment for gifted students, but there were dif-

ferent social and emotional outcomes for speciﬁc students

during the school year. Speciﬁc emotional beneﬁts that stu-

dents listed in their focus groups were feeling smarter and

happier and feelings of accomplishment, pride, and achieve-

ment. Parents of the students reported increased happiness

and self-esteem and improved self-discipline as part of the

emotional beneﬁts of participation in the self-contained

class. Students indicated that they were also experiencing

some emotional challenges such as feeling “regular” because

of no longer being at the top of the class, being embarrassed

by poor grades, and feeling pressured, stressed, confused, or

some combination of these emotions. Unhappiness and stress

were emotional concerns that parents thought their children

experienced during the program. The social concerns report-

ed by the students included being “new” to a group, missing

old friends, losing old friends, and being teased or insulted by

students outside the class. Teachers and administrators not-

ed that the program was eective in helping the students to

develop social skills.

Wright and Leroux (1997) studied 25 gifted adolescents’

self-image during the transition year in a grouped classroom

in secondary school. The researchers employed the Harter

Self-Perception Proﬁle for Adolescents (Harter, 1988) and an in-

terview technique. The ﬁndings revealed that the self-image

of the students increased signiﬁcantly in the subscales Ro-

mantic Appeal and Close Friendship. The qualitative data

suggested that gifted students enjoyed being within a gifted

group. Overall, there was no change in Global Self-Worth

scores: The gain in female scores was oset by a decrease in

male scores. This ﬁnding suggested that females had a more

consistently positive response to the social atmosphere cre-

ated in the grouped setting than males. The students were

conscious of being labeled as dierent. Students’ Social Ac-

ceptance scores remained below the scores of Harter’s norm-

ing group. This implies that, although grouping was related to

statistically signiﬁcation improvements in students’ self-per-

ceptions, in some areas these improvements did not bring

students self-perceptions to the level of typical students.

Single-subject acceleration. High-ability students who are

served in regular classrooms spend a good deal of their time

in practicing already mastered skills, working on unchalleng-

ing tasks, and reviewing content for which they already show

substantial proﬁciency and/or mastery. Single-subject accel-

eration allows students to move more rapidly through the

content with speciﬁc modiﬁcations in curriculum. The stu-

dent may be placed in a classroom one or more years ahead

of his or her actual grade level, or be asked to stay in his or

her own classroom to work independently through the ad-

vanced curriculum. These two options might have dierent

outcomes socially and emotionally. However, the research on

the eects of this acceleration strategy on the social and emo-

tional lives of gifted students is far more limited than that on

academic outcomes. Lee, Olszewski-Kubilius, and Thomson

(2012) investigated students’ perceptions of their social com-

petence in gifted programs of dierent types. They found

more positive eects for subject acceleration on social com-

petence over whole-grade acceleration. Students who had

34 A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2

Social-Emotional Eects of Acceleration : Cross, Andersen, & Mammadov

experienced subject acceleration were found to have higher

interpersonal ability scores than other students.

Grade-skipping. Rogers (2010) found an average eect size

of .34 across four studies for social adjustment eects and an

average eect size of .42 across three studies for psycholog-

ical adjustment eects of grade-skipping. These eect siz-

es are small to medium-sized positive eects. On the other

hand, in an analysis of the literature, Neihart (2007) conclud-

ed that there were no substantial positive or negative social

or psychological adjustment eects for grade-skipping. As-

souline, Marron, and Colangelo (2014) described the overall

eects of grade-skipping as positive. In general, the eects of

grade-skipping appear to be positive and larger than for most

other accelerative strategies, given the overall eect sizes

found by Rogers (2010; this volume) and Steenbergen-Hu and

Moon (2011).

Gross (2006) provided an update of the ﬁndings from a 22-

year longitudinal study of students with IQs greater than 160.

She compared students who were accelerated to those who

were not accelerated. Her ﬁndings indicated that students

who were accelerated two or more years in early elementa-

ry school had far greater social self-esteem in childhood

and better social relationships later in life. She found that

students who were denied accelerative opportunities expe-

rienced social problems throughout their academic careers

and attributed this to early negative social experiences that

prevented these students from learning social skills. Gross’s

conclusion creates an urgency in terms of accelerative deci-

sions for highly gifted students because delays in the provi-

sion of accelerative options could have long-lasting eects on

social adjustment.

Summer programs. Special classes that are not a part of the

regular school program tend to be extracurricular, accelerative

oerings during summer sessions or weekends throughout

the academic year. The contributions of summer programs

to gifted students’ social and emotional lives are documented

by a large number of studies (Barnette, 1989; Brookby, 2004;

Cunningham & Rinn, 2007; Kollo & Moore, 1989; Parker,

1998; Rinn, 2006). Analyses of these studies revealed increas-

es on social and emotional measures as a result of partici-

pating in a summer program. Kollo and Moore examined

the self-concepts of gifted students in Grades 5–10 in three

summer residential programs. Self-concepts of students in all

grade levels and programs were signiﬁcantly higher at the end

of the programs. In the program evaluation of the Torrance

Creative Scholars Program, a two-week summer program for

students completing grades four through eight, Parker (1998)

found that 66% of the respondents reported increases in

self-concept. Parents of the participants reported increases

in self-esteem, independence, maturity, and responsibility

among their children. Similarly, Barnette (1989) studied 54

gifted adolescents’ self-esteem and cohesion in a three-week

nonresidential summer program; the results of the study re-

vealed positive changes on both measures.

Studies that were conducted in recent years reported similar

ﬁndings. Brookby (2004) found a signiﬁcant increase in math-

ematically gifted high school students’ social self-concepts

as a result of participating in a summer residential program.

Rinn (2006) examined the eects of a three-week summer

residential program on two aspects of peer relations self-con-

cepts of gifted students. Both same-sex and opposite-sex

peer relation self-concepts increased over the course of the

program based on subscale scores on the Self-Description

Questionnaire II (Marsh, 1990). Cunningham and Rinn (2007)

conducted a similar study examining academic, general, and

emotional stability self-concepts, and found very small in-

creases in general and emotional stability self-concepts over

the course of the program. However, prior participants in the

program had lower initial values of general self-concept than

students who were ﬁrst-time participants. This may indicate

a more realistic appraisal of self-concept after exposure to

other students who are equally able.

Early college options. There are several types of early col-

lege options available to students (e.g., residential academies

with their own advanced curricula, residential academies of-

fering early entrance to college, and early college high school).

Overall, the eect of early college is positive, and provides

development and growth opportunities for students. Accord-

ing to Neihart (2007), when appropriate selection criteria are

applied, early college students do very well socially and emo-

tionally. Rogers (2010) found an average mean eect size of

.20 for six social adjustment studies and .29 for nine psycho-

logical adjustment studies, while Steenbergen-Hu and Moon

(2011) found an overall eect size of .21 for eight studies. In

other words, the eect of early college on social and emotion-

al development is small and positive.

Early college high school. The majority of contemporary

studies of the psychological or social adjustment eects of

early college involve students at residential academies (e.g.

Boazman & Sayler, 2011; Cross & Swiatek, 2009; Heilbron-

ner, Connell, Dobyns, & Reis, 2010; Rollins & Cross, 2014a,

2014b); however, a recent study included the Early College

High School model (McDonald & Farrell, 2012), a nonresi-

dential program in which students attend community col-

lege. Early college high school (ECHS) is a dual enrollment

program in which students take high school classes concur-

A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2 35

Social-Emotional Eects of Acceleration : Cross, Andersen, & Mammadov

rently with community college classes, but unlike residen-

tial academies, students live at home. An increasingly more

common option that is not limited to gifted students is called

dual credit (DC). In DC programs, high school students can

take a limited number of college-credit-bearing classes, of-

ten in their own schools. This option is not reported on in

this chapter because it is not unique to gifted students and

because the curriculum of the courses does not tend to be as

rigorous as the other options, such as Advanced Placement

courses or accelerated courses.

ECHS is an option that has been studied in populations of

disadvantaged students. McDonald and Farrell (2012) con-

ducted focus group interviews of 31 disadvantaged students

(29% low-SES; 45% ﬁrst-generation college students; 10 His-

panic; one African American) who ranged in age from 13 to

16 years old and were enrolled in an ECHS program in which

they attended classes at a local community college. The par-

ticipants described how the transition to a context where a

scholarly identity was accepted freed them from the stress of

impression management and allowed them to develop their

personal academic identities. Evidence was found of unique

struggles faced by underrepresented students. This group of

students displayed a greater capacity for self-regulation and

delayed gratiﬁcation than age peers.

In another ECHS study, McCain (2012) investigated the aca-

demic identity development of eight high-achieving African

American students who were enrolled in an early college pro-

gram at a historically Black high school. This group of stu-

dents demonstrated a strong sense of academic identity that

they attributed to several factors. First, family inﬂuences were

a motivating force for these students, although these forces

had dierent forms. Some students were motivated to sustain

a family history of high achievement, while others were mo-

tivated to not repeat the mistakes of their parents. Second,

the students exhibited a higher level of maturity in their de-

cisions regarding social interactions; they described selecting

peers who would not interfere with achievement. The group

prioritized academics over peer interactions, demonstrating

greater maturity than age peers. Third, evidence was found

of students’ support for stereotypical views of “acting Black,”

and the students rationalized why they did not mirror the

stereotype. Acting Black is generally understood as behaving

in a manner consistent with the stereotypical values of Afri-

can American communities. Students attributed not “acting

Black” to coming from a two-parent home, living in the sub-

urbs, and having a church life; the high-achieving students

had a clear disdain for those who “acted Black.” However,

McCain posited that attending a historically Black school al-

lowed the high-achieving students to have strong academic

identities without “acting White.” Acting White is generally

understood as a pejorative descriptor of African American

students behaving in a manner stereotypically believed to

represent the white or Caucasian community’s values.

Taken together, these studies imply that self-regulation is a

critical skill to students who access college coursework while

still in high school. These studies are among the few that in-

clude African American and Hispanic students, who are no-

tably absent from most other studies of gifted students. The

ﬁnding that self-regulation is important to underrepresented

students’ success is similar to research with nondiverse sam-

ples; however, the lack of peer acceptance of students’ schol-

arly identities before entering early college may be more acute

for students belonging to underrepresented groups. The stu-

dents’ views about “acting Black” raise questions about the

eects of the identity dissonance between racial and academ-

ic identities on students psychologically. More research is

needed in this area. However, similar to nondiverse students,

these students felt the need to be selective in their social in-

teractions to ensure academic success.

Residential academies. Residential academy (RA) students

typically substitute the academy curriculum for their last

two years of high school, although some may be accelerat-

ed by up to four years. In one RA model, students obtain an

associate’s degree and their high school diploma at the same

time. In the other form of RA, students take college classes,

Advanced Placement (AP) courses, and so forth. In both cas-

es, the curriculum is accelerated compared to the students’

traditional high schools. These students have the experience

of leaving home for college earlier and entering a situation

in which the mean ability level of their peers is much higher.

Several studies have examined the eect of this combination

of experiences in terms of students’ psychological and social

adjustment and are discussed in the following section.

Cross-sectional studies. Heilbronner, et al. (2010)

examined students’ reasons for leaving an early

college program and compared the perceptions

of students who completed the program (com-

pleters) and those who left the program (leavers).

They found that many students who left the early

college program did so for reasons that were cate-

gorized as positive attrition. In other words, these

students left the program to seek improved ﬁt in

a dierent program and not for social-emotional

reasons. A small number (2 of 13 leavers) did so

for primarily social-emotional reasons. The vast

majority of the 44 students in the study viewed

their program participation as a positive experi-

36 A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2

Social-Emotional Eects of Acceleration : Cross, Andersen, & Mammadov

ence that helped them to develop and prepare for

future college experiences. Boazman and Sayler

(2011) compared correlates of personal well-being

for 174 students who had been enrolled in a resi-

dential academy to a norming sample. They found

that the academy students had much higher life

satisfaction in terms of personal safety and future

security. Smaller positive eects were observed

for satisfaction with life achievement and overall

life satisfaction, whereas a small negative eect

was observed for satisfaction with personal rela-

tionships. Larger scores in global self-ecacy and

seriousness were observed in the academy group.

Longitudinal studies. Cross and Swiatek (2009) ex-

amined the social coping of students at a residen-

tial academy. Major ﬁndings included that, over

time, students became more likely to see them-

selves as accepted by their peers and to deny gift-

edness, and became less likely to engage in high lev-

els of social interaction. Rollins and Cross (2014a,

2014b) measured psychological stress of students

at a residential academy ﬁve times over the course

of an academic year. The analyses showed that

students were quite resilient and adopted suc-

cessful coping strategies to deal with the stress of

increased academic challenge and attending a resi-

dential academy. Both studies support the conclu-

sion that gifted students experience positive de-

velopment when they are engaged in an academic

context that is better matched to their abilities.

Eects across cultural groups. Few studies have included

substantial numbers of racially or ethnically diverse students;

however, more recently a few studies have focused on under-

represented populations (e.g., Lee, Olszewski-Kubilius, &

Peternel, 2010; McCain, 2012; McDonald & Farrell, 2012).

The vast majority of extant research describes only Asian and

White students, leaving many unanswered questions about

the eect of acceleration on the psychological and social

adjustment of underrepresented students. The studies with

diverse student samples will be summarized in this section.

Project EXCITE. Lee et al. (2010) conducted a qualitative

study of 30 students in grades four through nine who were

Project EXCITE participants. Project EXCITE is an enrich-

ment program for elementary students that begins in third

grade. Of the 30 students, 17 had experienced one to two

years of subject acceleration in mathematics and 13 had not.

Of the 17 accelerants, 12 were successful and had earned A’s or

B’s, whereas ﬁve were not successful and earned grades of C

or lower. Positive eects for the accelerants included reduced

boredom, increased interest in math, increased motivation,

higher conﬁdence, and stronger identity as a “smart student.”

As far as social eects, fewer than half of the accelerants had

made new friends in their advanced classes. The majority of

the students did not perceive negative peer pressure concern-

ing academics. The students exhibited high levels of self-reg-

ulation and were able to prioritize academics above socializa-

tion. Lee et al. found that the teachers believed that negative

peer pressure would be more of an issue than the students’

responses implied. Through semistructured interviews they

found that students (a) had enhanced motivation and con-

ﬁdence, (b) tended to not socialize with new classmates in

the advanced classes and instead preferred to socialize with

“regular” friends, (c) did not perceive negative peer pressure

towards academics or peer competition, (d) had increased

academic conﬁdence, (e) felt their personal intelligence was

armed - they “felt smart,” and (f) perceived dual stigmatiza-

tion—being a racial minority and gifted. These ﬁndings imply

that students’ feelings about their own readiness may be an

important placement consideration. Teachers believed neg-

ative peer pressure existed, but there was little evidence for

negative peer pressure found in this qualitative study.

Early college high school. Two studies represented the eect

of early college high schools on underrepresented students

and were discussed in the previous section on Early College

High School (McCain, 2012; McDonald & Farrell, 2012). Sim-

ilar to the Project EXCITE study, issues of academic identity

and self-regulation were identiﬁed as important.

Issues associated with underrepresented students. Research-

ers (McCain, 2012; McDonald & Farrell, 2012) concluded

that there may be greater positive psychological and social

adjustment eects for underrepresented and ﬁrst-genera-

tion students when they are accelerated. Further, McDonald

and Farrell’s ﬁndings imply that, without accelerative op-

portunities and left in the traditional comprehensive high

school environment, gifted students may stay in hiding due

to their unwillingness to be exposed as gifted. As observed

by Lee et al. (2010), students feel twice stigmatized due to

their giftedness and their culture. The Information Manage-

ment Model (Cross & Coleman, 2005) describes how gifted

students may respond to feelings of stigma and dierentness

from age peers. Some students respond by disidentifying

with academics or ﬁnding ways to ﬁt in with their age peers

through other means, such as focusing on athletics. From the

standpoint of the Information Management Model (Cross &

Coleman, 2005), the combined pressure of cultural and social

norms may create more acute impression management issues

for these students. It is likely that the degree of diculty

A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2 37

Social-Emotional Eects of Acceleration : Cross, Andersen, & Mammadov

depends on the school context in terms of racial and ethnic

diversity and SES proﬁle. However, limited evidence current-

ly exists in the literature. As McCain (2012) noted, if Black

students are the majority at a school, this may reduce con-

cerns of Black students appearing to “act White.” No speciﬁc

evidence concerning other underrepresented groups was lo-

cated. Furthermore, a larger proportion of racial and ethnic

minority students are also members of lower SES groups, and

these social class dierences can contribute negatively to im-

pression management. More research is needed with regard

to within- and across-group dierences in the psychological

and social adjustment eects of acceleration.

Psychological Adjustment

Psychological adjustment refers to students’ feelings about

themselves and measures of personal traits that aect

well-being. Results from numerous studies and meta-analy-

ses (e.g., Goldring, 1990; Kulik & Kulik, 1991; Rogers, 2004,

2010; Steenbergen-Hu & Moon, 2011), lead to the conclusion

that the eect of acceleration on psychological adjustment is,

in the worst case, not negative and, at best, is small and posi-

tive. In her review of 49 studies that reported 149 psycholog-

ical outcomes, Rogers’s (2010; this volume) analysis yielded

a clustered average eect size of +.20, a small positive eect.

Steenbergen-Hu and Moon reviewed 23 studies that reported

133 eect sizes, combining psychological and social adjust-

ment eects in their analyses. They did not ﬁnd a statistically

signiﬁcant social-emotional eect for acceleration. Neihart

(2007) reached a similar conclusion—that there were no

harmful eects associated with acceleration, but no advan-

tages either. Studies have reported beneﬁts such as positive

self-esteem and higher educational aspirations (see Neihart,

2007 for a review). The eects varied somewhat across accel-

erative strategies (as described above). Studies pertaining to

two important areas of psychological adjustment—self-con-

cept and resilience—are described below.

Self-concept. Studies have assessed the eect of accelera-

tive strategies on various domains of self-concept (Brookby,

2004; Coleman & Fults, 1982; Cunningham & Rinn, 2007;

Lee et al., 2012; Karnes & Wherry, 1981; Kollo & Moore,

1989; Maddux, Scheicher, & Bass, 1982; McQuilkin, 1981;

Manor-Bullock, 1994; Parker, 1998; Preckel, Götz, & Frenzel,

2010; Rinn, 2006; Wright & Leroux, 1997). In general, partic-

ipation in residential summer programs was associated with

small gains in academic self-concept; however, students who

attended full-time residential academies experienced a de-

crease in academic self-concept. An explanation for this dif-

ference may be that the short duration of summer programs

does not cause the student to change the referent group for

comparison, thus academic self-concept does not decrease as

it does for students who are surrounded by equal- or higher

ability peers in a new school and are no longer the “big ﬁsh.”

Similarly, Cunningham and Rinn (2007) noted that students

who had prior experiences in summer residential programs

had initially lower academic self-concepts than the ﬁrst-time

participants, but both groups had gains in academic self-con-

cept over the course of the program. This observation of a

drop in academic self-concept is supported by the theory

that self-concept is adjusted when the student joins a new

referent group that includes more similar ability peers and

evidence of this eect (e.g., Marsh & Hau, 2003). Howev-

er, it is important to note that, although a drop in academic

self-concept has been observed in these situations, generally

the levels of academic self-concept remain higher than aver-

age. Thus, the drop in academic self-concept likely reﬂects

a more realistic self-appraisal and should not be of concern

for most students. However, 12 of 44 students surveyed by

Adams-Byers et al. (2004) cited reduced self-esteem and

class rank as a social-emotional disadvantage of homogenous

grouping, indicating this is a concern for some students. Rol-

lins and Cross’s (2014a) longitudinal study of gifted students

at a residential academy explored how students adjusted and

reframed such comparisons to avoid negative eects. If a stu-

dent’s identity is largely deﬁned by his or her relative academ-

ic ranking, counseling should be provided to help the student

gain perspective on this issue.

Aspects of self-concept other than academic self-concept

have been studied and, generally, accelerants scored higher

than other students. For example, Lee et al. (2012) surveyed

past participants of summer residential programs and found

that the participants had higher levels of global self-worth

and much higher levels of scholastic self-competence than a

norming sample. Many, but not all, aspects of self-concept in-

creased over the course of short-term gifted programs. Cun-

ningham and Rinn (2007) found very small increases in gen-

eral and emotional stability self-concepts, and Rinn (2006)

found increases in same-sex and opposite-sex peer relations

over the course of summer residential programs. However,

Little, Kearney, & Britner (2010) found no dierence in gifted

students’ self-concepts after participation in a summer men-

toring program, except for an increase in job competence.

Overall, accelerants generally had higher self-concepts than

non-accelerants and short programs tended to have positive

eects on the self-concepts and peer relations of partici-

pants. Long-term homogeneous grouping of gifted students

caused reduced self-concept, but most students adjusted and

avoided negative eects.

38 A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2

Social-Emotional Eects of Acceleration : Cross, Andersen, & Mammadov

Resilience. Rollins and Cross’s (2014a) assessments of psy-

chological adjustment in gifted students at a residential high

school academy provide evidence of the resilience of gifted

students. Psychological distress was measured ﬁve times over

the course of an academic year using the Youth Outcome

Questionnaire (YOQ; Burlingame, Wells, & Lambert, 2004).

Their analyses revealed that the students who perceived the

greatest initial increase in stress also experienced the most

rapid reductions in stress over time. One limitation of this

study was that 41 out of 170 students who did not graduate

were not evaluated for psychological distress. Although stu-

dents experienced moderate increases in anxiety, fearfulness,

and depression upon transitioning to the new environment,

they were resilient and able to develop coping mechanisms or

adapt. Through interviews, Rollins and Cross (2014a) found

that students modiﬁed how they thought, felt, or behaved to

reduce stress and maintain achievement; this is evidence of

enhanced social maturity (Neihart, 2007). Notably, students

described social interactions as a lower priority than academ-

ic performance. Although many students perceived the school

to be a negative experience in terms of the increased demands

and personal constraints, the experience had utility value be-

cause it encouraged changes that better prepared them for

college. The students were cognizant of the positive changes

that had occurred within themselves during the experience.

Rollins and Cross (2014a) described the students’ responses as

characteristic of thriving in a challenging context.

Social Adjustment

Social adjustment refers to social interactions and their ef-

fect on the student. Similar to what has been found for psy-

chological adjustment, the overall eect of acceleration on

social adjustment appears to be in the range of not harmful

to small and positive. These conclusions are very similar

to those made by Robinson (2004). Far fewer studies have

been conducted regarding social adjustment than for psy-

chological adjustment, which refers to personal traits that

aect well-being and self-perceptions. This is likely due to

the greater challenge of operationalizing or measuring social

adjustment. In her best evidence synthesis, Rogers (2010)

examined social adjustment eects reported from 27 studies

and found an average eect size of .14, a very small positive ef-

fect. Neihart’s (2007) analysis and synthesis identiﬁed several

studies that reported accelerants had more satisfying social

relationships (e.g., Gross & van Vliet, 2005) and that there

was no evidence of signiﬁcant negative eects on social devel-

opment (e.g., Gagné & Gagnier, 2004). Accelerants have also

been compared to normative samples on various measures of

social adjustment. For example, Lee et al. (2012) found levels

of perceived interpersonal competence that were compara-

ble to a norming sample and found no relationship between

acceleration and social competence in a large study of past

participants of Center for Talent Development programs.

Such ﬁndings imply that acceleration does not negatively af-

fect social competence.

Longitudinal studies. Researchers have also examined

changes in social adjustment over time. To that end, several

studies have been conducted in residential academies (RA).

RAs are state funded residential high schools for gifted ad-

olescents. There are two basic models of RAs; the ﬁrst is a

self-contained school, meaning that it can provide all of the

services needed by the students, including the actual cours-

es taken. This model is often referred to as the North Car-

olina model as it was the ﬁrst of its kind. The second type is

an early entrance to college program, wherein students take

their classes in a university, often graduating with both a high

school diploma and an Associates degree. The schools range

in size from approximately 120 students to approximately

6oo students and from serving either two grades (11 & 12) or

three grades (10-12). Some schools charge nothing to attend

while others now charge a few thousand dollars per year.

In a longitudinal study of students who were enrolled in a res-

idential academy, Cross and Swiatek (2009) found changes in

some social coping behaviors, namely that students became

more likely to deny giftedness, less likely to engage in extra-

curricular activities, and more likely to see themselves as ac-

cepted by peers. Although an increased likelihood of denial

of giftedness may seem to be a negative eect in this setting,

it can be viewed as a positive change. Residential academy

students have new referent groups that are more similar to

self; the increase reﬂects this shift. Although statistically sig-

niﬁcant, the adjustment of students’ views of themselves was

not a large change. The reduction in social activities was ex-

plained by lower involvement in extracurricular activities be-

cause students found friends through other venues. Overall,

changes in social coping strategy use were minor and residen-

tial academy students beneﬁtted from accepting peers with

similar high ability.

The results of Cross and Swiatek (2009) demonstrated that

the appropriate interpretation of changes in social coping

behaviors is context dependent. In a heterogeneous ability

setting, increases in denial of giftedness may indicate higher

levels of engagement in the process of impression manage-

ment, which is a negative eect because it indicates these

students may be hiding their abilities to avoid negative social

consequences from age peers. However, in a homogeneous

ability setting, the same increase may indicate a more realis-

A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2 39

Social-Emotional Eects of Acceleration : Cross, Andersen, & Mammadov

tic self-appraisal of ability, which is a positive eect because

it indicates students have more realistic self-appraisals when

compared to cognitive peers. In this way, the same behavioral

change can be viewed as a positive or negative adjustment.

Interpersonal ability. Rollins and Cross (2014a) found that

residential academy students’ interpersonal relations scores

did not change appreciably over the course of one year, imply-

ing that social adjustment experiences in the new context were

similar to those before entering the academy. In other words,

the research implies that students’ interpersonal abilities are

likely established by the beginning of the junior year of high

school and unlikely to change appreciably. This is in agree-

ment with the ﬁndings of Gross and van Vliet (2005), based

on their comparisons of accelerants with nonaccelerants over

the course of a 22-year longitudinal study of students with

IQs greater than 160. They found that students who had not

been provided acceleration opportunities suered in terms

of social relationships and that these problems continued

later in life. Gross and van Vliet posited that students learn

the social skills associated with friendship early in elementa-

ry school and that acceleration should occur before students

accumulate negative social experiences caused by a mismatch

in emotional maturity between gifted students and nongifted

age peers. These ﬁndings have important implications for de-

cision makers regarding acceleration -- that the withholding

of acceleration opportunities for highly gifted students can

have a bigger and longer lasting negative eect on adjustment

than the provision of acceleration opportunities.

Conclusions

Robinson’s (2004) synthesis, coupled with the current review,

guides our understanding of the eects of acceleration on the

social and emotional lives of gifted students. The complex

and nuanced studies lead to the primary conclusion that it

is important to move from an omnibus statement claiming

that acceleration has a positive inﬂuence on the social and

emotional lives of gifted students to a generally positive, but

more qualiﬁed statement. For example, there have been rel-

atively few studies across acceleration approaches that have

found negative impacts—but there have been some. Cross

and Swiatek (2009) found changes among gifted adolescents

in a residential academy in some social coping behaviors. The

students became more likely to deny giftedness, less likely

to engage in extracurricular activities, and more likely to see

themselves as accepted by peers. On the other hand, there

have been many studies that have found no negative eects

and many that found positive eects (Neihart, 2007; Rogers,

2010). Given the fact that most of these studies have relied

on self-reported data (typically from children), retrospective

studies, and imperfect instruments with data collected in rel-

atively short periods of time without evidence of long-term

eects, one should remain cautious about extrapolating from

existing data.

The researchers’ limited capacity to utilize research designs

that can determine cause and eect adds to the complexities

of studying this topic. These types of studies are very di-

cult to arrange in schools and therefore are quite rare. As a

consequence, there are few studies that use the most rigorous

designs to determine cause-and-eect relationships among

social emotional needs or outcomes and academic accelera-

tion. Most studies are self-report, survey, observation-based,

causal-comparative, quasi-experimental, or qualitative in na-

ture. While there are a large number of studies in aggregate

on the topic of acceleration, once sorted by their respective

variables, very few topics have enough true experimental re-

search underpinning them to be compelling.

At this point, we can say that the eects of acceleration on

psychological adjustment vary somewhat by virtue of the

type of program (i.e., the degree of acceleration) and the set-

ting or context in which the program exists (Neihart, 2007).

In short-term programs, the social-emotional eects are gen-

erally positive, but in year-long schools, a drop in self-concept

scores may occur (Marsh et al., 1995). We also see some evi-

dence of a similar drop in special classes for gifted students.

The observed drop in self-concept associated with some

forms of programming and how to interpret that drop mer-

its discussion. Many researchers and educators agree with

Sternberg (1999), who noted that to be competitive in chal-

lenging ﬁelds, a person needs a realistic assessment of his or

her abilities. In other words, this realistic appraisal eect, in-

terpreting a drop in self-concept as a potential positive, was

not a common view before these types of ﬁndings emerged,

which warranted further analysis and interpretation.

Research on early entrance to school generally reports posi-

tive eects. Gagné and Gagnier’s (2004) study revealed that

early entrants, as a group, were more adjusted than regular

entrants; however, 37% of early entrants were less well-ad-

justed. This ﬁnding, while not common, led to a recommen-

dation to not admit students with a birthday more than three

months from the cut-o day for entrance (Robinson, 2004).

Obviously, additional long-term research is needed.

Although there are few studies on the social-emotional lives of

gifted students who attend early college high school programs,

the preliminary results are positive. The published studies

have reported on diverse student bodies and have document-

ed positive eects on identity formation and lived experience.

40 A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2

Social-Emotional Eects of Acceleration : Cross, Andersen, & Mammadov

Overall, grade-skipping has shown the most positive eects

across acceleration techniques, although a few studies have

reported neither a positive or negative eect. Moreover,

Gross (2006) reported that the practice of more radical

forms of grade-skipping for elementary-aged students with

IQ scores 160 and above led to better social self-esteem and

social relationships.

Grouping students for instructional purposes receives atten-

tion from professionals and laypeople from outside the ﬁeld

of gifted education. Most of the concerns about grouping

were primarily philosophically based. The criticisms have

tended to treat all forms of grouping as tracking students, a

practice long rejected by gifted educators and general educa-

tors alike. Empirically there is support of ﬂexible grouping

techniques as having positive eects on the social and emo-

tional lives of gifted students.

While researchers and gifted educators have much to be

optimistic about, we have the most data representing gift-

ed students from summer programs held at universities or

in schools, ranging primarily from middle- to upper-mid-

dle-class students, most often with very little diversity rep-

resented. But once we shift our focus to students who come

from more diverse backgrounds or from ﬁnancially impover-

ished backgrounds, our data drops o signiﬁcantly—so much

so that the recommendation is to not make unqualiﬁed claims

until more research is conducted. For example, although

one would be hard pressed to make a case that acceleration

causes harm to White students from middle- and upper-mid-

dle-class backgrounds, we cannot say with conﬁdence that

the same is equally true for gifted students from underrep-

resented groups who attend schools as minority students.

Emerging research shows that the acceleration of minority

students has positive eects academically and social-emo-

tionally when the students attended schools in which there

was a minority majority (e.g. Black students were accelerated

in a school with a predominantly Black population). Howev-

er, the research base in this area is quite limited.

It is time to explore and portray this topic in increasingly

sophisticated developmental ways. By focusing more on de-

velopment over time, myriad ways in which acceleration can

aect the gifted students who participate—and those who do

not—will be made more evident. The progress made to date

has well positioned us to go deeper into the topics by incor-

porating important psychological constructs that have yet to

be included. Recent examples of expanding research on the

impact of acceleration on the social and emotional lives of

gifted students include:

• needing a more diverse student body;

• drawing on new psychological constructs and/

or instruments;

• increasing the number and types of study

designs;

• conducting delayed or follow-up assessments

over time;

• emphasizing context;

• increasing the number of qualitative studies;

and

• expanding the variables and factors studied.

Movement in this direction will better address our questions

about the eects of acceleration on the social and emotional

lives of gifted students.

References

Adams-Byers, J., Whitsell, S. S., & Moon, S. M. (2004). Gifted students’

perceptions of the academic and social/emotional eﬀects of homoge-

neous and heterogeneous grouping. Gifted Child Quarterly, 48, 7–20.

doi:10.1177/001698620404800102

Assouline, S. G., Marron, M., & Colangelo, N. (2014). Acceleration. In J.

A. Plucker & C. M. Callahan (Eds.), Critical issues and practices in gifted

education (2nd ed., pp. 15–28). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

Baker, J. A., Bridger, R., & Evans, K. (1998). Models of underachievement

among gifted preadolescents: e role of personal, family, and school

factors. Gifted Child Quarterly, 42, 5–15.

Barnette, E. L. (1989). A program to meet the emotional and social needs

of gifted and talented adolescents. Journal of Counseling and Develop-

ment, 67, 525–528.

Benbow, C. P., & Stanley, J. C. (1996). Inequity in equity: How “equity” can

lead to inequity for high-potential students. Psychology, Public Policy,

and the Law, 2, 249–292.

Boazman, J., & Sayler, M. (2011). Personal well-being of gifted students

following participation in an early college-entrance program. Roeper

Review, 33, 76–85.

Brookby, S. A. (2004). Academic self-eﬃcacy and social self-concept of

mathematically gifted high school students in a summer residential

program. Dissertation Abstracts International, 65, 1707.

Burlingame, G., Wells, M. & Lambert, M. (2004). Youth Outcome Ques-

tionnaire (YOQ). In M. Maruish (Ed.), e use of psychological testing

for treatment planning and outcomes assessment, 2, (3rd ed., pp. 235-

274). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Coleman, J. M., & Fults, B. A. (1982). Self-concept and the gifted class-

room: e role of social comparisons. Gifted Child Quarterly, 26, 116–

120.

Cross, T. L., & Coleman, L. J. (2005). Being gifted in school. Waco, TX:

Prufrock Press.

Cross, T. L., & Swiatek, M. A. (2009). Social coping among academically

gifted adolescents in a residential setting: A longitudinal study. Gifted

Child Quarterly, 53, 25–33. doi:10.1177/0016986208326554

A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2 41

Social-Emotional Eects of Acceleration : Cross, Andersen, & Mammadov

Cunningham, L. G., & Rinn, A. N. (2007). e role of gender and previous

participation in a summer program on gifted adolescents’ self-concepts

over time. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 30, 326–352.

Dai, D. Y., & Rinn, A. N. (2008). e big-ﬁsh-little-pond eﬀect: What do

we know and where do we go from here? Educational Psychological Re-

view, 20, 283-317.

Daurio, S. P. (1979). Educational enrichment versus acceleration: A review

of the literature. In W. C. George, S. J. Cohn, & J. C. Stanley (Eds.),

Educating the gifted (pp. 3-63). Baltimore, MD: e Johns Hopkins

University Press.

Eisenberg, A., & George, W. (1979, Winter). Early entrance to college: e

Johns Hopkins experience. College and University, 109–118.

Feldhusen, J. F., & Moon, S. M. (1992). Grouping gifted students: Issues

and concerns. Gifted Child Quarterly, 65, 63–67.

Gagné, F., & Gagnier, N. (2004). e socio-aﬀective and academic impact

of early entrance to school.Roeper Review, 26, 128–138.

Goldring, E. B. (1990). Assessing the status of information on classroom

organizational frameworks for gifted students. Journal of Educational

Research, 83, 313-326.

Gross, M. U. M. (1989). e pursuit of excellence or the search for inti-

macy? e forced-choice dilemma of gifted youth. Roeper Review, 11,

189–194.

Gross, M. U. M. (2006). Exceptionally gifted children: Long-term out-

comes of academic acceleration and nonacceleration. Journal for the Ed-

ucation of the Gifted, 29, 404–429.

Gross, M. U. M., & van Vliet, H. E. (2005). Radical acceleration and early

entry to college: A review of the research. Gifted Child Quarterly, 49,

154–171.

Harter, S. (1988). Self-perception proﬁle for adolescents. Unpublished manu-

al, University of Denver.

Heilbronner, N. N., Connell, E. E., Dobyns, S. M., & Reis, S. M. (2010).

e “Stepping Stone Phenomenon”: Exploring the role of positive at-

trition at an early college entrance program. Journal of Advanced Aca-

demics, 21, 392–425.

Hobson, J. R. (1963). High school performance of underage pupils initially

admitted to kindergarten on the basis of physical and psychological ex-

aminations.Educational and Psychological Measurement, 23, 159–170.

Karnes, A.F. & Wherry, J. N. (1981). Self-concepts of gifted students as

measured by the Piers-Harris Children’s Self-Concept Scale. Psycholog-

ical Reports, 49, 903–906.

Kolloﬀ, P.B., & Moore, A. D. (1989). Eﬀects of summer programs on the

self-concepts of gifted children. Journal for the Education of the Gifted,

12, 268–276.

Kulik, J. A., & Kulik, C. C. (1987). Eﬀects of ability grouping on student

achievement. Equity & Excellence, 23, 22–30.

Kulik, C. L., & Kulik, J. A. (1991). Ability grouping and gifted students. In

N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (pp.

178-196). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Kulik, C. L., & Kulik, J. A. (1997). Ability grouping. In N. Colangelo & G.

A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (2nd ed., pp. 230-242).

Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Lee, S.-Y., Olszewski-Kubilius, P., & Peternel, G. (2010). e eﬃcacy of

academic acceleration for gifted minority students. Gifted Child Quar-

terly, 54, 189–208. doi:10.1177/0016986210369256

Lee, S.-Y., Olszewski-Kubilius, P., & omson, D. T. (2012). Ac-

ademically gifted students’ perceived interpersonal compe-

tence and peer relationships. Gifted Child Quarterly, 56, 90–104.

doi:10.1177/0016986212442568

Little, C. A., Kearney, K. L., & Britner, P. A. (2010). Students’ self-concept

and perceptions of mentoring relationships in a summer mentorship

program for talented adolescents. Roeper Review, 32, 189–199. doi:10.

1080/02783193.2010.485307

Maddux, C. D., Scheicher, L. M., & Bass, J. E. (1982). Self-concept and

social distance in gifted children.Gifted Child Quarterly, 26, 77–81.

Marsh, H. W. (1990). Self-Description Questionnaire (SDQ) II: Manual.

New South Wales, Australia: University of Western Sydney.

Marsh, H. W., Chessor, D., Craven, R., & Roche, L. (1995). e eﬀects

of gifted and talented programs on academic self-concept: e big ﬁsh

strikes again.American Educational Research Journal, 32, 285–319.

Marsh, H. W., & Craven, R. (2002). e pivotal role of frames of reference

in academic self-concept formation: e big-ﬁsh-little-pond eﬀect. In F.

Pajares, & T. Urdan (Eds.) Adolescence and education (Vol. 2; pp. 883-

123). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.

Marsh, H. W., & Hau, K. (2003). Big-ﬁsh-little-pond-eﬀect on academic

self-concept: A cross-cultural (26 country) test of the negative eﬀects

of academically selective schools. American Psychologist, 58, 364–376.

McCain, J. A. (2012). “You’ve got to want to do!”: An examination of

the construction of academic identity among high-achieving African

American high school adolescents. ProQuest Dissertations and e-

ses. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.er.lib.k-state.edu/

docview/1022181287.

McDonald, D., & Farrell, T. (2012). Out of the mouths of babes: Early college

high school students’ transformational learning experiences. Journal of

Advanced Academics, 23, 217–248. doi:10.1177/1932202X12451440

McQuilkin, G. E. (1981). A comparison of personal and social concepts

of gifted elementary students in diﬀerent school programs. Dissertation

Abstracts, 8100704.

Moon, S. M., Nelson, T. S., & Piercy, F. P. (1993). Family therapy with a

highly gifted adolescent. Journal of Family Psychology, 4(3), 1–16.

Moon, S. M., Swift, M., & Shallenberger, A. (2002). Perceptions of a

self-contained class for fourth and ﬁfth-grade students with high to ex-

treme levels of intellectual giftedness.Gifted Child Quarterly, 46, 64–79.

Neihart, M. (2007). e socioaﬀective impact of acceleration and ability

grouping: Recommendations for best practice. Gifted Child Quarterly,

51, 330–341. doi:10.1177/0016986207306319

Oakes, J. (1990). Multiplying inequalities: e eﬀects of race, social class,

and trackingonopportunitiestolearn mathandscience. Santa Monica,

CA:RAND.

Oakes, J. (1992, May). Can tracking research inform practice? Technical,

normative, and political considerations. Educational Researcher, 12–21.

Parker, J. P. (1998). e Torrance Creative Scholars Program. Roeper Re-

view, 21, 32–35.

Preckel, F., Götz, T., & Frenzel, A. (2010). Ability grouping of gifted students:

Eﬀects on academic self-concept and boredom. e British Journal of

Educational Psychology, 80, 451–72. doi:10.1348/000709909X480716

Rinn, A. N. (2006). Eﬀects of a summer program on the social self-con-

cepts of gifted adolescents. e Journal of Secondary Gifted Education,

17, 65–75.

Robinson, N. M. (2004). Eﬀects of academic acceleration on the so-

cial-emotional status of gifted students. In N. Colangelo, S. G. As-

souline, & M. U. M. Gross (Eds.), A nation deceived: How schools hold

back America’s brightest students (V.II., pp. 59–67). Iowa City, IA: e

Connie Belin and Jacqueline N. Blank International Center for Gifted

Education and Talent Development.

Rogers, K. B. (1991). Relationship of grouping practices to the education of

the gifted and talented learners. Storrs: University of Connecticut, e

National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.

42 A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2

Social-Emotional Eects of Acceleration : Cross, Andersen, & Mammadov

Rogers, K. B. (1992). A best-evidence synthesis of research on accelera-

tion options for gifted students. In N. Colangelo, S. G. Assouline, & D.

L. Ambrose (Eds.),Talent development: Proceedings of the 1991 Henry

B. and Jocelyn Wallace National Research Symposium on Talent Develop-

ment(pp. 406–409). Unionville, NY: Trillium Press.

Rogers, K. (2004). e academic eﬀects of acceleration. In N. Colangelo,

S. G. Assouline, & M. Gross (Eds.), A nation deceived: How schools hold

back America’s brightest students (V.II., pp. 47-57). Iowa City, IA: e

Connie Belin and Jacqueline N. Blank International Center for Gifted

Education and Talent Development.

Rogers, K. B. (2010). Academic acceleration and giftedness: e research

from 1990 to 2008. A best-evidence synthesis. In Proceedings of the

Acceleration Poster Session at the 2008 Wallace Research Symposium on

Talent Development (pp. 1–6). Iowa City, IA: e Institute for Research

and Policy on Acceleration at the Connie Belin & Jacqueline N. Blank

International Center for Gifted Education and Talent Development.

Rollins, M. R., & Cross, T. L. (2014a). A deeper investigation into the psy-

chological changes of intellectually gifted students attending a residen-

tial academy. Roeper Review, 36, 18–29. doi:10.1080/02783193.2014

.856372

Rollins, M. R., & Cross, T. L. (2014b). Assessing the psychological changes

of gifted students attending a residential high school with an outcome

measurement. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 37(4), 337-354.

Sayler, M. F., & Brookshire, W. K. (1993). Social, emotional, and behav-

ioral adjustment of accelerated students, students in gifted classes, and

regular students in eighth grade. Gifted Child Quarterly, 37, 150–154.

Silverman, L. K. (1997). e construct of asynchronous development. Pea-

body Journal of Education, 72(3-4), 36–58.

Slavin, R. E. (1990). Achievement eﬀects of ability grouping in secondary

schools: A best-evidence synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 60,

471–499.

Steenbergen-Hu, S., & Moon, S. M. (2011). e eﬀects of acceleration

on high-ability learners: A meta-analysis. Gifted Child Quarterly, 55,

39–53. doi:10.1177/0016986210383155

Sternberg, R. (1999). e theory of successful intelligence. Review of Gen-

eral Psychology, 3, 292–316.

Worchester, D. A. (1956). e education of children of above-average mental-

ity. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

Wright, P. B., & Leroux, J. A. (1997). e self-concept of gifted adolescents

in a congregated program. Gifted Child Quarterly, 41, 83–94.

A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2 43

Policy Development : VanTassel-Baska

Introduction

Before addressing policy concerning acceleration as an inter-

vention for gifted students, we must acknowledge that cur-

rently a national or federal policy for gifted education does

not exist. Consequently, individual states and local education

agencies (LEAs) implement gifted education programming

in a variety of ways (National Association for Gifted Chil-

dren [NAGC] & Council of State Directors of Programs

for the Gifted [CSDPG], 2013). The result is inconsistency

across states in terms of availability of options and continui-

ty of practice, including the implementation of acceleration.

This is why it is important to consider what information is

necessary for policymakers to develop and implement poli-

cy for gifted students, which is particularly relevant so that

high ability students have equal access to identiﬁcation and

services, regardless of geography. The role of accelerative in-

terventions in both the articulation and enactment of such

policies is a critical consideration. Research that informs best

practice should be the foundation of policy formulation and

implementation. Because research on the eectiveness of

acceleration is the bedrock for best practice in gifted educa-

tion, it should play a major role in policy development and en-

actment of gifted education practices at state and local levels.

What is Educational Policy?

Educational policy may be deﬁned as a course of action adopt-

ed by a governing board, and motivated to solve an educational

problem or issue. The substance of policy usually rests in a set

of governmental agency rules and/or standards by which edu-

cational agencies allocate resources to address the identiﬁed

need. The ultimate test of any educational policy is the extent

to which it improves the lives of students, promotes eec-

tiveness and eciency of schooling (Hannaway & Woodroe,

2003), and protects student’s rights and opportunities, all of

which suggest that educational policy must be evaluated peri-

odically to be sure it is accomplishing what is desired.

Gifted education policy at the state level is tied to the rules,

statutes, codes, and regulations adopted by state legislatures,

interpreted by state school boards of education and state

departments of education, and implemented by local school

districts. Ideally, policy in gifted education that is binding on

local districts would be based on research evidence and ad-

dress the areas of identiﬁcation, programs/services, person-

nel preparation, assessment and evaluation. Most districts

employ their state plans as a vehicle of accountability for re-

ceiving state funding, and focus on identiﬁcation and limited

programming features (Passow & Rudnitski, 1993; Shaunessy,

Abstract

This chapter examines the issues associated with constructing educational policy in the area of gifted education. Acknowledging that no

federal policy exists, the author traces the research conducted on gifted education state and local policies. This research is the basis for

discussing directions essential in overcoming the patchwork quilt model for gifted education policy that is currently in place across the

country. In particular, the chapter delineates the role of acceleration in framing a state and local policy for the gifted, noting the need for

solid research-based options to be at play for gifted students and the relative cost beneﬁts of employing acceleration processes liberally in

their various forms. The chapter concludes with a list of questions to consider in judging the efﬁcacy of gifted education policy overall and a

decision model to be employed by states in examining different policy alternatives. Based on the criteria examined and rated, acceleration

options appear to be the most cost effective and the best researched of all educational policy options available for consideration, even though

they receive less public acclaim than other options.

The Role of Acceleration

in Policy Development

in Gifted Education

Joyce VanTassel-Baska

College of William and Mary, Williamsburg, Virginia

Chapter 4

44 A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2

Policy Development : VanTassel-Baska

2003; U.S. Department of Education, 1993; VanTassel-Baska,

2003). The importance of coherent and comprehensive state

policy in gifted education cannot be overstated because not

only is it inﬂuenced through all policy levers such as mandates,

laws, and court cases, it also aects the daily lives of gifted stu-

dents and those professionals who work on their behalf.

Research on Gifted Education Policy

The No Child Le Behind Act neither excludes nor includes

gifted learners (National Association for Gifted Children,

2003). Because gifted learners are not addressed, the implicit

message is to focus on speciﬁc mandates addressed in the leg-

islation, which compromises services for the gifted. Research

reports in the ﬁeld of gifted education have had negligible

impact on changing this situation. Federally commissioned

reports have empirically documented the need for gifted ser-

vices (U. S. Department of Education, 1993), citing research

that gifted students spend the majority of the school day in

the regular classroom without curricular modiﬁcations or ac-

commodations to meet their special needs even though they

have already mastered 33–50% of the material to be taught

prior to the start of the school year. More localized studies

have found that gifted students are also at a greater risk for

dropping out of high school or underachieving if their needs

are not met, with 20% of high-school dropouts identiﬁed as

gifted and more than 30% underachieving (Russo, Harris, &

Ford, 1996; Stambaugh, 2001). Because of the lack of federal

response to the needs of gifted learners, speciﬁc policies and

funding mechanisms are typically left to the advocacy eorts

of interested stakeholders in state and local governments,

causing great diversity and inequity in funding and services

among and within states (Baker & Friedman-Nimz, 2004;

Baker & McIntire, 2003; Passow & Rudnitski, 1993; Purcell,

1992; Shaunessy, 2003).

Whereas states with greater ﬁscal health boast more man-

dates and programming initiatives (Purcell, 1995), there is a

variance among funding mechanisms employed within cer-

tain geographic or speciﬁc socioeconomic regions, causing

inequity of resources among certain groups (Baker, 2001; Bak-

er & Friedman-Nimz, 2004; Russo et al., 1996). Regardless,

the impetus for state gifted policies, with or without funding,

is reliant upon advocacy eorts, with a knowledgeable and

persistent “champion” to spearhead the process (Robinson &

Moon, 2003). The majority of states that do have mandates

have identiﬁcation mandates (Passow & Rudnitski, 1993;

Stephens & Karnes, 2000), and approximately half of those

states with mandates boast a mandate or partial mandate for

gifted services, with the remainder of states citing no service

mandate (Shaunessy, 2003).

What Do We Understand From the

Research on Gifted Education Policy?

Policy studies in gifted education are few; however, there are

two consistent ﬁndings across them. First, mandates matter.

States that do not mandate gifted education have experi-

enced signiﬁcant cuts in programming or the elimination of

programs (Brown, 2001; Landrum, Katsiyannis, & DeWard,

1998; Purcell, 1995). Although mandates do not guarantee

meaningful education (U.S. Department of Education, 1993)

or cohesive implementation, states with accountability sys-

tems enjoy higher academic results (Carnoy & Loeb, 2002).

Second, perceptions matter. When policies make sense to those

who implement them, the likelihood of systemic change is

greater (Brown, 2001; McDonnell & Elmore, 1987; Rand Cor-

poration, 1978). State policies can legitimize the need for gift-

ed services and set the stage for dispelling misconceptions

associated with giftedness. Gallagher (2002) speciﬁcally lists

four recommendations to incorporate into gifted policy that

will better educate gifted students. The suggestions include:

a) multi-dimensional identiﬁcation;

b) more inclusive placement procedures, espe-

cially for International Baccalaureate and

Advanced Placement programs (see also Ble-

ske-Rechek, Lubinski, & Benbow , 2004);

c) dierentiated programming of content; and

d) a greater level of program evaluation and

accountability to include how gifted services

make a dierence in the lives of gifted students.

VanTassel-Baska (2003) illustrated the importance of cur-

riculum policy that includes curriculum ﬂexibility to better

meet the needs of diverse learners; curriculum dierentiation

that speciﬁcally addresses the selection of high-level materi-

als and worthwhile curriculum; articulation and alignment

throughout the child’s K-12 experience; grouping policies

based on best practices (Kulik & Kulik, 1992; Rogers, 2007);

and teacher development to support the necessary training

to implement eective strategies and high-level curriculum

for gifted learners. While a documented need for stronger

policy in gifted education exists, the evidence for its presence

in the ﬁeld is scarce. Speciﬁc policies in or related to gifted

education such as Advanced Placement (Bleske-Rechek et

al., 2004; Dounay, 2006), identiﬁcation (Stephens & Karnes,

2000), and self-report documents from most of the 50 states

are available through the state education websites. However,

a comprehensive study of intended policies, impact on stu-

dent populations, and how policies are translated to practice

as evidenced by stakeholder perceptions and actual policy

documents does not exist.

A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2 45

Policy Development : VanTassel-Baska

Current Gifted State Policy

Overall, the few models for gifted education legislation and

regulations ﬁt into two broad categories. The ﬁrst category

is premised on a group orientation, either permissive or man-

datory. The vast majority of state statutes and regulations for

gifted education ﬁt in this category with varying degrees of

strength and speciﬁcity. The primary characteristic is speci-

ﬁcation of state and local level responsibilities, but without

individualized substantive and procedural requirements that

serve as the basis and avenue for litigation if the responsibil-

ities are not met by the state. Most states employ self-moni-

toring strategies as the model for compliance with regulations

rather than using state-level resources for on-site monitoring

purposes. Perhaps the strongest state policy monitoring for

gifted programs occurs in Ohio (see IRPA, NAGC, & CSD-

PG, 2009, p. 20).

The second model, a federal model, is analogous to the feder-

al Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA, 2004),

in that it is mandatory as well as individually oriented. It in-

cludes an individualized program requirement, which in the

IDEA is “Free and Appropriate Education” as documented in

an individual education plan (IEP), and an impartial dispute–

resolution mechanism, which in IDEA includes at least a due

process hearing and judicial review. This second model may

yield a body of case law to ﬁll in the gaps, but, to the extent

that parents of gifted children follow the path of parents of

students with disabilities, the trade-os include adversar-

ial relationships between parent and district as well as high

transaction cost (Zirkel, 2009). Thus far, only a handful of

states, including Pennsylvania, have fully opted for this mod-

el, usually with partial dierentiation from the framework

for students with disabilities.

Policy Mechanisms

There are several policy approaches used in education that

can be considered when gifted education policy is addressed

at the state level. The various instruments employed in policy

implementation are described in Table 1.

State of the States Report:

A Snapshot of State Policy

The biennial State of the States Report has been a staple for

professionals in the ﬁeld of gifted education over the past 20

years and oers an important view of gifted education across

states that is relative to policy and practice. Commissioned by

both the National Association for Gifted Children (NAGC)

and the Council of State Directors of Programs for the Gift-

Table 1: Policy Approaches and Possible Impact on Gifted Students

Policy Approach Main Components Expected Results Advantages Caveats

Mandates Need for funding

Investment of resources

in new authority and

governing structures

Compliance

Skill enhancement

Competency development

Long term behavior changes Backlash against trying to

standardize delivery of

programs and services

Negative reaction to coercive

nature of mandates

System-Changing Rules

and Regulations

Similar to mandates Short-term assistance

for gifted

Perceived to be less coercive

Stakeholders less defensive

May be more subject to

future changes in intent

and operation than a

mandate

May not have accompanying

monitoring system

Use of Existing Educational

Policies to Beneﬁt the

Gifted

Gifted education per se is

not referenced, yet is

implicit in some state

requirements (e.g., Virginia

requires that high schools

offer three different AP

classes, which will also

beneﬁt gifted learners).

Students and parents

are informed of

opportunities that exist

outside of speciﬁc gifted

programming and can

take advantage of these

options.

Cross-reference state

legislation to gifted

education programming;

Important to have ﬁrm

articulation of curriculum

that prepares students for

advanced work in earlier

grades.

Speciﬁc focus may be on

other populations (e.g.,

low-income) not gifted;

however, if there is

ﬂexibility in permitting

younger students access,

gifted students will

beneﬁt.

46 A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2

Policy Development : VanTassel-Baska

ed (CSDPG), the report provides valuable statistics that yield

important comparisons across states and across time periods.

Data from the 2012-13 State of the States Report (NAGC &

CSDPG, 2013) provide a snapshot of the extent of state sup-

port for gifted learners in that school year. Forty-two states

responded, although some responding states did not give

complete information. Survey responses from 36 states in-

dicated that 14 of those states allocated no funding for gift-

ed and talented education while 15 states spent $10 million

or more, representing an overall increase from the previous

two years. Mandates in gifted education were reported by 23

states in both identiﬁcation and services, while ﬁve states re-

ported a mandate only in identiﬁcation, three states reported

a service mandate only, and 11 states reported no mandate at

all. The funding for these mandates varies across states: four

states fully fund the mandate, 18 states’ mandates receive par-

tial funding, and eight states do not fund the mandate.

Only one state reported requiring gifted and talented train-

ing in initial teacher preparatory programs, while 17 states

required classroom teachers working in specialized programs

for gifted students to have a certiﬁcate or endorsement in

gifted education. States reported changes to gifted and tal-

ented teacher training and/or curriculum planning due to

implementation of the Common Core State Standards oc-

curring in districts (n=14) and at the state level (n=11), but

there is little evidence of the impact of the Common Core

State Standards on teacher training eorts in gifted educa-

tion. While over half of the 42 states reporting noted that

they required programming for the gifted, most also noted

that districts had great latitude in making decisions about the

nature of those programs. While more states report monitor-

ing programs and student performance, only a ﬁfth collect

demographic data that would allow inferences to be drawn

about student proﬁles.

Based on this data, it is fair to suggest that despite mandates

in more than half (32) of the states, many states fail to pro-

vide strong direction regarding the education of gifted and

talented students. In states that do, there is often a lack of

speciﬁcity and clarity in the state laws and policies designed

to guide LEAs in establishing identiﬁcation procedures, pro-

grams, and services for gifted learners. Additionally, there is a

broad range of state and local resource allocation.

How Should Acceleration-Focused

Interventions Affect Policy?

NAGC’s (2004) policy paper on acceleration focuses on en-

suring that dierent types of acceleration are included and

that dierent stages of schooling are addressed from early

childhood through adolescence. Furthermore, this policy pa-

per encourages the inclusion of acceleration in state policy to

ensure eective implementation across districts.

The Institute for Research and Policy on Acceleration (now

called the Acceleration Institute), the National Association

for Gifted Children, and the Council of State Directors of

Programs for the Gifted provided a strong basis for both state

and local district policy development with The Guidelines to

Developing an Acceleration Policy (IRPA, NAGC, & CSDPG,

2009; see Appendix C). They recommend constructing accel-

eration policies that:

• Are widely available and equitable;

• Are based on data supporting the need;

• Include implementation guidelines that have a

process for awarding credit;

• Prevent nonacademic barriers and unintended

consequences through an evaluation of policy

eectiveness.

Types of acceleration that are research-based provide an

important foundation for making decisions about program,

curriculum, and service options at all levels of schooling (see

Rogers, this volume). Moreover, accelerative options (see

Southern & Jones, this volume) provide the basis for estab-

lishing a meaningful scope and sequence of opportunities

for gifted learners throughout the K-12 continuum. Speciﬁc

policies on acceleration also ensure that gifted students re-

ceive acceleration as a viable alternative in their program plan

(IRPA, NAGC, & CSDPG, 2009). Lastly, acceleration inter-

ventions can be easily assessed for ecacy with individuals

and groups of learners, helping to satisfy the call for evalua-

tion of programs and services for the gifted. Thus, acceler-

ation options are an integral part of policy formulation for

gifted learners.

However, state laws and policies vary greatly in the acceler-

ation opportunities aorded gifted and talented students

across the nation. Nine states speciﬁcally permit acceleration,

while 11 states leave the decision up to LEAs. Eight states have

policies speciﬁcally permitting early entrance to kindergar-

ten, and 29 states speciﬁcally permit gifted students to be du-

ally or concurrently enrolled in high school and college.

Access to information about programs, services, and student

performance allows advocates to monitor state and LEA

commitment to ensuring academic growth in all student

populations. Thirty states (of the 42 reporting) require all

local districts to report on their gifted and talented services

A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2 47

Policy Development : VanTassel-Baska

through state accountability procedures or guidelines. Those

reports may include information about teacher training, ser-

vice options, and demographics of students served, among

other topics which vary by state. Less than half of the states

(N =19) publish gifted education indicators in state reporting

(these included number of identiﬁed students, availability

of AP coursework, achievement/performance of gifted stu-

dents as a separate group).

As evidenced, states vary considerably in the types of policies

enacted for gifted learners. Yet they are similar in the pattern

of policies attended to. Identiﬁcation is by far the strongest

area of policy enactment by states, while linkages of iden-

tiﬁcation to services and the larger school reform agendas

outside of the core of gifted education are generally lacking.

Although acceleration policies appear to be gaining ground,

only a few states require dierentiation of standards for gift-

ed learners, personnel preparation of leadership, and align-

ment of content standards to gifted education objectives.

Even fewer states provide accountability systems for local

districts to adhere to policies, incorporate gifted program-

ming, or disaggregate test data on gifted students.

Considerations for Quality Gifted

Policy Development at State

and Local Levels

All states need to have comprehensive policies for educating

gifted and talented students in the following areas: identiﬁ-

cation, program and service provisions, personnel prepara-

tion, and program management. Furthermore, supplemental

state policies that exist and aect gifted students need to be

analyzed and linked to gifted education in some way. Exist-

ing policy shouldbe regularly assessed for its eectiveness.

A state/local advisory council can provide oversight to the

state/local service delivery plan, which receives the local

Board of Education approval.

Identiﬁcation policy. Identiﬁcation policy requires an oper-

ational deﬁnition of giftedness that can be used as the basis

for determining a funding formula for the state. Many states

use their deﬁnition to restrict the number of students served

such as providing a cap on the percentage of students served.

Other states cap the numbers served via score cutos on in-

struments used for identiﬁcation. Still other states do not

cap the numbers served but specify the types of instruments

that must be employed in the identiﬁcation process and/or

the areas in which students may receive services, theoretical-

ly controlling the numbers of students eligible for services.

Multiple criteria should be employed to identify students

in each category of giftedness. Most documents in the ﬁeld

suggest at least three criteria be employed for each area, al-

though research is less clear about the number to be used as

long as it is more than one tool.

Equal stringency should be applied to the identiﬁcation for

all categories of giftedness. Clear speciﬁcations that identiﬁ-

cation may occur in all categories of giftedness (e.g., general

academic ability, speciﬁc academic aptitude, creativity, lead-

ership, and the visual and performing arts) should be cited.

With respect to the consideration of acceleration in any of

its forms, states policy should include the recommendation

to use above-level (see Olszewski-Kubilius, this volume)

measures to ensure that highly gifted students are recognized

in the academic areas of reading and math at the ages when

they are ready to progress at a faster rate of learning and with

advanced material. Typically, this would be in the primary

grades despite the fact that widespread testing for gifted pro-

gramming often does not occur before second grade or third

grade and talent-search above-level testing programs are typ-

ically not accessible until third grade. Traditional intelligence

measures such as the Cognitive Abilities Test (CogAT; Lohman

& Hagen, 2011) may also be used to target high aptitude areas

by examining subscores in quantitative and verbal areas.

A systematic process for the linking of identiﬁcation proce-

dures to appropriate program and service provisions, includ-

ing accelerative options, should be articulated. A process for

equitable decision making at screening, identiﬁcation, selec-

tion, and placement stages, including an appeals process, also

may be delineated. Speciﬁc provisions for the identiﬁcation

of special populations, including low income, ELL, and twice-

exceptional learners, are important. Research suggests that

the following options may be useful: adjusting the entrance

criteria to represent local norms, which may mean that the

percentile ranking is lower than national norms; adding mea-

sures such as performance-based assessment or nonverbal

measures to assess latent abilities; and taking the top 10% of

these students across all measures used may be more eec-

tive in ensuring representation in gifted programs (VanTas-

sel-Baska, Johnson, & Avery, 2002; Lohman & Lakin, 2008).

Educational programs and services. Educational programs

and services for the gifted must provide an optimal match to

the mechanisms used to identify students. Thus, a careful de-

lineation of program and service components should be in-

cluded in state regulation and may include grouping arrange-

ments that are conducive to administering gifted programs

and include cluster, resource room, pull-out, special classes,

or self-contained programs. At least one of these options

48 A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2

Policy Development : VanTassel-Baska

should be considered to ensure adequate service delivery to

gifted learners, consistent with the research on ability group-

ing of the gifted (Rogers, 2007). Furthermore, contact time

for programs and services needs to be sucient to demon-

strate learning gains at the conclusion of a program or school

year. Typically that would mean that school-based programs

require at least an hour a day contact time or its equivalent

across a week or a month (Callahan & Plucker, 2014).

Curriculum should be modiﬁed in each relevant subject area

for identiﬁed students according to the need for acceleration,

complexity, depth, challenge, and creativity. Such curriculum

dierentiation is built upon and extends standards-based

regular curriculum and requires the development and/or use

of curriculum designed for gifted students (VanTassel-Baska

& Little, 2011; VanTassel-Baska, 2013). Instruction employed

in classrooms for the gifted is appropriately diverse in tech-

nique and emphasizes inquiry-based tactics and strategies

such as problem-solving, critical thinking, and research.

Curriculum objectives should be closely tied to assessment

practices for gifted programs. In addition to above-level stan-

dardized tests, performance-based tasks, and portfolio ap-

proaches are encouraged (Johnsen, 2012) to match the nature

of dierentiated instruction provided.

A modiﬁed and extended program (i.e., value-added) is artic-

ulated to accommodate at-risk and highly gifted populations

identiﬁed. Low income, culturally diverse, second language

learners, and twice-exceptional students should be addressed

speciﬁcally in state regulation to ensure appropriate services

(VanTassel-Baska, 2009; Callahan & Plucker, 2014).

Acceleration in the learning rate of gifted learners is an im-

portant option for a quality gifted program (IRPA et al.,

2009). The following accelerative options are central to

such eorts:

• Enter kindergarten early, based on meeting the

identiﬁcation guidelines for general intellectual

ability;

• Advance more than one grade based on review

of performance and ability criteria;

• Advance in one subject area;

• Enter middle school, high school, or college

early as determined by overall performance,

demonstrated readiness, and relevant exit

examination testing;

• Test out of state standards requirements early.

Other advice related to making informed decisions about

whole-grade acceleration may be found in the Iowa Accelera-

tion Scale (Assouline et al., 2009)

Social–emotional support for student development is includ-

ed as a part of the service delivery plan. Academic guidance

and career counseling are available at grades 6–12, emphasiz-

ing the need for advanced course-taking early and the use of

student assessment data to counsel students on college and

career alternatives.

Personnel preparation. Endorsement or certiﬁcation of

teachers in gifted education is a necessary provision to in-

clude in regulations regarding personnel preparation (see

Croft & Wood, this volume). The personnel preparation ini-

tiative should contain these components, which are based on

the approved National Council for Accreditation of Teacher

Education (NCATE) standards for gifted program teacher

preparation (National Association for Gifted Children &

Council for Exceptional Children, 2006) and the NAGC Pre-

K-Grade 12 Gied Program Standards (Johnsen, 2012):

• A minimum of 12 hours of coursework in gifted

education should be required and linked to

university-based programs with a statewide

university network collaborative working on

implementation. The 12-hour course require-

ments should reﬂect the NCATE standards for

gifted program teacher preparation. Frequent,

regularly scheduled sta development opportu-

nities for all program sta should be required.

In addition, all classroom teachers, school

counselors, and administrators should receive

professional development in the national stan-

dards for gifted education personnel (VanTas-

sel-Baska & Johnsen, 2007).

• Individuals who serve as gifted education

program coordinators should be required to

complete an additional 15 hours of coursework

in educational administration, in addition to

the requirements for endorsement or certiﬁca-

tion for working with gifted learners (VanTas-

sel-Baska & Feng, 2004; Wood, 2014).

Assessment of the Administrative

and Political Consequences and

Implications of Each Policy Option

Before new state policy can be enacted, it is critical that a

formal assessment be conducted to answer the following

questions:

A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2 49

Policy Development : VanTassel-Baska

• What are the perceived costs and beneﬁts of

the new policy?

• How does it ﬁt within existing policy?

• What are the interests of stakeholder groups

related to the new policy or the issue that the

policy is designed to address?

• Are there links between these desires and in-

terests and the potential consequences for each

policy option?

• Does the policy option consider the unique

needs of underserved populations (e.g., low

income, minority, twice-exceptional, and ELL)?

• Are there unintended consequences of the

policy for any of the groups noted above?

Moreover, it is useful to rate each policy option on a scale of

one to ﬁve in regard to the following criteria:

• Clarity (Is the policy clearly articulated?)

• Comprehensive (Does the policy address all

relevant components e.g., program/service

design?)

• Connectedness (Does the policy reﬂect con-

nectedness to existing and newly proposed

policies?)

• Feasibility (Is the policy practical for imple-

mentation?)

• Research-based (Does the policy have research

support in the gifted education literature?)

Thus, the four policy areas for policy development—identi-

ﬁcation, program and services, personnel preparation, and

program management—all should receive ratings that ensure

their high quality for gifted education regulations. Accelera-

tion practices, considered to be part of the program and ser-

vices area, should receive special consideration to ensure that

they are linked to any separate state policies, e.g. Advanced

Placement, International Baccalaureate, and dual enrollment

programs for secondary students.

Another way to rate policy options would be to consider

them by the type of program to be instituted at the state level

and then to use the results for deciding on particular choices.

Gallagher (2006) established a decision-making matrix for

use in gifted education that examined dierent policy op-

tions and their relative “play” in the larger society. For exam-

ple, the option of residential schools for the gifted has strong

support from parents, policy-makers, and the general public,

producing evidence of strong outcomes for students and hav-

ing light costs and personnel needs. Table 2, adapted from

Gallagher (2006), illustrates a set of six policy options that

states (and some large districts) may, and often do, consider

for providing gifted services to students.

These options are examples and are not considered exhaus-

tive of the many possibilities. Each option is rated based on

a set of criteria that must be considered in adopting policy:

1) cost, 2) personnel needs, 3) research base, 4) public, and 5)

parental support. The scale used to judge each criterion is:

high, moderate, mixed, or low. Where the preponderance of

evidence, based on existing research and practice, suggests

one of these ratings per criterion, it is assigned.

Results are interesting to examine. Low cost and low per-

sonnel preparation needs are important pluses for any policy

option. Yet, lack of real cost must be balanced by acceptance

of the initiative in the legislature and among the public of in-

terested stakeholders who typically are parent groups. More-

over, the presence of a strong research base is also a critical

consideration in adopting a policy option. Thus, the options

that emerge as most viable in this chart are the funding for

specialized schools, summer and academic year opportuni-

ties outside of school, and educational acceleration.

The table illustrates the low cost of acceleration options with

respect to funding and personnel preparation costs and in

comparison to other alternatives, its superior evidence base,

and its high acceptance among parents. Only in the general

community does acceleration rate lower, receiving mixed re-

sults based on stakeholder group data. Yet it is the only op-

tion that has a superior research base. When states analyze

the options for serving gifted learners, they cannot ignore

the positive beneﬁts that acceleration options can confer as

shown through the research highlighted in other chapters in

this volume.

Conclusion

The development of appropriate policies in gifted education

at local, state and national levels provides the glue that holds

gifted education together. Ensuring that these policies have

been developed with an eye to core criteria and reﬂecting

up-to-date research is crucial to improving practice. More-

over, greater coherence among program policy elements will

enhance the overall operation of gifted programs, and sound

evaluation of the impact of policy will advance the ﬁeld. The

prominent role of acceleration policies and practices in this

process is a crucial aspect of ensuring measurable outcomes

and research-based options for our brightest learners.

50 A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2

Policy Development : VanTassel-Baska

Table 2: Decision Matrix for Gifted Education Policy

Criteria for Choice(s) Cost Personnel

Needs

Research

Base

Public

Acceptance

Parental Support

Explanation of Criteria

This criterion

examines the

dollar cost

for funding

adequately each

option within a

state as judged

by a per pupil

allotment ﬁgure.

This criterion

examines the

personnel

needed to carry

out the initiative

as judged by the

cost associated

with hiring and

training for the

initiative.

This criterion

examines the

research base

that supports

the initiative, as

judged by its

extensiveness

and longevity

of evidence of

success.

This criterion

examines the

degree to which

the general pubic

accepts the

initiative as judged

by willingness to

have tax dollars go

to support it.

This criterion examines

the degree of parental

support that an

initiative enjoys, as

judged by parental

approval, involvement

with the initiative, and

parental support for it

monetarily.

Options at state/local levels

for funding considerations in

gifted education

School-based gifted programs

This option offers gifted services to a wide range of gifted students

and promising learners through grouped opportunities for advanced

learning at all levels. Services may be provided for up to 10%

of the population by school. Menus of curriculum opportunities

are selected, based on school preferences for speciﬁc models,

approaches, etc.

High High Mixed Low High

Personnel preparation for gifted

This option offers up to 12 hours of graduate coursework or its

equivalent to teachers who will be working with gifted learners in

their schools. Training would be conducted by higher education

personnel from each state. High school personnel working with

honors courses, AP, and IB would participate. Emphases would

be on nature and needs, curriculum and instruction, program

development and guidance, and counseling the gifted. States would

provide the basic funding with ongoing professional development

funding provided by districts on an annual basis

Low High High High High

Specialized residential state schools in

STEM/Math and Science

This option would provide one school in every state, devoted to

the top students in math and science at the high school level, who

would be eligible to attend for the last two years. Students selected

would receive free tuition and room and board at the residential site

selected for the school.

Low Low Moderate

High

(in states where

schools exist)

High

Summer programs/academic year out-of-

school programs

This option would fund summer and academic year activities for

gifted learners that would include online opportunities. Programs

would need to be sponsored by consortia of higher education and

school district entities. Competitive RFP’s for the funds would be

offered in each state.

Low Low High High High

Educational acceleration

This option would provide for all types of acceleration on a state-

wide basis, ensuring that students receive vouchers to fund AP and

IB test experiences. IBO cost would also be absorbed by the state.

Agreements between higher education and K-12 schools would

be effected to ensure younger students’ matriculation to relevant

coursework at appropriate ages and stages of development.

Low Low

Very

High

Mixed High

Status quo

This option would keep gifted education a discretionary option at

local levels for the most part, continuing the patchwork quilt model

currently in place. States and universities may or may not provide

appropriate options for the gifted based on funding and political

considerations. Gifted services would be carried out as each district

is capable and desirous to do.

High Mixed Mixed Mixed High

Adapted om Gallagher, J.J. (2006). Driving change in special education. Baltimore, MD: Brookes.

A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2 51

Policy Development : VanTassel-Baska

References

Assouline, S. G., Colangelo, N., Lupkowski-Shoplik, A., Lipscomb, J.,

& Forstadt, L. (2009) Iowa Acceleration Scale (3rd ed.). Tucson, AZ:

Great Potential Press.

Baker, B. D. (2001). Measuring the outcomes of state policies for gifted

education: An equity analysis of Texas school districts. Gifted Child

Quarterly, 45, 4–15.

Baker, B. D., & Friedman-Nimz, R. C. (2004). State policy and equal op-

portunity: e example of gifted education. Educational Evaluation and

Policy Analysis, 26, 39–64.

Baker, B. D., & McIntire, J. (2003). Evaluating state funding for gifted edu-

cation programs. Roeper Review, 25(4), 173–177.

Bleske-Rechek, A., Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (2004). Meeting the edu-

cational needs of special populations: Advanced placement’s role in de-

veloping exceptional human capital. Psychological Science, 15, 217–224.

Brown, E. F. (2001). Systemic reform: e impact of North Carolina’s state-ini-

tiated policies on local gifted programs. Unpublished doctoral disserta-

tion, College of William and Mary, Williamsburg, VA.

Callahan, C., & Plucker, J. (2014). Critical issues and practices in gifted ed-

ucation: What the research says (2nd ed.). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

Carnoy, M., & Loeb, S. (2002). Does external accountability aﬀect student

outcomes? A cross-state analysis. Educational Evaluation and Policy

Analysis, 24(4), 305–331.

Dounay, J. (2006). High school – Advanced placement. Retrieved from

http://www.ecs.org/clearinghouse/67/44/6744.pdf

Gallagher, J. J. (2004). Driving change in special education. Baltimore, MD:

Brookes.

Gallagher, J. J. (2002). Society’s role in educating gifted students: e role of

public policy (RM02162). Storrs, CT: e National Research Center on

the Gifted and Talented, University of Connecticut.

Hannaway, J., & Woodroﬀe, N. (2003). Policy instruments in education.

Review of Research in Education, 27, 1-24.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act, 20 U.S.C.

§1400. (2004).

Institute for Research and Policy on Acceleration, National Association

for Gifted Children, & Council of State Directors of Programs for the

Gifted. (2009). Guidelines to developing an academic acceleration policy.

Iowa City, IA: Author. Retrieved from http://accelerationinstitute.org/

Resources/Policy_Guidelines/

Johnsen, S. (Ed.). (2012) Program standards in gifted education. Waco, TX:

Prufrock Press.

Kulik, J. A., & Kulik, C. L. C. (1992). Meta-analytic ﬁndings on grouping

programs. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36(2), 73–77.

Landrum, M. S., Katsiyannis, A., & DeWard, J. (1998). A national survey

of current legislative and policy trends in gifted education: Life after

the National Excellence report. Journal for the Education of the Gifted,

21(3), 352–371.

Lohman, D. & Lakin, J. (2008) Nonverbal test scores as one component of

an identiﬁcation system: Integrating ability, achievement, and teacher

ratings. In J. VanTassel-Baska (ed.) Alternative assessments with gifted

and talented students. (pp. 41-66) Waco, Tx: Prufrock Press.

Lohman, D., & Hagen, E. (2011). Cognitive Abilities Test, Form 7. Rolling

Meadows, IL: Riverside Publishing.

McDonnell, L. M., & Elmore, R. F. (1987). Getting the job done: Alter-

native policy instruments. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis,

9(2), 133–152.

National Association for Gifted Children & Council of State Directors of

Programs for the Gifted. (2013). 2012-2013 State of the states in gifted

education: National policy and practice data. Washington, DC: Author.

National Association for Gifted Children (2006). Policy on acceleration.

Washington DC: Author.

Passow, A. H., & Rudnitski, R. A. (1993). State policies regarding education

of the gifted as reﬂected in legislation and regulation (CRS93302). Storrs,

CT: e National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented, Uni-

versity of Connecticut.

Purcell, J. (1992). Programs for the gifted in a state without a mandate: An

“endangered species”? Roeper Review, 14, 93– 95.

Purcell, J. (1995). Gifted education at a crossroads: e program status

study. Gifted Child Quarterly, 35(1), 26–35.

Rand Corporation. (1978). Federal programs supporting educational change:

Volume VIII, implementing and sustaining innovations (Research Rep.

No. R-1589/8-HEW). Santa Monica, CA: Author.

Robinson, A., & Moon, S. M. (2003). A national study of local and state

advocacy in gifted education. Gifted Child Quarterly, 47(1), 8–25.

Rogers, K. B. (2007). Lessons Learned About Educating the Gifted and

Talented A Synthesis of the Research on Educational Practice.Gifted

Child Quarterly,51(4), 382-396.

Russo, C. J., Harris, J. J., & Ford, D. Y. (1996). Gifted education and the

law: A right, privilege, or superﬂuous? Roeper Review, 18(3), 179–182.

Shaunessy, E. (2003). State policies regarding gifted education. Gifted Child

To d a y , 26(3), 16–21.

Stambaugh, T. (2001, Winter). Cluster grouping the gifted: One school’s

journey. e Review, Ohio Association for Gifted Children.

Stephens, K. R., & Karnes, F. A. (2000). State deﬁnitions for the iden-

tiﬁcation of gifted and talented revisited. Exceptional Children, 66(2),

219–238.

U.S. Department of Education. (1993). National excellence: A case for devel-

oping America’s talent. Washington, DC: Author.

VanTassel-Baska, J. (2013) Curriculum issues. Curriculum, instruction,

and assessment for the gifted: A problem-based learning scenario. Gift-

ed Child Today, 36(1), 71-75.

VanTassel-Baska, J. (2009). United States policy development in gifted ed-

ucation: A patchwork quilt. In L. Shavinna, International handbook on

giftedness. (pp. 1295-1312). London: Springer.

VanTassel-Baska, J. (2003). Curriculum policy development for gifted pro-

grams: Converting issues in the ﬁeld to coherent practice. In J. Borland

(Ed.), Rethinking gifted education (pp. 173–185). Danvers, MA: Teach-

ers College Press.

VanTassel-Baska, J., & Feng, A. (Eds.). (2004). Designing and utilizing eval-

uation for gifted program improvement. Waco, TX: Prufrock.

VanTassel-Baska, J. & Johnsen, S. (2007) Teacher education standards for

the ﬁeld of gifted education: A vision of coherence for personnel prepa-

ration in the 21st Century. Gifted Child Quarterly, 51(2), 182-205.

VanTassel-Baska, J., Johnson, D., & Avery, L. D. (2002). Using perfor-

mance tasks in the identiﬁcation of economically disadvantaged and

minority gifted learners: Findings from Project STAR. Gifted Child

Quarterly, 46(2), 110-123.

Zirkel, P. (2009). Gifted education. Principal, 88(5), 57-59.

52 A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2

Policy Development : VanTassel-Baska

A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2 53

Whole Grade Acceleration : Lupkowski-Shoplik, Assouline, & Colangelo

Thank you. The outcomes of accelerating him past sixth

grade to seventh grade… have been incredibly positive for

[our son] both academically and socially …if he knew to do

so, I’m sure he’d thank you for your encouragement as well.

Parent of accelerated sixth grade student

I want to thank you again for giving me very powerful

tools to advocate for my daughter ...I am conﬁdent that

eventually the tide will turn in this country regarding

acceleration. I foresee that schools will start nominat-

ing students for acceleration, instead of every request

coming om the parents. I also wanted to let you know

that there are teachers out there who advocate strongly

for their students on this issue. [My daughter’s] home-

room teacher for fourth grade this year… was very

strongly in favor of acceleration and spoke eloquently

and strongly at our meeting, in addition to taking many

actions in the preceding weeks to help with the process.

Parent of accelerated fourth grade student

Introduction

The educational intervention of academic acceleration takes

many forms, including early entrance to school, grade-skip-

ping, moving up to a higher grade for a speciﬁc subject, self-

paced instruction, mentoring, curriculum compacting, and

Advanced Placement (Southern & Jones, 2004a; this vol-

ume). It is helpful to think about these forms of acceleration

as falling into two general categories, subject-based acceler-

ation and grade-based acceleration (Colangelo, Assouline, &

Gross, 2004; Rogers, 2004). Subject-based is also referred to

as content-based acceleration and oers advanced content

and skills prior to the grade or age for which that content is

typically presented. Examples of subject-based acceleration

include single-subject acceleration in a speciﬁc area such

as math; curriculum compacting; or Advanced Placement

coursework. Grade-based acceleration reduces the number

of years that a student spends in the K-12 system (Rogers,

2004). Examples include whole-grade acceleration, which is

commonly referred to as grade-skipping; and grade telescop-

ing, which occurs when a group of advanced students accel-

erate through more than one year’s curriculum in one year.

A special case of grade-based acceleration is early entrance

to kindergarten or ﬁrst grade. The focus of this chapter is on

grade-based acceleration. Because grade-based acceleration

is the most visible form of acceleration (Southern & Jones,

Abstract

A systematic decision-making process for whole-grade acceleration recognizes the importance of accurately and meaningfully assessing

the factors to consider for whole-grade acceleration. Central to the process is the consideration of the student’s academic ability, aptitude,

and achievement. Additionally, the support of the school and parents helps ensure a successful experience with acceleration. Using a tool

such as the Iowa Acceleration Scale (Assouline, Colangelo, Lupkowski-Shoplik, Lipscomb, & Forstadt, 2009) provides the structure for this

decision-making process. Several states have established comprehensive acceleration policies that provide examples of how acceleration

can be implemented systematically in schools.

Whole-Grade Acceleration:

Grade-Skipping and Early Entrance

to Kindergarten or First Grade

Ann Lupkowski-Shoplik, Susan G. Assouline, and Nicholas Colangelo

The University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa

Chapter 5

54 A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2

Whole Grade Acceleration : Lupkowski-Shoplik, Assouline, & Colangelo

2004a; this volume), it is often the center of concern or con-

troversy around the topic of acceleration.

In this chapter, we examine the decision-making process

for whole-grade acceleration, including the importance of

assessing academic ability, aptitude, and achievement. We

also discuss the school and parent perceptions of general at-

titude and support for the process. Additionally, this chapter

addresses early entrance to school, a special application of

whole-grade acceleration. Brody and Muratori (this volume)

address early entrance to college, another type of whole-

grade acceleration. The ﬁnal section includes practical sug-

gestions from our clinical and school-based experiences with

acceleration, as well as information from school districts and

states that have implemented acceleration and early entrance

to school systematically.

Prevalence of Grade-Based

Acceleration

Despite the extensive body of research (see Rogers, this vol-

ume) supporting the eectiveness of whole-grade accelera-

tion and perhaps because of the controversy surrounding the

notion of skipping a grade, including entering school early, the

prevalence rate for this academic intervention is low (Wells,

Lohman, & Marron, 2009). Wells et al. (2009) analyzed data

from two large data sets: the National Educational Longitu-

dinal Study (NELS) and the Educational Longitudinal Study

(ELS). The NELS data included a representative nation-

al sample of 24,599 United States eighth graders, with base

year 1988 and a follow-up study in 1992, when students were

in twelfth grade. The ELS data included a national sample

of 16,252 U.S. tenth graders in 2002 and a follow-up study of

these students in 2004 when they were in twelfth grade. Us-

ing age to determine which students were grade accelerated,

students were considered to be accelerated if they were two

years younger than the normal age for students in that grade,

or if they were one year younger than usual but were born on

or after January ﬁrst of the appropriate year. Using these cri-

teria, 1.4% of the NELS sample (336 students) and 0.6% of

the ELS sample (100 students) were considered accelerated.

Accelerated students in the Wells et al. study included both

those who actually skipped a grade at some point in their ed-

ucational career, as well as those who entered kindergarten or

ﬁrst grade early.

Wells et al. (2009) found that the 1988 cohort had a larger per-

centage of accelerated students than the 2002 cohort, per-

haps indicating that grade acceleration declined in popularity

over time. This shift could have occurred because schools are

now oering more options such as enrichment or single-sub-

ject acceleration, or because parents and schools have moved

away from using grade-skipping as an educational option. Or,

since the sample sizes of accelerated students in the data sets

were relatively small, it could simply reﬂect sampling error. It

is clear that grade-skipping was not an option that was used

very often in United States schools during the time periods

studied. There is an additional irony to this observation: be-

ginning in the early 1980s through the present day, the Talent

Search Model of discovering and developing academic tal-

ent (Lupkowski-Shoplik, Benbow, Assouline, & Brody, 2003;

Olszewski-Kubilius, 2004; this volume), a university-based

gifted center model that features acceleration (Assouline &

Lupkowski-Shoplik, 2012), has burgeoned.

Deciding Whether or Not to

Accelerate a Student: T I

A S (IAS)

There are likely many reasons for the low prevalence of whole-

grade acceleration in schools, including a basic lack of aware

ness of the eectiveness of the intervention, concern about the

impact on a student’s social-emotional development, as well as

concern about the lack of a systematic procedure for making

this decision. It may even be the case that the lack of a system

atic approach to applying this highly eective intervention

contributes to the reason for the low prevalence rates. Feldhu

sen, Proctor, and Black (1986) and Feldhusen (1992) noted the

importance of evaluating an encompassing set of factors with

respect to whole-grade acceleration. Around the same time

period, Assouline, Colangelo, Lupkowski-Shoplik, and Lip

scomb (1998), systematized a protocol for the decision-making

process around whole-grade acceleration. This protocol, the

Iowa Acceleration Scale (IAS; Assouline et al., 1998) was ground

ed in the clinical work of the Belin-Blank Center and the ﬁeld

experiences of teachers and administrators in schools in Iowa.

The IAS was developed as a practical tool to guide parents,

students, and educators to work together to make the decision

regarding whether or not to accelerate. Since 1998, the IAS

and the subsequent editions, the IAS-2 (Assouline, Colange

lo, Lupkowski-Shoplik, Lipscomb, & Forstadt 2003) and the

IAS-3 (Assouline, Lupkowski-Shoplik, Lipscomb, & Forstadt,

2009) have proven to be systematic and defensible ways to

generate recommendations and guidelines for whole-grade ac

celeration (Assouline, Colangelo, Ihrig, Forstadt, & Lipscomb,

2004). One of the important considerations in whole-grade

acceleration, and an especially strong feature of the IAS-3

(Assouline et al., 2009), is systematizing the decision-making

procedures in order to improve the probability that adequate

information is gathered and objective decisions are made

(Assouline et al., 2003; Piper & Creps, 1991).

A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2 55

Whole Grade Acceleration : Lupkowski-Shoplik, Assouline, & Colangelo

Most people, educators and non-educators alike, react emo-

tionally when the topic of grade-skipping is brought up (Col-

angelo et al., 2004). It seems natural to be extremely cautious

and to remember one or two negative events concerning oth-

er accelerated students. As well, many assume that the “safe”

intervention is to do nothing (Colangelo et al., 2004). The

IAS was designed to assist school personnel and parents in

thinking in a more organized manner about each of the vari-

ous aspects of the acceleration decision rather than allowing

an emotional reaction about a single event that they may have

only heard about, not necessarily witnessed, to direct the de-

cision. It uses the large body of research indicating that ac-

celeration is a viable option for many academically talented

students, and it helps parents and educators to feel conﬁdent

that they have indeed considered all of the important factors

in making the decision.

The IAS-3 (Assouline et al., 2009) was developed after de-

cades of clinical and ﬁeldwork with students considered for

whole-grade acceleration. The IAS-3 manual describes the

purpose and items in detail; a considerable portion of this

current chapter relies on the literature review for the IAS-

3 and our clinical experiences with students who have been

accelerated. The IAS-3 includes items that are rated and cat-

egorized into ﬁve subtotals that include the most important

issues for consideration by educators and parents. The subto-

tals are: (1) Academic Ability, Aptitude, and Achievement; (2)

School and Academic Factors, (3) Developmental Factors, (4)

Interpersonal Skills; and (5) Attitude and Support.

The Role of Academic Assessment

in the Decision-Making Process

of Whole-Grade Acceleration

Included in Feldhusen’s (1992) set of comprehensive factors is

the need to evaluate the match between the learning task and

the learner’s readiness for the task. The learner’s readiness

for the learning task is best understood through assessment

of ability, aptitude, and achievement; these indicators are in-

tegral to the decision-making process about acceleration.

Are assessment and testing identical? We agree with Sattler

(2008) and view testing as one of four components of an as-

sessment. Assessment is the umbrella term for comprehen-

sive and systematic gathering of information about a child so

that an informed decision can be made. Testing is the most

standardized and technical component of assessment (See

also Matarazzo, 1990). The other three components, accord-

ing to Sattler, include interviews, observations, and informal

procedures. Piper and Creps (1991) suggest that in making

placement decisions, grades, observations, and interviews

may be more vulnerable to bias than standardized testing

procedures and they emphasize the value of observation in

one-on-one testing. The IAS-3 is not a test; it is an assess-

ment, which includes testing, interviews, observations, and

informal procedures (e.g., review of records, documentation

of interventions). In the following sections, we discuss the

testing components of the IAS-3 assessment process.

Tests Needed for the IAS-3

At the beginning of the 21st century, there were nearly 3,000

commercially available tests (Murphy, Impara, & Plake,

1999), and with respect to test validity, reliability, and meth-

od of administration, there are thousands of combinations

of eectiveness. Nevertheless, several tests have emerged as

more valid and reliable than others, and these have become

the standard tests used by the majority of educators and

psychologists when assessing children. The latter collection

constitutes the basis for our recommendations regarding the

testing of ability, aptitude, and achievement for whole-grade

acceleration decisions.

Many educators use the terms ability, aptitude, and achieve-

ment interchangeably; however, we ﬁnd the continuum de-

veloped by Linn and Gronlund (1995), which uses exposure to

subject content, to be an eective scheme for distinguishing

among the types and purposes of tests. Achievement tests are

based upon the student’s exposure and expertise with spe-

ciﬁc school-related subject content at grade level. Aptitude

tests measure general problem solving in speciﬁc content ar-

eas. Ability tests are least dependent upon learning speciﬁc

content. The IAS-3 (Assouline et al., 2009) requires the de-

cision-making team to have information from all three types

of tests.

Assessment of Ability

Ability (intelligence) tests evaluate a student’s general abili-

ty to succeed in a school setting. Formal measures of intelli-

gence (Intelligence Quotient or IQ tests) constitute a critical

aspect underlying acceleration decisions using the IAS-3. An

individualized intelligence test that is professionally admin-

istered continues to be a very eective predictor of academic

success in elementary and secondary school settings (Assou-

line, 2003; Sattler, 2008; Siegler & Richards, 1988).

Once an accurate IQ measure is obtained, a related issue

that needs to be addressed is how high the score must be to

warrant acceleration. Early in the twentieth century, Holling-

worth (1942) determined that students with an IQ of 130 or

56 A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2

Whole Grade Acceleration : Lupkowski-Shoplik, Assouline, & Colangelo

above could complete curriculum at a substantially faster rate

than could average students. Gallagher (1985) suggested IQ

equal to or greater than 130 (approximately the 98th percen-

tile) as the required performance level at which acceleration

is recommended. Terman and Oden (1947) and Davis and Rimm

(1994) determined the ﬁgure to be an IQ of 135 or higher, and

Feldhusen et al. (1986) used the IQ of 125. Users of the IAS-3

are required to administer an individualized intelligence test

or the most current form of the Cognitive Abilities Test (pres-

ently Form 7; Lohman, 2011). Based upon the clinical experi-

ence of the authors, the IAS-3 recommends that in order for

students to be recommended for consideration of whole-grade

acceleration, they must earn an IQ that is at least one stan-

dard deviation above the mean (i.e., >115). It should be not-

ed that this minimal IQ is what is recommended to begin the

discussion about placement and is not a recommendation for

making a ﬁnal decision.

Assessment of Aptitude

A test of general ability can be an excellent indicator of

need for a more rapid pace, which can be provided through

whole-grade acceleration; however, measures of general abil-

ity do not provide speciﬁc information concerning subjects

or content areas. Furthermore, the decision-making team,

comprised of various educators and the parents, need some

indication regarding the student’s likelihood of success in the

higher grade. Stanley (1984) advocates that a comprehensive

proﬁle of students’ strengths be determined through a mea-

sure of their aptitude in speciﬁc areas. This may be accom-

plished through the use of speciﬁc aptitude tests or through

specialized, i.e., above-level, use of achievement tests. With

respect to acceleration, focusing on assessment of aptitude

by using an above-level achievement test is an ideal measure

by which to determine the level of work for which the stu-

dent is ready. Performance at or above the 50th percentile

on above-grade-level material (i.e., a test that is two or more

grades above the student’s current grade level) indicates that

the student has exceptional aptitude in a subject area—that

student is performing similar to an average student who is

two years older, which would suggest a strong likelihood for

success in the higher grade. High scores on aptitude tests or

above-level tests indicate the student is ready for more ad-

vanced work, and in the case of very high scores, even further

testing may be warranted to determine the appropriate level

of instruction.

Early work by Stanley in the 1970s introduced the idea of

above-level testing by oering tests designed for older stu-

dents to bright, younger students (Assouline & Lupkow-

ski-Shoplik, 2012; Lupkowski-Shoplik et al., 2003; Olsze-

wski-Kubilius, 2004; this volume). For young students who

perform exceptionally well on grade-level tests, there is of-

ten a “ceiling eect,” where their scores cluster in the 95th

to 99th percentiles. These students earn high scores because

they responded correctly to all, or nearly all, of the items on a

grade-level test; however, this doesn’t truly reveal their capa-

bilities nor their readiness for advanced material at a younger

age than their grade-level peers. Additionally, we don’t know

if these high-scoring students have similar aptitude levels or

if they are very dierent from each other. This is because the

testing industry has found it inecient to include enough

dicult items on grade-level tests to dierentiate among

students at the higher tail of the normal curve, and because,

statistically, it is impossible for the norms to exceed the 99th

percentile. Above-level testing serves to “spread out” these

talented students’ scores, to determine where their specif-

ic academic aptitudes are. Taking an above-level test gives a

better picture of a student’s aptitude for academic material

he or she may not have been taught yet in school. Further,

Robinson and Weimer (1991) state that bright children need

to be tested on a measure that leaves room for advanced per-

formance; this is what aptitude and/or above-level testing

provide. This testing gives the child study team an additional

piece of important information about the student’s capabil-

ities. Examining the student’s proﬁle of aptitude across the

various subject areas helps the child study team to evaluate

the likelihood the student will perform well in all classes in

the new grade, if he or she is accelerated.

Assessment of Achievement

Achievement testing used to evaluate high-ability students

varies along two principal dimensions: administration (indi-

vidual vs. group) and level (grade-level vs. above grade-level).

Achievement testing can be used to determine whether a

student’s actual skills match the potential demonstrated in

ability testing. Results from standardized achievement tests

can provide information for planning future programming,

including acceleration. A level of excellent performance on

an achievement test is an indicator that the student has mas-

tered the material for that grade-level and is ready to learn

a higher level of material. Performance at or above the 90th

percentile on grade-level material constitutes that level of

mastery and excellence. Often, there are concerns that stu-

dents will experience gaps in basic skills if they are accelerat-

ed. A grade-level test can assuage those concerns.

For the purposes of the IAS-3, a grade-level standardized test

such as the Iowa Assessments (Iowa Testing Programs, 2012) is

an assessment of achievement. Many candidates for acceler-

A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2 57

Whole Grade Acceleration : Lupkowski-Shoplik, Assouline, & Colangelo

ation will have multiple achievement test results on record.

Students in the upper grades may have several years of test

scores in school ﬁles. When looking at scores from prior

years, there are a few things to consider:

• Consistency among subtest scores within a given

year; and

• Consistency between subtest scores from year to

year (does the student’s percentile ranking remain at

or above the 90th percentile from year to year?).

When a student scores at or above the 95th percentile in an

area of a grade-level achievement test, the student has not

only mastered the grade-level content, but has “hit the ceil-

ing” of the grade-level test. This means he or she has gotten

(almost) everything right on the test, and the test does not

really measure his or her capabilities. In this case, the student

is an ideal candidate for above-level testing, which will serve

as a diagnostic tool for possible acceleration.

Test results from high-ability students typically show that

these students can learn and process information quick-

ly and accurately. Because of this, tying them to a lock-step

instructional program is inappropriate (Rogers, 2002, 2004,

2007; VanTassel-Baska, 1991). Gallagher (1985) found that

high-ability students are usually precocious early readers, of-

ten reading at levels two to six years above their age peers.

Such an extreme degree of reading superiority may gradually

narrow, but not disappear, over time (Jackson & Klein, 1997).

Students whose exceptional talent is demonstrated across

multiple subject areas are better candidates for whole-grade

acceleration than are those whose talents are demonstrated

in certain areas only. The latter are more qualiﬁed for sin-

gle-subject acceleration in their strength areas (e.g., math;

Rogers, 2002; VanTassel-Baska, 1991).

Integrating Ability, Aptitude,

and Achievement Test Scores

Statistical analysis of ability, aptitude, and achievement

scores suggests that the constructs of each are similar, but

not identical (Lipscomb, 2003). The correlation between

achievement and ability scores is strongest in a student’s

elementary years. Snow and Yalow (1988) attribute this phe-

nomenon to the growing importance of other developmen-

tal processes in children’s academic lives. By creating a single

score for the ability, aptitude, and achievement required for

consideration of acceleration, the IAS-3 accounts for this di-

vergence. In the IAS-3, a student must earn an IQ that is at

least one standard deviation above the mean. Evaluation of

the IQ is integrated with evaluation of a student’s aptitude

and achievement, and there must be a prescribed minimum

score in order for whole-grade acceleration to be a possible

recommendation. Table 1 presents the application of scores

from ability, aptitude, and achievement measures for a sec-

ond-grade student (whose pseudonym is David).

As indicated in Table 1, at this point in “David’s” brief educa-

tional experience, he was not recommended for whole-grade

acceleration. His Verbal Comprehension Index Score from

the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (WISC-IV;

Wechsler, 2003) was at the 98th percentile, which is in the

superior range, and also was commensurate with his perfor-

mance on measures of reading aptitude and achievement.

However, there were other indicators that suggested that sin-

gle-subject acceleration was the most logical decision at this

point in time. These testing results emphasize a critical point

with respect to acceleration: the intervention should result

in continued excellent academic performance. In other words, the

intervention is based upon evidence that the student is ready

for a faster pace, has achieved extremely well compared to

grade-level peers, and has the aptitude to have excellent per-

formance in the next grade.

Attitude and Support

Table 1 and the discussion above reveal that testing provides

much of the objective information needed to make a deci-

sion about skipping a grade or entering school early. Although

there might be a great deal of objective evidence indicating

a student is indeed a good candidate for acceleration, school

personnel and parents may still hesitate to move the student

up a grade. They might ask themselves the question, “Is this

really the best option for us to do at this time?” To assist in

answering such a question, it is critical to have a positive atti-

tude and support from three main and important groups: the

student, his or her parents, and the educators. To do anything

out of step usually requires a modicum of courage. A positive,

supportive perspective from these three groups helps provide

the courage to move a student up a grade.

Attitude and Support

from the Student

Cultivating a student’s willingness and enthusiasm for whole-

grade acceleration is essential to the ultimate success of the

process (Lubinski, 2004; VanTassel-Baska, 1991). In fact, one

of the “Critical Items” included in the Iowa Acceleration Scale-3

(Assouline et al., 2009) is the student’s attitude toward accel-

eration. If the student does not want to accelerate in school,

the student should not be required to accelerate. Other al-

58 A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2

Whole Grade Acceleration : Lupkowski-Shoplik, Assouline, & Colangelo

Table 1: Ability, Aptitude, and Achievement Results and Interpretation

for Whole-Grade Acceleration for “David”

Assessment

Measures

Subtest and/or

Index Scores

Interpretation of

Information

Impact on Decision

to Accelerate to

Grade Two

Other

Considerations

Ability Scores

from Wechsler Intelligence

Scales for Children

(WISC-IV); Full Scale Score

comprised of four Index

Scores: VCI, PRI, WMI, and

PSI

Full Scale IQ:

Standard Score of 118;

88th percentile

Above Average

Overall IQ is

Above Average

Verbal Comprehension

Index (VCI) is Superior;

Superior Verbal Ability

and aptitude for reading;

Note reading and ﬂuency

are above average in

achievement and aptitude;

comprehension is high-

average in achievement and

aptitude

Other indices (PRI, WMI, and

PSI) are Average

Do Not Whole-

Grade accelerate

at this time

With a Full Scale IQ of 118,

the student meets initial

critical item of Full-scale

score of 115; however, three

of the four index scores are

all average

PSI measures ﬂuency with

processing information;

given PSI was Average,

skipping a whole grade is

not advised at this point in

time; doing so may lead to

unnecessary frustration

Consider single-subject

acceleration in reading;

Focus on further developing

comprehension skills; (See

VanTassel-Baska & Johnsen,

this volume)

WISC-IV Verbal

Comprehension Index (VCI)

Standard Score of 132;

98th Percentile;

Superior

WISC-IV Perceptual

Reasoning Index (PRI)

Standard Score of 108;

70th Percentile;

Average

WISC-IV Working Memory

Index (WMI)

Stardard Score of 104;

61st Percentile;

Average

WISC-IV Processing Speed

Index (PSI)

Standard Score of 103;

58th Percentile;

Average

Aptitude Scores from

Wechsler Individual

Achievement Test (WIAT-III) –

above level

Reading Standard Score

= 129 (97th Percentile)

compared to third graders

(two grades above current

level)

Not applicable in Math and

Written Language

Reading tests need to be

above-level based upon

grade-level reading (see

below) as well as excellent

verbal reasoning

Math Grade-level

Achievement was average;

therefore, no need to give

above-level;

Written Language grade-

level not administered

Students who are grade-

skipped should be able

to continue to perform

excellently at the higher

grade in all subject areas

Achievement Scores

Wechsler Individual

Achievement Test (WIAT-III) –

grade level

Reading Standard Score

= 134 (99th Percentile)

compared to ﬁrst graders

Math Grade-level

Achievement was average;

therefore, no need to

accelerate

Written Language not

administered; however

parent and teacher report

Average performance

Students who are grade-

skipped should have

excellent achievement on

grade-level

Do not accelerate in math or

written language

“David”

Fall, Grade Two, Seven-years, Five-months. This student was referred to a private psychologist. Parents were responding to a recommendation

from the teacher that the child be evaluated to determine readiness for whole-grade acceleration given the student’s very strong verbal abilities.

During second semester of kindergarten, David was moved to ﬁrst grade for reading.

During ﬁrst grade, he stayed with his ﬁrst-grade classmates for all subjects.

Note: All scores for the WISC-IV and the WIAT tests are reported as Standard Scale Scores; Average = 100, which is the 50th percentile.

A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2 59

Whole Grade Acceleration : Lupkowski-Shoplik, Assouline, & Colangelo

ternatives for academic challenge need to be considered. The

student also needs to be included in the discussion about ac-

celeration; including the student in that discussion becomes

more and more important as the student grows older. To ful-

ly present the potential impact of acceleration, it is helpful

to include the student in conversations with adults who are

knowledgeable about acceleration so they can consider to-

gether the possible advantages and disadvantages of acceler-

ation. Students may also need to be reminded that the whole

purpose of a proposed grade skip is to ﬁnd a way to challenge

them academically. In addition to considering acceleration

as an option, the student should also learn about other alter-

natives that are potentially available, such as moving up in a

single subject, participating in independent study or distance

learning programs, completing mentorships or special proj-

ects, etc. In our experience, most students enthusiastically

embrace the idea of acceleration. In some cases, they even

initiate the process (Assouline et al., 2009).

Students also beneﬁt from participating in outside-of-school

activities that are intellectually stimulating and challenging.

These activities are positive in that they help a student gain

conﬁdence and experience as well as the opportunity to in-

teract with students who are older, which would be a valuable

experience for any student who skips a grade.

Southern and Jones (2004a) address the multiple dimensions

associated with the various forms of acceleration, including

timing, which can refer to the timing of the intervention as

well as the age at which a student is accelerated. Although an

important consideration, especially in terms of fostering the

accelerated student’s integration with the new peer group,

there is a lack of research associated with this dimension.

Attitude and Support

from the Parents

The nature and extent of involvement of parents in the lives

of their children are extremely important to school success.

Unfortunately, one prevalent myth is that parents of gifted

children are over-involved (e.g., the “tiger mom”), are ego-in-

volved and want to hurry their children through their child-

hood, or are pushing their children into situations for which

they are not yet ready (VanTassel-Baska, 1991). Our experi-

ences with families, however, support the view that most

parents have a positive impact on their gifted children and

simply want what is best for their child (Bloom, 1985; Col-

angelo, 1998; VanTassel-Baska & Olszewski-Kubilius, 1989).

The classic study on the development of talent in teenagers

(Csikszentmihalyi, Rathunde, & Whalen, 1993) has also doc-

umented the important role of the parents in the lives of tal-

ented students.

The discussion about whole-grade acceleration can trig-

ger a higher level of involvement from parents (Colangelo,

1997; Sosniak, 1997). The importance of this is reﬂected in a

study by Cox, Daniel, and Boston (1985), who interviewed 52

award-winning scholars and artists, one-third of whom were

accelerated during their school careers, and found that vir-

tually all of them reported parents who expressed interest in

their children’s education (parent educational background

notwithstanding). The respondents also credited their par-

ents with allowing them to develop a sense of direction

without pressuring them to succeed. The value of involving

parents in decision-making about acceleration as soon as pos-

sible is supported by Piper and Creps (1991), who describe a

pattern in which parents often enter the process with strong

views one way or the other. However, once involved in the

process, parents’ views become less extreme and they are

more willing to accede to professional judgment about their

child. (In recognition of these points by Piper and Creps, all

editions of the IAS have required that parents be included as

part of the decision-making process.)

Oftentimes, parents are the ﬁrst to recognize that their child

is out of sync with age-mates and begin seeking appropriate

alternatives to the standard educational program. When the

parents are put in the role of initiating an investigation about

acceleration for their child, they have the challenging task

of becoming the ‘expert’ on acceleration and presenting this

information to professionals. Resources such as the IAS-3,

the Acceleration Institute (http://www.accelerationinstitute.

org/), A Nation Deceived, and the present volume are tools for

parents who are seeking the information and want to pres-

ent it to school personnel in a succinct, useful manner. Other

useful tools for parent advocacy can be found at the National

Association for Gifted Children website (www.nagc.org).

Attitude and Support

from the School System

Many educators are reluctant to use early admission and

acceleration practices, despite decades of research that

consistently demonstrate positive changes in academ-

ic achievement and a lack of negative impact on social and

emotional growth (Siegle, Wilson, & Little, 2013; Southern &

Jones, 2004a; Southern, Jones, & ., 1989). Research by Ram-

bo and McCoach (2012) indicated that teachers gave more

weight to potential negative outcomes of acceleration than

they gave to positive outcomes. Similarly, Southern and Jones

60 A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2

Whole Grade Acceleration : Lupkowski-Shoplik, Assouline, & Colangelo

(1992) found that teachers who knew that a student had been

accelerated were more likely to blame diculties on the ac-

celeration than on normal variations in behavior.

Teachers, in general, indicate a reluctance to accept student

placements that are not age-normal, even though they also

agree that many high-ability students need intervention to

ensure academic challenges. Some teachers of students who

are being considered for whole-grade acceleration even feel

a sense of failure, as though they have been unable to teach

those students (Piper & Creps, 1991).

Anecdotally, it has been reported that school personnel ac-

tively discourage parents from pursuing acceleration as an

option. Southern and Jones (2004b) give an example of one

district that provided guidelines to parents considering early

entrance to kindergarten that included the statement, “Re-

member you are not simply making a decision about next

year, you are making a decision about the rest of your child’s

life” (p. 20). They describe other school district policies that

indicate that early admission is often sought because of the

parents’ needs, not those of the child. Making these types of

statements is intimidating and demeaning to parents. Addi-

tionally, these statements imply that parents who seek ear-

ly entrance to school are not doing it because of concerns

for their child, but because of their own personal concerns

(Southern & Jones, 2004b). In a study of school counsel-

ors, Wood, Portman, Cigrand, and Colangelo (2010) found

that a very small number of counselors reported any formal

training on acceleration, yet most of them had been asked to

provide feedback on acceleration decisions in their schools.

The school counselors indicated they gathered information

about acceleration via informal means, such as talking with

colleagues and attending meetings. It is likely that personnel

participating in decisions about acceleration do not always

base their responses on the available research, but rather on

their personal experiences and beliefs.

Not all educators display such reluctance, discomfort, or a

lack of knowledge with grade-skipping. We have observed

that educators most familiar and involved with gifted educa-

tion (e.g., coordinators of gifted programs) are best informed

and have the most positive attitudes about grade-skipping as

an appropriate program option for gifted students. This is a

primary reason why we recommend that the gifted education

coordinator serve as the team leader for the IAS-3 process.

One recent study speciﬁcally examined the attitudes of

teachers and administrators concerning acceleration (Siegle,

et al., 2013). The participants were from a selected group—

educators attending a week-long summer workshop on gifted

education—so it is presumed that they were already some-

what informed of the needs of academically talented students

and the potential beneﬁts of acceleration. Most educators

participating in this study were not concerned with potential

negative eects of acceleration on academic performance.

They believed that acceleration meets the academic needs of

high-ability students, and it is neither insuciently nor overly

challenging. As a group, educators tended to support the con-

cept of acceleration and to be aware of the research support-

ing it. However, their responses to the survey indicated these

teachers believed that administrators and parents would not

support acceleration. The authors concluded that perhaps the

educators’ reluctance to accelerate students in their schools

has less to do with their own perceptions about acceleration

than their perceptions of what others believe. If that is indeed

the case, as Siegle et al. (2013) indicated, the key to changing

acceleration policies and practices may be to show adminis-

trators and others who have the power to make those changes

that many parents and teachers actually do support it.

Once a child has been grade skipped, some educators are

more successful than others in working with the accelerat-

ed student. High-ability students often recall teachers who

were demanding of them, and yet supportive, as signiﬁcant

contributors to the development of their academic talent

(Cox et al., 1985; Csikszentmihalyi et al., 1993). Teachers who

are self-conﬁdent and who are able to apply their knowledge

about high-ability children are generally most eective with

such students (Whitlock & DuCette, 1992). In our work with

the IAS-3, we have found that the attitude and knowledge

of the receiving teacher is critical to the positive adjustment

of the accelerated student. In recognition of this, the IAS-3

procedures require that the receiving teacher(s) be part of the

decision-making team.

Early Entrance to Kindergarten

and First Grade: Acceleration

with Young Children

A unique type of whole-grade acceleration is early entrance to

kindergarten or ﬁrst grade. Early entrance to school may pro-

vide an excellent accelerative option for academically talent-

ed young children. Decades of research support the claim that

bright youngsters who are carefully selected for early entrance

perform very well, both academically and socially (Diezmann,

Watters, & Fox, 2001; Robinson, 2004; Robinson & Weimer,

1991). However, there is great hesitation on the part of many

educators to encourage a student to enter school early. We

consider the pros and cons of early entrance to school within

the context of the research on the topic.

A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2 61

Whole Grade Acceleration : Lupkowski-Shoplik, Assouline, & Colangelo

Why Consider Early Entrance?

Early entrance to kindergarten or ﬁrst grade is the least dis-

ruptive form of whole-grade acceleration, both academically

and socially. It minimizes social disruptions, since young chil-

dren have not yet had the time to form close friendships with

their classmates (Assouline et al., 2009; Robinson, 2004;

Robinson & Weimer, 1991). Entering school early minimizes

the gaps in knowledge that might occur if a student skips a

grade later (Robinson & Weimer, 1991). Finally, in contrast to

any other form of acceleration, issues of academic credit are

not a problem if a child enters school early.

Allowing an academically talented youngster to enter school

early may provide the best match between the curriculum

and the child’s academic abilities (Robinson & Weimer, 1991).

Bright children who enter school early are less likely to be

bored with school. In an appropriately challenging program,

students are less likely to “breeze” through school, learning

bad habits (such as not studying because the work is too easy)

that may lead to underachievement and/or perfectionism in

the future (Saunders & Espeland, 1991).

What Are the Drawbacks of

Early Entrance?

In spite of these signiﬁcant advantages, there are still some

negative aspects to entering school early. First, this decision

must be made when a child is quite young, before the child

has had much experience with schooling or with peer rela-

tionships. The child’s lack of experience and the limited in-

formation about the child’s performance in school make the

decision more dicult. Clearly, the consequences of this de-

cision are long-term; it is dicult to change our minds and

reverse course (Brody et al., 2003; Robinson, 2004).

Educators are especially hesitant to have students enter kin-

dergarten at a young age, perhaps because of a fear that the

consequences of such a decision will not be known for years,

and even a seemingly positive short-term adjustment might

be followed by later problems. For example, preschool teach-

ers are unlikely to believe that gifted preschoolers should

be allowed to begin kindergarten at a younger age (San-

kar-DeLeeuw, 2002). In addition, few public schools have

made speciﬁc eorts to screen young students for early en-

trance to kindergarten (Cox et al., 1985; Robinson & Weimer,

1991). In fact, 16 states do not allow early entrance (Council

of State Directors of Programs for the Gifted & National As-

sociation for Gifted Children, 2013).

Reluctance to consider early entrance to school was clear-

ly illustrated by a survey sent to a large number of princi-

pals, gifted coordinators, school psychologists, and teachers.

Most respondents reported that early entrance to school and

grade-skipping were potentially harmful to students. Even gift-

ed coordinators, a subgroup that was most in favor of acceler-

ation, viewed acceleration as potentially hazardous (Southern

et al., 1989). As mentioned above, some school district policies

have speciﬁcally been written to discourage early entrance to

kindergarten or ﬁrst grade (Southern & Jones, 2004b). In con-

trast, some school districts and states have developed speciﬁc

guidelines for making decisions about early entrance to school

(see discussion about Colorado and Ohio, below.)

There are many practical concerns with early entrance to kin-

dergarten. For example, the physical development of young-

er children causes them to require more sleep; therefore,

children may become tired before older classmates. Four-

year-olds simply may not have the stamina of older children.

Additionally, these young students may demonstrate slower

physical development that, while age appropriate, may lag

behind that of older classmates (Schiever & Maker, 2003).

This may be a disadvantage when writing, cutting, drawing,

or participating in many of the other activities in a typi-

cal kindergarten day. All of these concerns are reasons that

school personnel and parents are likely to be cautious about

having an individual child enter school early. These concerns

seem valid, but what have we learned from the research?

Research on Early Entrance

Like the research on grade-skipping, the research conducted

on early entrance to kindergarten and ﬁrst grade portrays a

positive picture for these young students. For example, in her

meta-analyses on acceleration, Rogers (1992; 2004; current

volume) reported that early entrants’ academic performance

was at the same level or better than their older classmates;

accelerated students performed better on standardized

achievement tests, teacher-developed tests, grades, teacher

ratings of student performance, and attitude toward learn-

ing. Kulik and Kulik (1984) and Kulik (2004) reported similar

ﬁndings in their meta-analyses on acceleration.

When reporting the results of these research studies on

early entrance, it is important to dierentiate between two

types of studies. First are the studies that compare unselect-

ed students (those who have not been speciﬁcally identiﬁed

as talented students in need of early entrance, but are young

compared to most of the students in their class; for example,

students with a summer birthday) to regular-age kindergarten

students. The second set of research studies involves com-

62 A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2

Whole Grade Acceleration : Lupkowski-Shoplik, Assouline, & Colangelo

parisons between carefully selected early entrants (bright

youngsters who deliberately enter school early as a means of

ﬁnding appropriate challenges) to regular-age students. The

research indicates that unselected younger children tend to

show more immaturity and behavior problems than older

classmates (e.g., Gagné & Gagnier, 2004; Maddux, 1983). In

contrast, results from studies comparing carefully selected

early entrants to regular-age students portray a positive pic-

ture for the early entrants (Robinson & Weimer, 1991).

Social adjustment is a major concern of educators who are

considering early entrance for a young student. In their re-

search, Proctor, Black, and Feldhusen (1986) reported that all

but a small percentage of the early-entrance students were

as socially well-adjusted as their older classmates. Reporting

similar ﬁndings, Rogers (2002) found minimal dierences

between early entrants and regular-age classmates on social/

emotional indicators; in the meta-analysis reported in the

current volume, Rogers found slight but positive eects for

early entrance to kindergarten on social indicators.

An extremely thorough study on early entrance to kinder-

garten was conducted by Gagné and Gagnier (2004). They

asked kindergarten and second-grade teachers who had at

least one early entrant in their classroom to rate all of their

students on four dimensions: conduct, social integration,

academic maturity, and academic achievement. Regularly ad-

mitted peers (for this study, September 30 was the cuto for

regular-age entrance to kindergarten) were divided into four

groups: October 1-December birthdays (the Oldest Cohort),

January-March birthdays, April-June birthdays, and July-Sep-

tember 30 birthdays (the Youngest Cohort). These four co-

horts were compared to the Early Entrants cohort, whose

birthdays were later than the September 30th cuto for regu-

lar-age entrance to kindergarten.

Early Entrants were judged to be signiﬁcantly better adjusted

than the Youngest Cohort. The level of adjustment for Early

Entrants did not dier from that of the other three cohorts,

except for academic achievement, and the Early Entrants’

mean achievement was signiﬁcantly higher than that of all

four cohorts of regularly admitted peers. Almost two-thirds

of the Early Entrants were judged by their teachers to have

adjusted relatively well or very well to the school enrollment.

Girls obtained a signiﬁcantly higher average proﬁle score

than boys. In grade two, the early entrants outperformed

the regular-age students. “…As a group, early entrants show

no evidence of being more at risk for adjustment dicul-

ties than their regularly admitted peers” (Gagné & Gagnier,

2004, p. 18). The authors concluded that early entrants did

not dier much from their regularly-admitted peers. How-

ever, when their data were examined qualitatively, they did

ﬁnd a signiﬁcant percentage of early entrants (37%) with per-

ceived adjustment problems. Although they recognized that

the methodology employed in this study probably led to an

overestimate of adjustment problems, Gagné and Gagnier

(2004) still recommended that school administrators be cau-

tious about admitting good but slightly doubtful candidates

to kindergarten early. They suggested waiting until later to

have these “doubtful” candidates skip a grade because of

concerns about the political fall-out of even one unsuccessful

early entrant.

Rather than encouraging school personnel to continue hes-

itating to use acceleration as an appropriate intervention

for academically talented students, we suggest using an ob-

jective decision-making tool, the Iowa Acceleration Scale, to

help minimize the chances of inappropriately recommend-

ing acceleration as an educational intervention and to also

document the rationale for the decision that is made. School

personnel making decisions about early entrance to kinder-

garten and ﬁrst grade should be reassured by ﬁndings from

research studies that show remarkable achievement gains for

accelerated students (Rogers, this volume).

Making the Decision:

Helpful Information

Because few schools have a systematic process for screening

potential early entrants (Cox et al., 1985; Colangelo, et al.,

2010; IRPA, NAGC, & CSDPG, 2009; NAGC, 2013), and

few preschool teachers believe that early entrance to kinder-

garten is appropriate for young children (Sankar-DeLeeuw,

2002), most often it is the parent who brings up the possi-

bility that a child should begin formal schooling before his

or her ﬁfth birthday. The anecdotal information provided by

parents of four- and ﬁve-year-old gifted children is reliable

and useful for identifying and programming for talented stu-

dents (Assouline & Lupkowski-Shoplik, 2011; Kuo, Maker,

Su, & Hu, 2010; Louis & Lewis, 1992; Roedell, 1989; Roed-

ell, Jackson, & Robinson, 1980). Parents are good judges of

the capabilities of their young children. Parents often recall

anecdotes about a child’s early reading ability (for example,

a three-year-old child read the back of the shampoo bottle

while taking a bath, and that was when her parents realized

she could read) or mathematical abilities (“When he was still

in preschool, he could add problems like 15,921 + 40,857 cor-

rectly” Assouline et al., 2009, p. 121), and these anecdotes can

be useful in making the decision to enter school early. Gener-

ally, these anecdotes illustrate the following characteristics of

gifted preschoolers:

A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2 63

Whole Grade Acceleration : Lupkowski-Shoplik, Assouline, & Colangelo

• Early verbal ability, such as early emergence

of complex sentences and advanced vocabu-

lary (Kuo et al., 2010; Roedell, 1989), and early

reading (sometimes as early as age two or three)

(Cukierkorn, Karnes, Manning, Houston, &

Besnoy, 2007; Gross, 1992a; Jackson, 2003);

• Strong mathematical skills (for example,

doing addition and subtraction at the age of

three; Gross, 1992b; Assouline & Lupkowski-

Shoplik, 2011);

• Long attention span (Kuo et al., 2010;

Silverman, 2000);

• Extraordinary memory (Cukierkorn et al., 2007;

Louis & Lewis, 1992; Silverman, 2000);

• Abstract reasoning ability—ability to general-

ize (Silverman, 2000) and make connections

between areas of learning (Roedell, 1989);

• An early interest in time (Assouline &

Lupkowski-Shoplik, 2011; Kuo et al, 2010;

Lupkowski & Assouline, 1992; Silverman, 2000).

In addition to using the anecdotal information provided by

parents, before making the decision to have a student enter

school early, we advise administering individual intelligence,

aptitude, and achievement tests. Also, as previously men-

tioned, the test administrator can gather important behav-

ioral information by observing the child in a one-on-one

setting (Assouline & Lupkowski-Shoplik, 2011; Robinson &

Weimer, 1991; Roedell, 1989).

When evaluating candidates for early entrance to kinder-

garten, the tests should allow an adequate ceiling, so that

very high levels of functioning can be measured (Robinson

& Weimer, 1991). When using the IAS-3 to make a decision

about early entry to school, an individual intelligence test

plus aptitude and achievement tests in mathematics and

verbal areas are required. Appropriate assessments for these

youngsters include the Stanford Binet-Fih Edition (Roid,

2003) and the age-appropriate Wechsler scales to measure in-

telligence. Useful measures of achievement include the most

current version of the Peabody Individual Achievement Test

(Markwardt, 1997), the Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Achievement

(Schrank, Mather, & McGrew, 2014), and the Wechsler Indi-

vidual Achievement Tests (Wechsler, 2009). Children who earn

intelligence test scores at least one standard deviation above

the mean and whose achievement test scores place them

above the 50th percentile when compared to students in the

grade level they will be entering are reasonable candidates to

consider for early entrance. (See the IAS-3 Manual, Assouline

et al., 2009, for a thorough discussion of recommended tests.)

Finally, it is essential that educators and parents review the cur-

riculum used in the school the child may be entering. Kinder-

gartens vary greatly in their curricular orientations and format

for delivery. Some are academic and require students to par-

ticipate in a formal study of letters and numbers, while others

have many opportunities for free play, socialization, and explo-

ration. Students in schools with rigorous academic programs

will not need as much acceleration as those in less challenging

general education programs. In addition to standardized test

results, it is also helpful to look at a child’s work samples. These

samples can then be compared to work completed by success-

ful students already in school to help determine if the young

student is indeed ready to enter school early.

Students Entering School Early:

Social/Emotional and Physical

Development

In addition to carefully evaluating the students’ intelligence,

ability, and achievement levels, other areas to consider are so-

cial and emotional development as well as small and large mo-

tor skills. Although it is not necessary to expect early entrants

to be the most social students or the most athletic students

in class, it is still in their best interests to ensure that they

are capable of ﬁtting in with the other students socially and

physically. Teachers and parents might need to adjust their

expectations for young students. For example, an early en-

trant might require more help with cutting activities or other

small-motor activities than other older students.

Some authors have suggested that early entrance to kinder-

garten should be limited (except in certain cases) to students

whose birthdays will be three months or less after the cut-o

date for regular entrance (Robinson, 2004). In addition, we

recommend that the best candidates for early entrance to

kindergarten have already had experience in a preschool pro-

gram where they had opportunities to learn to take turns, to

learn about school routines, to share an adult’s attention with

other children, and to sit still for periods of time (Neihart,

2007; Robinson & Weimer, 1991). Additionally, it is important

to look at the practices in the local community. If it is com-

mon for parents to hold their children back and have them

start kindergarten at age six, the age dierence between the

four-and-one-half-year-old early entrant and the six-year-old

“red shirt” student is signiﬁcant. This may be a good reason

to consider other alternatives for the bright young student

during the primary years.

64 A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2

Whole Grade Acceleration : Lupkowski-Shoplik, Assouline, & Colangelo

“Asynchronous development,” in which a child is more ad-

vanced in one area compared to another, is a real issue for

these young students (Morelock & Feldman, 2003; Roedell,

1989; Silverman, 2002). For example, a bright early entrant

may easily grasp the academic material presented in ﬁrst

grade, but may not be as well-developed physically as the

other children in class. The youngster may become extremely

tired before the end of the school day, or she might not have

the small-motor coordination of her older classmates (Assou-

line et al., 2009). Adults should not expect a child who has

advanced verbal or mathematical abilities to demonstrate

equally advanced behavior in all areas. Thus, the receiving

teacher needs to be sympathetic to a young child who can

handle advanced material intellectually, but may require extra

help or patience in other areas.

Legal Issues

Parents need to be aware of the laws in their state regarding

early entrance to school. In Pennsylvania, for example, indi-

vidual districts set policies regarding early entrance to kin-

dergarten or ﬁrst grade, and some public schools have stated

policies that prohibit entrance to kindergarten before the

age of ﬁve. However, in that state, any student who success-

fully completes ﬁrst grade, regardless of age, is then permit-

ted to start second grade in a public school. Some families

choose to place their bright young student in a private or pa-

rochial school that is agreeable to permitting early entrance

to school, keep that child in that school until completing ﬁrst

grade, and then transfer the child to the public school begin-

ning in second grade.

The Council of State Directors of Programs for the Gifted

(CSDPG) and the National Association for Gifted Children

(NAGC) periodically produces reports listing the status of

gifted education in the United States. As described in the

2012-2013 report, 16 states speciﬁcally do not permit early en-

trance to kindergarten in public school (CSDPG & NAGC,

2013). Other states instruct the local education agencies to

look systematically for students who would beneﬁt from ear-

ly entrance to kindergarten. Two of these states, Colorado

and Ohio, are highlighted below.

An Example of Early Entrance to

Kindergarten Practices:

Colorado’s Approach

The state of Colorado uses a carefully deﬁned process for

evaluating potential early entrants to kindergarten and ﬁrst

grade, thanks to House Bill 08-1021, passed in 2008 (Col-

orado Department of Education, 2008). This bill permits

Administrative Units (AUs) the option to count in their en-

rollment and receive state education funds for highly gifted

students who enter school early. Each AU has the option to

permit early access, but they are not compelled to do so. If

an AU authorizes early access, it must include an early ac-

cess addendum in the gifted education comprehensive plan

and follow the rules established by the State Board of Edu-

cation. The documentation presented to school personnel

and parents carefully explains that these rules are for a small,

select group of students (“only a few highly advanced gifted

children”) and provides information about alternatives to

early entrance to school. (See http://www.cde.state.co.us/gt/

resources for more details.)

By law, the AU plan for early access includes the following items:

• Communication: The administrative unit

is required to inform parents, educators and

community members concerning the entrance

criteria, process, time frames, portfolio referral,

tests, and ﬁnal determinations.

• Criteria in a body of evidence: Information

about the child is gathered in a portfolio. Ap-

titude and achievement testing is conducted,

either by the district’s school psychologist or a

private psychologist. Other information includes

readiness of social behavior and motivation, and

a support system provided by the teacher, admin-

istrator, and family. Data also may be gathered

from preschool classroom performance, embed-

ded curriculum assessments, interviews, check-

lists and/or rating scales. Lists of recommended

instruments are provided by the state.

• Process: The determination team receives,

reviews, and analyzes data; discusses the child’s

strengths and readiness for early access to kin-

dergarten or ﬁrst grade; collaboratively decides if

the child will beneﬁt from early access to kinder-

garten or ﬁrst grade; and informs the parents of

the decision.

• Timelines: Timelines are established and made

known to parents, educators, and community

members. These include deadlines for applica-

tion for Early Access consideration, testing dates,

decision dates, etc.

• Personnel: Questions to be addressed concern:

Who will be trained in the early access process,

A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2 65

Whole Grade Acceleration : Lupkowski-Shoplik, Assouline, & Colangelo

who will be the main contact for parents, who

makes the decisions about early access, and what

personnel will be involved with the ongoing

support system?

• Monitoring: A collaborative monitoring system

helps to create a positive support system for the

child. Parents and educators check in at least

every ﬁve weeks for academic, social-emotional

and Advanced Learning Plan (ALP) updates.

Instruction is continued or adapted based upon

data gathered during the monitoring process.

• Dispute resolution: A dispute resolution pro-

cess is available that applies to gifted education

and programming decisions. Parents are given

the opportunity to express concerns and the

designated AU personnel consider the dispute

and make ﬁnal decisions regarding the issue.

For students to have early access or early entrance to edu-

cational services, they must be formally identiﬁed as gifted

following state guidelines. Districts who enroll students qual-

ifying for early access receive full state education funding for

those students. Since they are identiﬁed as gifted, an ALP is

developed for each student for the school year of enrollment.

Children are required to reach the age of four by the begin-

ning of the school year to be considered for early entrance to

kindergarten and to have reached the age of ﬁve to be consid-

ered for early entrance to ﬁrst grade. Information gathered

in the “criteria in a body of evidence” phase includes items

such as a parent checklist, in which parents might be asked

to indicate their child’s strengths and give examples of what

they have observed at home (has an excellent memory, is ex-

tremely curious, prefers playing with older children, etc.).

Other information gathered includes individual intelligence

and achievement testing, observations of the child in a natu-

ral setting, children’s work samples, preschool teacher input,

and any other appropriate anecdotal evidence.

Colorado’s plan is comprehensive (in that it considers the

whole child), communicates information clearly to school

district personnel and families, and emphasizes coordination

among preschool and kindergarten educators and adminis-

trators. At the beginning of the 2014-2015 school year, 65% of

Colorado school districts had a plan in place for early access

to kindergarten or ﬁrst grade (J. Medina, Director of Gifted

Education, Colorado Department of Education, personal

communication, October 14, 2014).

One of the concerns before beginning this process in Col-

orado was that schools would be inundated with requests

from parents; however, data to date show these concerns to

be unfounded (J. Medina, personal communication, Octo-

ber 14, 2014). The state policy indicates clearly that this is

not for every gifted four- and ﬁve-year-old, but it is available

for highly gifted students who need the academic challenge.

These students are deﬁned as academically gifted, socially

and emotionally mature, in the top two percent of the gifted

peer group, motivated to learn, and ready for grade acceler-

ation. Administrators and educators also emphasize that, if

a particular student is not recommended for early access, he

or she might still need acceleration at some future point in

his or her academic career and/or need gifted services. (See

http://www.cde.state.co.us/gt/resources for more details.)

Making the Decision Not to

Enter School Early

Even if all indicators point to early entrance, there may be

good reasons not to have the young child enter the world of

formal school early. For example, if the child attends an excel-

lent preschool program, where the teacher is willing and able

to oer individualized activities to the child that will chal-

lenge him or her intellectually, it might be best to stay in that

environment rather than to enter a less-than-optimal kin-

dergarten classroom, where all children experience the same

curriculum, regardless of skill level (e.g., all students start by

learning the letter “A”). This student might be better o stay-

ing in the supportive atmosphere of a good preschool and

entering ﬁrst grade as a ﬁve-year-old (Assouline et al., 2003a).

Finally, if the decision is made to have a student enter school

early, this may not be the only intervention needed for the

exceptionally talented student. Highly gifted children may

need some form of ability grouping and may also need addi-

tional acceleration in later years (Gross, 1999).

Ohio: A State with a Systematic Process

for Considering Grade Acceleration or

Early Entrance

The Ohio State Board of Education adopted a model acceler-

ation policy for advanced learners in 2006 (Ohio Department

of Education, 2014) and school districts were required to im-

plement an approved acceleration policy by the 2006-2007

school year. The Ohio Department of Education provides all

the necessary tools for developing and implementing such a

policy on their comprehensive website. They provide proce-

dures for the referral, evaluation, and placement of advanced

66 A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2

Whole Grade Acceleration : Lupkowski-Shoplik, Assouline, & Colangelo

learners in accelerated settings, including early admission to

kindergarten, grade acceleration, acceleration in individual

academic content areas, and early graduation from high school

(personal communication, E. Hahn, December, 9, 2014).

The Ohio Department of Education website (http://

education.ohio.gov) contains many sample documents that

could be used by school district personnel. For example,

the form, “Academic Acceleration for Advanced Learners

Referral Form Example: Early Entrance” (https://education.

ohio.gov/getattachment/Topics/Other-Resources/

Gifted-Education-(1)/Resources-for-Parents/Academic-

Acceleration-for-Advanced-Learners/example-of-a-referral-

form.pdf.aspx) contains questions for parents to consider

when they are requesting that their child be considered for

early entrance to kindergarten or ﬁrst grade. Parents respond

to questions in the areas of ability, achievement, aptitude,

and behavior, as well as school and academic factors,

developmental factors, interpersonal skills, and attitude and

support. These questions mirror the factors listed in the Iowa

Acceleration Scale and help parents and school personnel to

consider all of the important aspects of a decision about early

entrance to school. Also contained on the website are sample

acceleration case studies, including accelerating a ﬁfth grader

in a rural school, skipping second grade, accelerating an

athlete, and a case of radical subject acceleration in math.

These examples help to bring the research to life and show

educators and parents that others have already successfully

investigated and followed through on a decision to accelerate.

The Ohio Department of Education has speciﬁcally ap-

proved The Iowa Acceleration Scale-Third Edition as the only

assessment process for evaluating candidates for early en-

trance to kindergarten and whole-grade acceleration for

students in kindergarten through ninth grade. The commit-

tee that evaluates students referred for potential acceleration

must be comprised of: the principal, a current teacher of

the student (unless the student is referred for potential ear-

ly admission to kindergarten), a receiving teacher, a parent

or guardian, and a gifted education coordinator or gifted

intervention specialist.

The website also includes sample Written Acceleration Plans

(WAP) that list strategies to ensure a successful transition,

strategies to ensure continuous progress following the transi-

tion period, and a speciﬁc sta member assigned to monitor the

implementation of this plan. These samples include examples

of whole-grade acceleration, subject acceleration in math, sub-

ject acceleration in science, and early high school graduation.

Another useful item found on the Ohio Department of Ed-

ucation website is the Pathways to Acceleration graphic

(https://education.ohio.gov/getattachment/Topics/Oth-

er-Resources/Gifted-Education/Resources-for-Parents/

Academic-Acceleration-for-Advanced-Learners/Path-

ways-to-Acceleration-1.pdf.aspx; see Figure 2), which illus-

trates the steps taken by a school district as personnel con-

sider a candidate for early entrance to kindergarten or ﬁrst

grade or a grade skip.

Other Resources for Making

Decisions about Grade-Skipping

Acceleration Institute

The Acceleration Institute was originally established in 2006

as the Institute for Research and Policy on Acceleration or

IRPA. A project of the Belin-Blank International Center for

Gifted Education and Talent Development at the University

of Iowa, it is dedicated to the study and support of educa-

tional acceleration for academically talented students. The

Acceleration Institute website, www.accelerationinstitute.

org, provides updated information about acceleration, in-

cluding current resources, policy, and research. The website

presents a series of questions and answers directed at parents

and educators as well as stories about individual students’

acceleration experiences in video and written formats. Addi-

tionally, the website contains links to IDEAL Solutions for

STEM Acceleration, a PowerPoint presentation on accelera-

tion, and the Guidelines for Developing an Academic Acceleration

Policy. The VanTassel-Baska chapter on policy in this volume

also provides helpful guidelines for creating policies in gifted

education that include acceleration.

Implications for School

Personnel: Insuring

a Successful Acceleration

Our practical experience with many schools and accelerated

students has taught us there are several important steps to

take to insure that the probability of student success is maxi-

mized. These steps include:

1. Become informed. Understand the research

ﬁndings on acceleration and be prepared to share

them with your colleagues. Many educators

simply have not had the opportunity to learn

about acceleration in their formal training. Help

them to understand that, not only is acceleration

a well-researched topic, but also there are many

tools that can help us to make a good decision for

A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2 67

Whole Grade Acceleration : Lupkowski-Shoplik, Assouline, & Colangelo

Does

parent wish

to withdraw student

from accelerated

placement?

Start Here:

Referral/

request for

evaluation

Evaluation committee

members identified.

Ability, aptitude and

achievement assessments

administered/reviewed.

Committee makes

placement decision

based on data reviewed.

Supervised transition

period to accelerated

placement.

Superintendent reviews

appeal and

evaluation data.

Accelerated placement

becomes permanent.

Student records are

updated accordingly.

Results entered in Iowa

Acceleration Scale Guide

for early K and whole-grade

acceleration candidates.

student

being considered

for early K or

whole-grade

acceleration?

student

tuden

cons

g consid

earl

arly K

e-g

celeratio

era

Does

committee

recommend

acceleration?

Does

ommitt

ommitte

comme

omm

celerati

elera

Does

parent

wish to

appeal

decision?

Does

aren

tparent

ish to

appe

decision

cis

Does

superintendent

overturn

committee

decision?

Does

erinten

perintend

overtur

ertur

omm

decision

cisi

Committee discusses test results,

school history, developmental

issues, interpersonal skills,

and attitude and support.

Committee develops WAP, including

short-term transition supports and

long-term progress plan.

Gifted WEP updated (if applicable).

Student

withdrawn

from

accelerated

placement.

Student not

accelerated.

Committee

may recommend

alternative

strategies.

YES

Pathways to Acceleration

Source: Ohio Department of Education, Office for Exceptional Children

Student

progresses

through K-12

curriculum with new

cohort unless

referred for

further

acceleration.

an individual student. Becoming informed is crit-

ical to being a well-prepared team leader. Team

leaders gather all of the appropriate test scores

and conduct pre-team meetings with all of the

people who will be involved in the team meeting

so that any questions that they may have can be

addressed and answered before the meeting.

Prepare your team for the meeting. The team

leader’s goal is to set up the meeting so the partic-

ipants can focus on the decision instead of by be-

ing distracted by other issues. Make sure there are

no questions or biases that should be addressed

before the meeting. Most people have implicit

theories about acceleration that aren’t necessarily

based on the research. Give them a chance to ask

you questions that otherwise might derail the

process before the meeting occurs.

3. Provide information. Share articles and other

resources about acceleration. The Acceleration

Institute website (www.accelerationinstitute.

org) has many resources that will be helpful in

preparing for discussions. In addition, this vol-

ume, A Nation Empowered, is packed with useful

information.

4. Collect all proﬁle information. Having all of

the test scores is particularly important to the

process. It is also important to review informa-

tion from prior assessments or meetings. Do not

go to the meeting with only part of the necessary

information.

Figure 2: Pathways to Acceleration

Source: Ohio Department of Education, Oce for Exceptional Children, reprinted with permission. There are no copyright restrictions on this document. However, please cite

and credit the source when copying all or part of this document. This document was supported in whole or in part by the U.S. Department of Education, Oce of Special Ed-

ucation Programs, (Award number H027A140111, CFDA 84.027A, awarded to the Ohio Department of Education). The opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reﬂect

the policy or position of the U.S. Department of Education, Oce of Special Education Programs, and no ocial endorsement by the Department should be inferred.

68 A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2

Whole Grade Acceleration : Lupkowski-Shoplik, Assouline, & Colangelo

5. Talk with the student about the acceleration.

It is critical that the student understands the

process and wants to be accelerated. Having the

student meet with team members to discuss the

possible acceleration and to think about ramiﬁ-

cations of the decision will help the student to be

better prepared. Although we don’t recommend

that the student participate in the team meeting,

we do strongly encourage that an educator meet

with the student prior to the acceleration and

for a speciﬁed time period after the accelera-

tion. Older students (e.g., high school students)

should be active in the discussion about the

immediate and long-term impact of the decision.

6. Schedule the meeting. This is an important

component and the discussion can take 60 to 90

minutes. Therefore, be sure to schedule su-

cient time for a comprehensive discussion.

7. Preplan other options. If the team decides

that it is not in the best interest of the student

to skip a grade, there should be other options

available (e.g., subject-matter acceleration).

Think through these alternatives and consider

what might be required for successful implemen-

tation. For example, a student who takes math

with older students might need transportation to

a dierent building this year or in the future. If

you have already thought through some alternate

plans before the meeting, that information will

be helpful to the decision-making team. The goal

is not to get distracted during the meeting by

tangential issues.

8. Select a receiving teacher. The receiving

teacher is critical to a successful acceleration and

must be a part of the decision-making process.

The receiving teacher will be working with the

accelerated student on a daily basis; if he or she

has serious doubts about the acceleration, he or

she can inadvertently interfere with the student’s

success. Being a part of the decision-making pro-

cess helps the teacher understand acceleration

as an intervention. Additionally, participating in

the discussion about acceleration early gives the

teacher an advanced opportunity to learn about

the student’s strengths and readiness to work in

the accelerated grade.

9. Support the receiving teacher. This might be

the receiving teacher’s ﬁrst experience with ac-

celeration, so he or she might have doubts about

how well the intervention might work. Even if

the receiving teacher has a great deal of experi-

ence, the teacher will need support; therefore,

it is important to develop a monitoring plan and

meet periodically with the receiving teacher

once the acceleration occurs.

10. Follow-up with parents, teachers, and

student. After a student has been accelerated, it

is important to follow up soon after to see how

the student is progressing. It is also helpful to

schedule a formal meeting about six weeks after

the acceleration occurs to check on the student’s

progress, answer any concerns, and make any

needed modiﬁcations.

11. Recognize caveats to the process. If a bright

student skips a grade or enters school early, he

or she may still require additional adjustments

in the educational program. The student might

need to skip another grade at a later time, accel-

erate in a speciﬁc subject, or otherwise partici-

pate in options for additional enrichment and/

or acceleration. Additionally, if the student is not

a good candidate for acceleration at this time

and/or there are some concerns that need to be

addressed, the decision making process can be

revisited later.

Conclusion

In this chapter, we discussed the decision-making process for

whole-grade acceleration, including the special concerns for

early entrance to school. While no educational intervention

is 100% eective for all students, whole-grade acceleration

for students who are ready, and for whom the process has

been carefully considered, can be not only an eective and

sound intervention, but better than the alternative (i.e., do-

ing nothing). We have the evidence and the mechanisms to

make whole-grade acceleration and early entrance to school a

low-risk/high-success intervention for qualiﬁed students.

A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2 69

Whole Grade Acceleration : Lupkowski-Shoplik, Assouline, & Colangelo

References

Assouline, S. G. (2003). Psychological and educational assessment of gift-

ed children. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds). Handbook of gifted

education (pp. 124-145). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Assouline, S. G., Colangelo, N., Ihrig, D., Forstadt, L., & Lipscomb, J.

(2004). Iowa Acceleration Scale: Validation studies. In N. Colangelo, S.

G. Assouline, & M. U. M. Gross, A Nation Deceived: How schools hold

back America’s brightest students (V.II., 167-172). Iowa City, IA: e

Connie Belin & Jacqueline N. Blank International Center for Gifted

Education and Talent Development.

Assouline, S. G., Colangelo, N., Lupkowski-Shoplik, A., & Lipscomb, J.

(1998). e Iowa Acceleration Scale Manual. Scottsdale, AZ: Great Po-

tential Press.

Assouline, S. G., Colangelo, N., Lupkowski-Shoplik, A., Lipscomb, J., &

Forstadt, L. (2003). e Iowa Acceleration Scale, 2nd Edition: Manual.

Scottsdale, AZ: Great Potential Press.

Assouline, S. G., Colangelo, N., Lupkowski-Shoplik, A., Lipscomb, J., &

Forstadt, L. (2009). e Iowa Acceleration Scale, 3rd edition: Manual.

Scottsdale, AZ: Great Potential Press.

Assouline, S. G., & Lupkowski-Shoplik, A. E. (2011).Developing math tal-

ent: A comprehensive guide to math education for gifted students in elemen-

tary and middle school (2nd Ed.).Waco, TX. Prufrock Press.

Assouline, S. G., & Lupkowski-Shoplik, A. (2012). e Talent Search

Model of gifted identiﬁcation. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment,

30, 45-59.

Bloom, B. S. (Ed.). (1985). Developing talent in young people. New York:

Ballantine.

Brody, L., Capurro, M., Jones, E., Olszewski-Kubilius, P., Renzulli, J., Rob-

inson, A., & Southern, T. (2003). Templeton Summit on Acceleration,

Discussion Focus Group. e University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA.

Colangelo, N. (1997). Counseling gifted students: Issues and practices. In

N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (2nd

ed., pp. 353–365). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Colangelo, N. (1998). Academically talented students: ey don’t think the

way we think they think. Paper presented at e Fourth Biennial Hen-

ry B. and Jocelyn Wallace National Research Symposium on Talented

Development, Iowa City, IA.

Colangelo, N., Assouline, S. G., & Gross, M. U. M. (2004). A Nation de-

ceived: How schools hold back America’s brightest students, V.II., Iowa

City, IA: e Connie Belin & Jacqueline N. Blank International Center

for Gifted Education and Talent Development.

Colangelo, N., Assouline, S. G., Marron, M., Castellano, J., Clinkenbeard,

P. , Rogers, K., Calvert, E., Malek, R., & Smith, D. (2010). Guidelines

for developing an academic acceleration policy. Journal of Advanced Ac-

ademics, 21(2), 180-203.

Colorado Department of Education Gifted Education Unit. (2008). Early

access for highly advanced gifted children under age six. Retrieved from:

http://www.cde.state.co.us/sites/default/ﬁles/documents/gt/down-

load/pdf/earlyaccess_referenceseries.pdf.

Council of State Directors of Programs for the Gifted and National As-

sociation for Gifted Children. (2013). 2012-2013 State of the states in

gifted education: National policy and practice data. Washington, D C : Na-

tional Association for Gifted Children.

Cox, J., Daniel, N., & Boston, B. A. (1985). Educating able learners: Pro-

grams and promising practices. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.

Csikszentmihalyi, M., Rathunde, K., & Whalen, S. (1993). Talented teen-

agers: e roots of success and failure. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge Uni-

versity Press.

Cukierkorn, J. R., Karnes, F. A., Manning, S. J., Houston, H., & Besnoy, K.

(2007). Serving the preschool gifted child: Programming and resourc-

es. Roeper Review, 29(4), 271-276.

Davis, G. A., & Rimm, S. B. (1994). Education of the gifted and talented (3rd

ed.). Englewood Cliﬀs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Diezmann, C. M., Watters, J. J., & Fox, K. (2001). Early entry to school in

Australia: Rhetoric, research and reality. Australasian Journal for Gifted

Education, 10(2), 5-18.

Feldhusen, J. F. (1992). Early admission and grade advancement for young

gifted learners. Gifted Child Today, 15(2), 45–49.

Feldhusen, J. F., Proctor, T. B., & Black, K. N. (1986). Guidelines for grade

advancement of precocious youth. Roeper Review, 9(1), 25–27.

Gagné, F., & Gagnier, N. (2004). e socio-aﬀective and academic impact

of early entrance to school. Roeper Review, 26(3), 128–139.

Gallagher, J. J. (1985). Teaching the gifted child (3rd ed.) Boston: Allyn &

Bacon.

Gross, M. U. M. (1992a). e early development of three profoundly gifted

children of IQ 200. In P. S. Klein and A. J. Tannenbaum (Eds.), To be

young and gifted (pp. 94–138). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing.

Gross, M. U. M. (1992b). e use of radical acceleration in cases of ex-

treme intellectual precocity. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36(2), 91–99.

Gross, M. U. M. (1999). Small poppies: Highly gifted children in the early

years. Roeper Review, 21(3), 207–214.

Hollingworth, L. S. (1942). Children above 180 IQ Stanford Binet: Origin

and development. Yonkers-on-Hudson, NY: World Book.

Institute for Research and Policy on Acceleration (IRPA), National Asso-

ciation for Gifted Children (NAGC), and Council of State Directors

of Programs for the Gifted (CSDPG). (2009). Guidelines for an aca-

demic acceleration policy. Washington, DC: Author.

Iowa Testing Programs. (2012). Iowa assessments. Iowa City, IA: Riverside

Publishing Co.

Jackson, N. E. (2003). Young gifted children. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Da-

vis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (pp. 470–482). Boston: Allyn

& Bacon.

Jackson, N. E., & Klein, E. J. (1997). Gifted performance in young children.

In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education

(2nd ed., pp. 460–474). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Kulik, J. A. (2004). Meta-analytic studies of acceleration. In N. Colange-

lo, S. G. Assouline, & M. U. M. Gross (Eds.), A Nation deceived: How

schools hold back America’s brightest students (V.II., pp. 13-22). Iowa

City, IA: e Connie Belin & Jacqueline N. Blank International Center

for Gifted Education and Talent Development.

Kulik, J., & Kulik, C. L. (1984). Eﬀects of accelerated instruction on stu-

dents. Review of Educational Research, 54(3), 409–425.

Kuo, C. C., Maker, J., Su, F. L., & Hu, C. (2010), Identifying young gift-

ed children and cultivating problem solving abilities and multiple

intelligences. Learning and Individual Diﬀerences, 20(4), 365-379.

doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2010.05.005

Linn, R. L., & Gronlund, N. E. (1995). Measurement and assessment in

teaching. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.

Lipscomb, J. M. (May, 2003). A validity study of the Iowa Acceleration Scale.

Unpublished doctoral dissertation.

Lohman, D. F. (2011) Cognitive Abilities Test (Form 7). Rolling Meadows,

IL: Riverside.

Louis, B., & Lewis, M. (1992). Parental beliefs about giftedness in young

children and their relation to actual ability level. Gifted Child Quarterly,

36(1), 27–31.

70 A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2

Whole Grade Acceleration : Lupkowski-Shoplik, Assouline, & Colangelo

Lubinski, D. (2004). Long-term eﬀects of educational acceleration. In N.

Colangelo, S. G. Assouline, & M. U. M. Gross (Eds.). A Nation de-

ceived: How schools hold back America’s brightest students (V.II., pp. 23-

37). Iowa City, IA: e Connie Belin & Jacqueline N. Blank Interna-

tional Center for Gifted Education and Talent Development.

Lupkowski, A. E., & Assouline, S. G. (1992). Jane and Johnny love math.

Unionville, NY: Trillium Press.

Lupkowski-Shoplik, A. E., Benbow, C. P., Assouline, S. G., & Brody, L.

E. (2003). Talent searches: Meeting the needs of academically talented

youth. In N. Colangelo & G.A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted educa-

tion (3rd ed., pp. 204–218). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Maddux, C. D. (1983). Early school entry for the gifted: New evidence and

concerns. Roeper Review, 5(4), 15–17.

Markwardt, F. C. (1997). Peabody Individual Achievement Test-Revised (nor-

mative update) manual. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.

Matarazzo, J.D. (1990). Psychological assessment versus psychological

testing: Validation from Binet to the school, clinic, and courtroom.

American Psychologist, 45, 999–1017.

Morelock, M.J., & Feldman, D.H. (2003). Extreme precocity: Prodigies,

savants, and children of extraordinarily high IQ. In N. Colangelo &

G.A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (3rd ed., pp. 455–469).

Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Murphy, L. L., Impara, J. C., & Plake, B. S. (1999). Tests in print V: An

index to tests, test reviews, and the literature on speciﬁc tests. Lincoln, NE:

Buros Institute of Mental Measurements, University of Nebraska—

Lincoln (Distributed by the University of Nebraska Press).

Neihart, M. (2007). e socioaﬀective impact of acceleration and ability

grouping: Recommendations for best practice. Gifted Child Quarterly,

51(4), 330-341.

Ohio Department of Education. (2014, October 22). Academic Accel-

eration for Advanced Learners. Retrieved from https://education.

ohio.gov/Topics/Other-Resources/Gifted-Education/Rules-Reg-

ulations-and-Policies-for-Gifted-Educatio/Academic-Accelera-

tion-for-Advanced-Learners

Olszewski-Kubilius, P. (2004). Talent Searches and Accelerated Program-

mimg for Gifted Students. In N. Colangelo, S. G. Assouline, & M.U.M.

Gross (Eds.). A Nation deceived: How schools hold back America’s bright-

est students (V.II., pp. 69-76). Iowa City, IA: e Connie Belin & Jac-

queline N. Blank International Center for Gifted Education and Talent

Development.

Piper, S., & Creps. K. (1991). Practical concerns in assessment and place-

ment in academic acceleration. In W. T. Southern & E. D. Jones (Eds.),

e academic acceleration of gifted children (pp. 162–180). New York:

Teachers College Press.

Proctor, T. B., Black, K. N., & Feldhusen, J. F. (1986). Early admission of

selected children to elementary school. A review of the research litera-

ture. Journal of Educational Research, 80, 70–76.

Rambo, K. E., & McCoach, D. B. (2012). Teacher attitudes toward sub-

ject-speciﬁc acceleration: Instrument development and validation. Jour-

nal for the Education of the Gifted, 35, 129-152.

Robinson, N. M. (2004). Eﬀects of academic acceleration on the so-

cial-emotional status of gifted students. In N. Colangelo, S. G. As-

souline, & M. U. M. Gross (Eds.), A Nation deceived: How schools hold

back America’s brightest students (V.II., pp. 59-67). Iowa City, IA: e

Connie Belin & Jacqueline N. Blank International Center for Gifted

Education and Talent Development.

Robinson, N. M., & Weimer, L. J. (1991). Selection of candidates for ear-

ly admission to kindergarten and ﬁrst grade. In W. T. Southern & E.

D. Jones (Eds.), e academic acceleration of gifted children (pp. 29–50).

New York: Teachers College Press.

Roedell, W. C. (1989). Early development of gifted children. In J. L. Van-

Tassel-Baska, P. Olszewski-Kubilius (Eds.), Patterns of inﬂuence on gift-

ed learners: e home, the self, and the school. (pp. 13–28). New York:

Teachers College Press.

Roedell, W. C., Jackson, N. E., & Robinson, H.B. (1980). Gifted young chil-

dren. New York: Teachers College Press.

Rogers, K. B. (1992). A best-evidence synthesis of research on acceleration

options for gifted students. In N. Colangelo, S. G. Assouline, & D. L.

Ambroson (Eds.), Talent development: Proceedings of the 1991 Henry B.

and Jocelyn Wallace National Research Symposium on Talent Development

(pp. 406–409). Unionville, NY: Trillium Press.

Rogers, K. B. (2002). Eﬀects of acceleration on gifted learners. In M. Nei-

hart, S. M. Reis, N. M. Robinson, & S. M. Moon (Eds.), e social and

emotional development of gifted children: What do we know? (pp. 3–12).

Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

Rogers, K. B. (2004). e academic eﬀects of acceleration. In N. Colange-

lo, S. G. Assouline, & M. U. M. Gross (Eds.), A Nation deceived: How

schools hold back America’s brightest students (V.II., pp. 47-57). Iowa

City, IA: e Connie Belin & Jacqueline N. Blank International Center

for Gifted Education and Talent Development.

Rogers, K. B. (2007). Lessons learned about educating the gifted and tal-

ented: A synthesis of the research on educational practices. Gifted Child

Quarterly, 51, 382-396.

Roid, G. H. (2003). Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales, Fifth Edition. Itasca,

IL: Riverside Publishing.

Sankar-DeLeeuw, N. (2002). Gifted preschoolers: Parent and teacher

views on identiﬁcation, early admission, and programming. Roeper Re-

view, 24(3), 172–177. (Originally published in Roeper Review, 21(3),

174–179.)

Sattler, J. M. (2008). Assessment of children: Cognitive foundations (5th ed.).

San Diego, CA: Author.

Saunders, J. & Espeland, P. (1991). Bringing out the best: A guide for parents

of young gifted children. Minneapolis: Free Spirit.

Schiever, S., W., & Maker, C. J. (2003). New directions in enrichment and

acceleration. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted

education (3rd ed., pp. 163–173). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Schrank, F. A., Mather, N., McGrew K. S. (2014). Woodcock-Johnson IV

Tests of Achievement. Rolling Meadows, IL: Riverside.

Siegle, D., Wilson, H. E., & Little, C. A. (2013). A sample of gifted and

talented educators’ attitudes about academic acceleration. Journal of Ad-

vanced Academics, 24(1) 27–51.

Siegler, R. S., & Richards, D. D. (1988). e development of intelligence.

In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of human intelligence (pp. 901–974).

New York: Cambridge University Press.

Silverman, L. K. (2000). Counseling families. In L. K. Silverman (Ed.),

Counseling the gifted and talented (pp. 151–178). Denver: Love Publish-

ing Company.

Silverman, L. K. (2002). Asynchronous development. In M. Neihart, S. M.

Reis, N. M. Robinson, & S. M. Moon (Eds.), e social and emotional

development of gifted children: What do we know? (pp. 31–37). Waco,

TX: Prufrock Press.

Snow, R. E., & Yalow, E. (1988). Education and intelligence. In R. J. Ster-

nberg (Ed.), Handbook of human intelligence (pp. 493–585). New York:

Cambridge University Press.

Sosniak, L. A. (1997). e tortoise, the hare, and the development of tal-

ent. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education

(2nd ed., pp. 207–217). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Southern, W. T., & Jones, E. D. (Eds.). (1992). e real problems with

academic acceleration. Gifted Child Today, 15(2), 34–38.

A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2 71

Whole Grade Acceleration : Lupkowski-Shoplik, Assouline, & Colangelo

Southern, W. T., & Jones, E. D. (2004a). Types of acceleration: Dimen-

sions and issues. In N. Colangelo, S. G. Assouline, & M. U. M. Gross

(Eds.), A Nation deceived: How schools hold back America’s brightest stu-

dents (V.II., pp. 5-12). Iowa City, IA: e Connie Belin & Jacqueline

N. Blank International Center for Gifted Education and Talent De-

velopment.

Southern, W. T., & Jones, E. (2004b). Acceleration in Ohio: A summa-

ry of ﬁndings from a statewide study of district policies and practices.

e Ohio Department of Education Center for Students, Families

and Communities Oﬃce for Exceptional Children. Retrieved from

http://education.ohio.gov/getattachment/Topics/Other-Resources/

Gifted-Education-(1)/Resources-for-Parents/Academic-Accelera-

tion-for-Advanced-Learners/Summary-of-an-ODE-sponsored-re-

search.pdf.aspx.

Southern, W. T., Jones, E. D., & Fiscus, E. D. (1989). Practitioner objec-

tions to the academic acceleration of gifted children. Gifted Child Quar-

terly, 33(1), 29–35.

Stanley, J. C. (1984). Use of general and speciﬁc aptitude measures in iden-

tiﬁcation: Some principles and certain cautions. Gifted Child Quarterly,

28(4), (177–180).

Terman, L. M., & Oden, M. H. (1947). Genetic studies of genius: e gifted

child grows up. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

VanTassel-Baska, J. L. (1991). Identiﬁcation of candidates for acceleration:

Issues and concerns. In W. T. Southern & E. D. Jones (Eds.), e aca-

demic acceleration of gifted children (pp. 148–161). New York: Teachers

College Press.

VanTassel-Baska, J L., & Olszewski-Kubilius, P. M. (Eds.). (1989). Pat-

terns of inﬂuence on gifted learners: e home, the self, and the school. New

York: Teachers College Press.

Wechsler, D. (2003). Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (4th ed.).

San Antonio, TX: Pearson.

Wechsler, D. (2009). Wechsler Individual Achievement Test (3rd ed.). San

Antonio, TX: Pearson, 2009.

Wells, R., Lohman, D. F., & Marron, M. A. (2009). What factors are asso-

ciated with grade acceleration? An analysis and comparison of two U.S.

databases. Journal of Advanced Academics, 20, 248–273.

Whitlock, M. S., & DuCette, J. P. (1992). Outstanding and average teach-

ers of the gifted: A comparison study. Gifted Child Quarterly, 33(1),

15–21.

Wood, S., Portman, T. A. A., Cigrand, D. L., & Colangelo, N. (2010).

School counselors’ perceptions and experience with acceleration as a

program option for gifted and talented students. Gifted Child Quarterly,

54(3), 168-178.

72 A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2

Whole Grade Acceleration : Lupkowski-Shoplik, Assouline, & Colangelo

A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2 73

Long-Term Eects of Educational Acceleration : Wai

Introduction

When you want to improve your physical health, you don’t

have to eat one speciﬁc type of food or exercise in a specif-

ic way. Rather, you need an appropriate mix of healthy foods

and exercise — no one thing is required. A variety of foods

and exercise exist and dierent combinations of exercise and

foods, which match the individual’s needs and preferences,

are in some sense interchangeable in the quest for a healthy

lifestyle. What matters is that the individual gets the appro-

priate combination of healthy food plus exercise that match

his or her preferences and needs. Could this common idea

from health translate into the world of education? Consid-

er the cases of two hypothetical high school students, Suz-

ie and Greg. Suzie is engaged in her Advanced Placement

(AP) courses, conducts research after school, recently joined

the chess club, and is in a special math class. Greg recently

skipped a grade, is taking a college course while still in high

school, is an avid competitor in science fairs, and after school

is working on an invention that he thinks will help cure a rare

disease. How should we think about the educational inter-

ventions in which Greg and Suzie are involved? Furthermore,

how might participation in these interventions inﬂuence

their long-term educational decisions, career paths, and

achievements later in life? First, let’s consider the concept of

educational acceleration.

Educational acceleration has been formally deﬁned by

Pressey (1949, p. 2) as “progress through an educational pro-

gram at rates faster or at ages younger than conventional.”

Both Suzie and Greg are involved in educational interven-

tions that oer cognitive and academic stimulations that ﬁt

this deﬁnition of acceleration. For example, Suzie is taking

AP courses and is in a special math class, whereas Greg has

skipped a grade and is taking a college course in high school

(see Southern & Jones, 2004; this volume). However, they

are also both involved in educational opportunities that fall

outside the formal deﬁnition of acceleration, and might be

considered educational enrichment (e.g., pull out classes or

special camps). Acceleration combined with enrichment has

been recommended by gifted educators as best professional

practice when serving the needs of talented students (Na-

tional Mathematics Advisory Panel, 2008; Rogers, 2007).

Conducting research, competing in science fairs, working

on an invention, or participating in an academic club are all

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.

Long-Term Eects

of Educational Acceleration

Jonathan Wai,

Talent Identiﬁcation Program, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina

Chapter 6

74 A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2

Long-Term Eects of Educational Acceleration : Wai

examples of activities outside the traditional deﬁnition of ac-

celeration.

Although involved in very dierent activities, both students

are intellectually stimulated and engaged, and that is the key

to individual development of talent. It is likely that they each

have educational experiences tailored to their needs, which

also could be considered an appropriate ‘educational dose’

(Wai, Lubinski, Benbow, & Steiger, 2010). Figure 1 shows how

educational dose encompasses more than the targeted forms

of acceleration. For example, interventions in the smaller cir-

cle (e.g., special academic training and college courses while

in high school) are examples of what is traditionally consid-

ered to be educational acceleration. However, interventions

outside the smaller circle but within the larger circle (e.g.

science fair/math competitions, research) are examples of

educational interventions beyond acceleration. Therefore,

accelerative options are central to the concept of dose, which

refers to “the density of advanced and enriching precollegiate

learning opportunities beyond the norm” (Wai, et al., 2010,

p. 861); however, they are complemented by other education-

al opportunities. Therefore, these dierent types of educa-

tional interventions combine to provide a stimulating and

challenging educational program for academically talented

students.

Some educational opportunities are much more eective

than others and many individual types of educational ac-

celeration (see Rogers, this volume; Southern & Jones, this

volume) have been found to have a positive eect on learn-

ing (e.g., Benbow & Stanley, 1996; Colangelo, Assouline, &

Gross, 2004; Heller, Mönks, Sternberg, & Subotnik, 2000;

Kulik & Kulik, 1984; Southern, Jones, & Stanley, 1993), and

oftentimes educational acceleration is needed to challenge

academically talented students appropriately. In addition to

being challenged and engaged, students may also gain in ma-

turity. Accelerated students can use the time they have saved

for various options, including career advancement, creative

accomplishment, or personal use (Park, Lubinski, & Benbow,

2013; Pressey, 1955; Terman, 1954).

Long-Term Effects of Educational

Acceleration from the Study of

Mathematically Precocious Youth

The Study of Mathematically Precocious Youth (SMPY) is

a longitudinal study of thousands of students in the top one

percent of intellectual talent (Lubinski & Benbow, 2006) com-

prised of various groups at dierent levels of cognitive ability

(e.g., Cohorts 1 and 4: top 1%; Cohort 2: top 0.5%; Cohort 3:

top 0.01%; and Cohort 5: intellectually talented top math/sci-

ence graduate students). These groups, most of whom were

originally identiﬁed in the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s around age

13 based on their Scholastic Assessment Test (SAT) scores,

have been followed longitudinally from those early years to

the present. Collectively, the SMPY studies provide a long-

Figure 1: Illustration of How Educational Dose Encompasses More Than Acceleration

Acceleration Dose

Special Academic Training

College Courses

While in High School

AP or Other Courses

for College Credit

Special Classes

Advanced Subject

Matter Placement

Science Fair/Math Competitions

Research

Inventions and Projects

Writing Opportunities

Academic Club

From Wai et al. (2010). Illustration of how educational dose encompasses more than acceleration. Interventions in the smaller circle, such as college courses while in high

school, are examples of what is traditionally considered as educational acceleration. Interventions outside the smaller circle, such as science fair/math competitions, are exam-

A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2 75

Long-Term Eects of Educational Acceleration : Wai

term evaluation of the impact of educational acceleration on

educational and occupational criteria as well as oer a retro-

spective evaluation of how students felt about the interven-

tion. For example, did the accelerated students have positive

or negative views about their educational experiences?

Nearly all the studies reviewed here have identiﬁed students

based on an above-level assessment process known as the Tal-

ent Search Model (Olszewski-Kubilius, this volume). Talent

searches identify students through a two-step process (As-

souline & Lupkowski-Shoplik, 2012). Step one begins with

the performance on a grade-level standardized test, which is

typically administered in the school. Students who score in the

top 3 to 5% on a grade-level standardized test are invited to take

college entrance exams, speciﬁcally the SAT (College Board,

2014) and the ACT (ACT, Inc., 2014). The number of junior

high aged students who take these exams in the 7th and 8th

grades is now over 100,000 per year, and their score distribu-

tions are very similar to college-bound high school seniors.

The average talent search participant can assimilate a typical

high school course in three weeks, and those scoring in the

top 0.01% can assimilate double this amount or more (Ben-

bow, & Stanley, 1996; Stanley, 2000).

An important caveat is that research on the eectiveness of

accelerative opportunities as presented in these studies is

quasi-experimental at best (Campbell & Stanley, 1963; Cook

& Campbell, 1979) because such opportunities have not been

withheld from students for ethical reasons. Since the SMPY

studies began in the 1970s, more accelerative and enrichment

opportunities have become available (Wai et al., 2010) both

inside and outside school and on-site and online. When stu-

dents reﬂect on choices they made in the past, it is import-

ant to remember that they can evaluate only the path they

took, not the path untraveled. All the studies described here

should be considered within this context.

SMPY Findings Reviewed

In This Chapter

This chapter reviews key ﬁndings from six longitudinal

studies from SMPY surrounding the long-term education-

al-vocational and social-emotional impact of acceleration.

The ﬁrst four studies were reviewed by Lubinski (2004), and

that chapter provides a wider historical context. Many of

the empirical ﬁndings reviewed in this chapter were antic-

ipated to some degree by early scholars (e.g., Allport, 1960;

Hobbs, 1951; Hollingworth, 1926; Paterson, 1957; Pressey,

1949; Seashore, 1922; Terman, 1954; Thorndike, 1927; Tyler,

1974), and for many decades there has been a large body of

empirical work supporting educational acceleration for tal-

ented youths (Colangelo & Davis, 2003; Lubinski & Benbow,

2000; VanTassel-Baska, 1998). Although neglecting this evi-

dence seems increasingly harder to do (Ceci, 2000; Stanley,

2000), putting research into practice has been challenging

due to social and political forces surrounding educational

policy and implementation (Benbow & Stanley, 1996; Galla-

gher, 2004; Stanley, 2000). This chapter will focus on the key

ﬁndings from Lubinski (2004) and updated ﬁndings from

two recent SMPY studies that provide the strongest evi-

dence for the long-term impact of educational acceleration,

and more broadly the concept of educational dose. Finally,

educational implications will be considered and some con-

clusions will be drawn.

Study 1: A 10-year longitudinal study of

the top 1 in 10,000 in mathematical and

verbal reasoning (SMPY Cohort 3).

Lubinski, D., Webb, R. M., Morelock, M. J., & Benbow, C. P.

(2001). Top 1 in 10,000: A 10-year follow-up of the profound-

ly gifted. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 718-729.

This study examined the profoundly gifted SMPY group

(N=320, identiﬁed in the 1980s at age 13) in the top 0.01%, a

group with an average IQ of 180. Figure 2 shows the dierent

types and the high degree to which this group took part in

acceleration. Remarkably, approximately 80% of this group

had advanced subject matter placement and AP or other

exams for college credit; approximately 40% grade skipped

and took special courses; and approximately 15% entered

college early. When asked about their feelings regarding ac-

celeration, 70% said they were satisﬁed by their choices, 13%

wished they had accelerated more, and only 5% wished they

had not accelerated. Figure 3 illustrates participants’ subjec-

tive views about the impact of acceleration on various educa-

tional and personal life aspects. Participants rated academic

progress and interest in learning as the highest and social life

and getting along with same age peers as the lowest, but all

categories showed essentially no eect to favorable eects,

indicating their views about the impact of acceleration on

their experiences were generally favorable.

Study 2: A 20-year longitudinal study

of the top 1% in reasoning ability

identified at age 13 (SMPY Cohorts 1 & 2).

Benbow, C. P., Lubinski, D., Shea, D. L., & Eftekhari-Sanjani,

H. (2000). Sex dierences in mathematical reasoning ability:

Their status 20 years later. Psychological Science, 11, 474-480.

76 A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2

Long-Term Eects of Educational Acceleration : Wai

Figure 2: Participation in Accelerative Programs and Satisfaction of SMPY Cohort 3

Figure 3: Subjective Views Regarding Acceleration

Reproduced with permission.

Advanced subject-matter placement

AP or other exams for college credit

College courses while in high school

Grade-skipping

Special courses

Tutors or mentors

Early entrance to college

I wish I had not accelerated

I wish I had not accelerated as much

I wish I had accelerated

I wish I had accelerated more

None of these. I am satisﬁed with what I did.

Forms of Acceleration

Percentage Endorsing

Feelings Regarding

Acceleration

Male

Female

O% 1O% 4O% 7O%2O% 5O% 8O%3O% 6O% 9O%

Views of Acceleration

Strongly

Favorible

Moderatly

Favorable

No Effect

Moderatly

Unfavorable

Strongly

Unfavorable

Ratings of Acceleration

Male

Female

Male

.42

Female

.42

Female

.42

Female

.29

ES>.25.p<.05

ES>.38.p<.01

Academic progress

Interest in learning

Interest in education

Interest in math

Interest in humanities

Interest in social science

Interest in science

Get along with intellictual peers

Personal growth

Get along with adults

Acceptance of self

Emotional stability

Social life

Get along with peers

Grades, marks

Acceptance of abilities

A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2 77

Long-Term Eects of Educational Acceleration : Wai

This study surveyed SMPY participants identiﬁed in the top

one percent of ability, who had accelerated earlier in life (N =

1,975). Participants were asked at age 33 about the inﬂuence of

acceleration on their educational planning, career planning,

and social development. Of the participants, 70% viewed

acceleration as having a “somewhat positive inﬂuence,” “pos-

itive inﬂuence,” or “strongly positive inﬂuence” on their ed-

ucational planning. Respondents also indicated that acceler-

ation had a positive inﬂuence on their career planning; less

than 10% of participants thought that it had a negative im-

pact on their career planning. However, the results concern-

ing the impact of acceleration on their social development

(the ability to form friendships) were essentially neutral.

Participants were also asked how supportive they were of

grouping students according to ability level (also known as

homogeneous grouping):

“A number of educational policy makers have proposed

the following: eliminating homogeneous grouping for in-

struction (i.e., grouping students according to their abil-

ities and skills, as in reading groups and honors classes)

and, instead, teaching students of all ability levels in the

same group. How supportive are you of this proposal?”

The question was worded negatively for a bias against homo-

geneous grouping, and it is important to keep in mind that

in the 1970s the range of accelerative options was limited.

However, despite these caveats, 80% of the study partici-

pants were “somewhat” to “very” unsupportive of eliminating

grouping based on ability level.

Study 3: Three decades of longitudinal

data on the Advanced Placement (AP)

program (SMPY Cohorts 1 through 5).

Bleske-Rechek, A., Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (2004).

Meeting the educational needs of special populations: Ad-

vanced Placement’s role in developing exceptional human

capital. Psychological Science, 15, 217-224.

This study focused on the educational and socio-emotional

impact of AP participation (N = 3,700). It includes each of

the SMPY groups already examined in the ﬁrst two studies

along with an additional group in the top one percent (Cohort

4, N = 173, identiﬁed at ages 12-14 between 1992 and 1997, pri-

marily from the state of Iowa). Cohort 5 is also introduced in

this study (N = 709, identiﬁed during their ﬁrst and second

years of graduate school in 1992). Cohort 5 consists of an in-

tellectually talented group of math/science graduate students

from premier training programs throughout the U.S. These

students were not identiﬁed via the talent search testing in

middle school, but were identiﬁed while they were in grad-

uate school. They provide a useful comparison group to the

cohorts identiﬁed via the talent search

AP Participation. Both SMPY participants and graduate

students were highly involved in AP. With the exception of

Cohort 1, for which there was limited AP availability, 76% to

86% of the other groups took at least one AP course, with

the average number of AP courses taken ranging from 3.3 to

3.8, which is quite impressive considering the fact that these

AP courses were taken before they were as widely available

as they are today. The percentage of participants who took

at least one AP course and indicated that it was their favorite

ranged from 22% to 49%.

This study provides more evidence supporting the fact that

intellectually talented students beneﬁt from specialized

learning environments such as AP courses. These courses

help to meet their unique intellectual and social/emotional

needs while they are still in high school. AP courses provide

gifted students with the appropriate developmental place-

ment needed by all students for optimal learning: a curricu-

lum that progresses at a pace commensurate with their rate

of learning.

High School Likes and Dislikes. The study authors reported

participants’ high school likes and dislikes in relation to AP

involvement. Students were positive about working hard and

being intellectually challenged. SMPY participants (Cohorts

1 through 4) and math/science graduate students (Cohort 5)

showed quite similar patterns. Both groups liked academic

and intellectual activities and disliked the lack of such ac-

tivities. Sixty percent cited academic and intellectual activi-

ties and 49% cited social life and extracurricular activities as

things they liked about high school. Regarding high school

dislikes, 45% cited lack of intellectual stimulation or engage-

ment and 30% cited social isolation and peer pressure. The

intellectual engagement participants enjoyed ranged from

associating with other highly intelligent classmates, taking

AP classes, having a solid education, and working hard. The

lack of intellectual engagement they disliked ranged from not

having similarly-able or motivated classmates, the slow pace

of instruction, not being taught enough, and not being chal-

lenged intellectually.

For students in all groups studied, students who took one or

more AP courses were more likely than those who did not

to list academic and intellectual activities as something they

liked about high school. Among both groups, students in-

volved in AP were less likely than those not involved in AP to

list a lack of intellectual stimulation or engagement as some-

thing they disliked about high school.

78 A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2

Long-Term Eects of Educational Acceleration : Wai

Degree Attainment. For Cohorts 1 and 2, longitudinal data on

the attainment of higher degrees was available at age 33. For

participants who took at least one AP course in high school,

70% had obtained a master’s degree or higher. For partici-

pants who did not take an AP course, this number was 43%.

And even after controlling for mathematical reasoning abili-

ty, students who were involved in AP were more likely to ob-

tain an advanced educational degree. The authors concluded,

“Thus, through self-selection or something intrinsic to the

AP program itself, AP involvement is a positive predictor of

educational success and satisfaction for intellectually talent-

ed youth” (p. 219).

Comparisons to Normative Data. Relative to same age, typical-

ly-developing peers, SMPY students were quite dierent on

various educational and social preferences. For example, 85%

of a normative sample of 1,560 Indiana high school students

cited friends and socializing as a high school like, with only

40% of that sample liking educational aspects (Erickson &

Lefstein, 1991). This is the reverse pattern from the SMPY

samples reviewed here who liked educational aspects more

than social aspects of high school. Nineteen percent of Indi-

ana students cited the opposite sex and dating as a favored as-

pect of high school, whereas less than two percent of SMPY

participants did so. Thirty-ﬁve percent of Indiana students

cited homework or term papers and six percent cited tests

and exams as a high school dislike, whereas less than sev-

en percent of SMPY participants cited exams, homework,

or studying as a high school dislike. A small percentage of

SMPY participants cited early mornings (two percent) and

long school days (one percent) as a dislike, whereas for Indi-

ana students these percentages were much higher at 23% and

20% respectively. Overall, this illustrates that SMPY partic-

ipants, in comparison to their same age, typically developing

peers, tend to be more focused on academics and their intel-

lectual development.

Study 4: A comparison of top math/

science graduate students with same-

age SMPY participants tracked over 20

years (SMPY Cohorts 2 and 5).

Lubinski, D., Benbow, C. P., Shea, D. L., Eftekhari-Sanjani,

H., & Halvorson, M. B. J. (2001). Men and women at promise

for scientiﬁc excellence: Similarity not dissimilarity. Psycho-

logical Science, 12, 309-317.

This study reported data from SMPY participants in the top

one percent of ability (Cohort 2) with same-age intellectual-

ly talented math/science graduate students (Cohort 5). The

SMPY group (females = 528, males = 228) were compared to

top math/science graduate students (females = 346, males =

368). The ﬁndings reported here refer to the educational

experiences of graduate students and talent search partici-

pants. Roughly 90% took part in some form of acceleration.

The dierent types of acceleration experienced ranged from

AP involvement (approximately 90% for talent search par-

ticipants, which is more than comparable graduate students

[66%]); advanced subject matter placement (approximately

60%); college courses in high school (approximately 33%); and

grade-skipping (approximately 12%). Overall, approximately

79% reported a positive experience and less than three per-

cent reported a negative inﬂuence of their acceleration expe-

rience. Generally, the ﬁndings for both graduate students and

talent search participants were quite similar, with only a few

comparisons being statistically signiﬁcant

. However, twice

the percentage of talent search students were grade skipped,

twice the percentage of graduate students were presidential

scholars, and fewer talent search females participated in a

math/science contest during college.

Study 5: A 40-year longitudinal study

examining the effects of grade-skipping

(SMPY Cohorts, 1, 2, & 3).

Park, G., Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (2013). When less is

more: Eects of grade-skipping on adult STEM accomplish-

ments among mathematically precocious youth. Journal of

Educational Psychology, 105, 176-198.

This 40-year longitudinal study (N = 3,467) investigated the

impact of grade-skipping (or whole-grade acceleration), one

of the most eective educational opportunities (see Lupkow-

ski-Shoplik, Assouline, & Colangelo, this volume; Rogers,

this volume). Participants across three SMPY groups who

had skipped one or more grades were compared to those who

had not grade skipped but were statistically matched on a

number of important characteristics, to determine wheth-

er there were dierences many years later on the earning of

STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics)

doctorates, publications, and patents. Across all these educa-

1. Group dierences were signiﬁcant for only three of the 19 educational experiences:

math-science contest or special program before college χ2(3, N = 1,251) = 20.6, p <

.001; math-science contest or special program during college, χ2(3, N = 1,173) = 11.1, p

< .05; and favorite high school class being in math or science, χ2(3, N = 1,223) = 87.7,

p < .001. No dierences were signiﬁcant between male and female graduate students,

but talent search females diered signiﬁcantly om the other groups for the ﬁrst two

items above, and both talent search males and females diered signiﬁcantly om the

graduate students as a whole. See Lubinski, Benbow et al. (2001) for more detail.

A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2 79

Long-Term Eects of Educational Acceleration : Wai

tional and occupational outcomes, some of which can be con-

sidered creative achievements, grade skippers, in comparison

to matched controls, showed a large advantage. Concerns

about accelerated students “burning out” were not supported

by the research ﬁndings, Students who skipped one or more

grades began and ﬁnished their STEM graduate degrees earli-

er and produced more publications at a younger age.

The non-accelerated students in this study also were very

successful, earning advanced degrees, publishing scientiﬁc

papers, and securing patents at an impressive rate. However,

the accelerated students were even more accomplished than

the comparison group. This illustrates the long-term impact

of one potent form of educational acceleration. Grade-based

acceleration, when used appropriately with very highly-able

mathematically talented adolescents, can have positive ef-

fects on long-term productivity in STEM ﬁelds, 30 to 40, or

more, years after the educational intervention.

Study 6: A 25-year longitudinal study

examining the effects of educational

dose among intellectually talented

students and top math/science graduate

students (SMPY Cohorts 1, 2, 3, & 5).

Wai, J., Lubinski, D., Benbow, C. P., & Steiger, J. H. (2010). Ac-

complishment in science, technology, engineering, and math-

ematics (STEM) and its relation to STEM educational dose:

A 25-year longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychology,

102, 860-871.

This 25-year longitudinal study incorporated the various

academic interventions of educational acceleration, en

richment, and stimulation into the concept of “educa-

tional dose.” As described at the beginning of this chapter,

educational dose is “the density of advanced and enriching

precollegiate learning opportunities beyond the norm that

students have participated in” (Wai et al., 2010, p. 861). The

research reported here takes into account accelerative op-

portunities (including grade-skipping, college courses while

in high school, AP courses, or advanced subject matter

placement) as well as other appropriately challenging en-

riching educational activities, such as science or math com-

petitions, special classes, research, inventions and projects,

and writing opportunities.

Table 1 illustrates the various components of acceleration and

enrichment activities investigated in this study in three of

SMPY’s talent search groups (N = 1,467) as well as the math/

science graduate student group (N = 714). As described previ-

ously, Table 1 includes accelerative as well as other STEM-re-

lated educational opportunities and shows how the two types

of educational activities can complement each other to fully

develop a student’s talents.

Table 1: Percentages of Participants Earning Outcomes Across Each

Cohort and for all Cohorts Together

Percentage Earning Outcome

Cohort and group N Doctorates STEM PhDs STEM Publications Patents

1972 Cohort

Matched Controls

Grade Skippers

358 15.1 3.6 6.4 2.2

179 27.4 10.1 12.8 4.5

1976 Cohort

Matched Controls

Grade Skippers

231 23.8 14.3 21.2 8.2

116 31.0 18.1 25.9 9.5

1980 Cohort

Matched Controls

Grade Skippers

68 33.8 17.6 23.5 10.3

68 45.6 29.4 38.2 17.6

All Cohorts

Matched Controls

Grade Skippers

657 20.1 7.9 13.4 5.2

363 32.0 16.3 20.9 8.5

The last two columns list the percentage of participants in each category with one or more peer-reviewed publication in a STEM ﬁeld or patent, respectively. From Park et al.

80 A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2

Long-Term Eects of Educational Acceleration : Wai

Figure 4: STEM Educational Dose and STEM Outcomes

can Psychological Association. Reproduced with permission.

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

500 550 600 650 700 750 800

STEM PhD

SAT-M Before Age 13

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

500 550 600 650 700 750 800

STEM Patent

SAT-M Before Age 13

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

500 550 600 650 700 750 800

STEM Publication

SAT-M Before Age 13

10%

500 550 600 650 700 750 800

STEM Tenure

SAT-M Before Age 13

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

500 550 600 650 700 750 800

STEM Occupation

SAT-M Before Age 13

1972-74 Talent Search

= High Dose

= Low Dose

1976-78 Talent Search

= High Dose

= Low Dose

1980-83 Talent Search

= High Dose

= Low Dose

A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2 81

Long-Term Eects of Educational Acceleration : Wai

For this 25-year longitudinal study, each dierent type of

pre-college educational opportunity was summed to deter-

mine the educational dose level. Referring back to hypothet-

ical students Suzie and Greg introduced earlier, both were in-

volved in four dierent learning opportunities, so they each

had a dose level of four. This study focused on STEM learning

opportunities and outcomes. Two groups were formed with-

in each Cohort: those with a relatively higher educational

dose of STEM opportunities and those with a relatively low-

er educational dose. These two groups within each SMPY

sample were then compared on STEM outcomes 25 years

later—PhDs, publications, university tenure, patents, and

occupations. Figure 4 illustrates these ﬁndings. Cohort 1 is

represented by circles, Cohort 2 by triangles, and Cohort 3 by

squares. The higher dose group is indicated by ﬁlled shapes

and the lower dose group by unﬁlled shapes. The y-axis shows

the proportion attaining each outcome, and the x-axis shows

SAT-Mathematics scores at age 13. Along the x-axis, SAT

scores dier for the cohorts because they were initially se-

lected at the top one percent (Cohort 1), top 0.5% (Cohort

2), and top 0.01% of ability (Cohort 3). As can be seen with-

in each panel, even though SAT scores were similar across

groups, the group with a higher educational dose was more

likely to attain each of these outcomes. The earning of STEM

PhDs, publications, patents, and university tenure were all

much higher for the higher scoring groups, and the percent-

age in a STEM occupation was higher for the lower scoring

groups with a higher STEM educational dose. The same gen-

eral analysis was performed within the math/science graduate

student group, and a similar pattern of ﬁndings emerged. This

illustrates the long-term impact of educational acceleration,

and more broadly the concept of educational dose. This lon-

gitudinal study indicates the number of pre-collegiate STEM

educational opportunities that mathematically talented ad-

olescents experience is related to subsequent STEM accom-

plishments achieved over 20 years later. This is evidence for

the powerful impact that educational experiences have on

students’ later accomplishments.

Summary of Empirical Findings

The ﬁrst ﬁve studies from SMPY reviewed in this chapter

independently as well as collectively demonstrate the long-

term impact of the various forms of educational acceleration.

The sixth study combined all these individual educational

opportunities into the concept of educational dose, ﬁnding

that participants with a higher dose of educational accelera-

tion and enrichment, even when controlling for ability, were

more likely to have earned creative educational and occupa-

tional achievements many years later. Some of the studies

also reviewed evidence showing that, overall, students who

had accelerated viewed their educational histories positive-

ly, and many said they would have accelerated more, not less.

These studies combine to show the powerful impact of edu-

cational acceleration in the lives of these talented students,

with accelerated participants reporting satisfaction with

their experiences as a whole. The key ﬁndings of these studies

are listed in Table 2.

Educational Implications

and Conclusions

The educational implications of these studies are quite clear.

They collectively show that the various forms of educational

acceleration have a positive impact. The key is appropriate

developmental placement (Lubinski & Benbow, 2000) both

academically and socially. Each student is dierent, and de-

cisions on whether a student should engage in acceleration

should be made thoughtfully based on evidence (Assouline,

Colangelo, Lupkowski-Shoplik, Lipscomb, and Forstadt,

2009) and tailored to their individuality (Wai, Lubinski, &

Benbow, 2009b). However, the long-term studies reviewed

here show that adults who had been accelerated in school

achieved greater educational and occupational success and

were satisﬁed with their choices and the impact of those

choices in other areas of their lives. Additionally, for some

of these students, educational acceleration might help them

to mature as well as to save valuable time, which could be al-

located for career advancement (see McClarty, this volume),

creative accomplishment, or personal use (Park et al., 2013;

Pressey, 1955; Terman, 1954). Some accelerative opportuni-

ties, such as grade-skipping or early entrance to college, are

likely more potent in boosting educational and occupation-

al outcomes compared to others, and saving such time (see

Hertzog & Chung, 2015, for longitudinal ﬁndings mirroring

SMPY for early entrance to college).

However, overall, it may not be any one educational inter-

vention that matters, but the appropriate dose or stimulation

that matters (Wai et al., 2010). The groups examined in these

studies grew up in a time where there were relatively fewer

opportunities for educational acceleration and enrichment

compared to present-day opportunities. Consider the vast

number of online educational options that are now available

to students, from massive online open courses (MOOCs) to

the Khan Academy. Students have many ways to be stimu-

lated intellectually and avail themselves of accelerative op-

portunities both inside and outside the classroom. Because

one size does not ﬁt all, no one intervention is going to be

right for everyone. What matters is that each student re-

82 A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2

Long-Term Eects of Educational Acceleration : Wai

Table 2: Key Findings From the SMPY Longitudinal Studies

Study 1

Academically talented students who accelerate in school view the impact of acceleration on their life experiences quite positively.

Study 2

At age 33, the vast majority of participants who had been accelerated in school viewed acceleration as having a positive inﬂuence on

their educational planning as well as on their career planning.

They viewed the impact of acceleration on their social development (the ability to form friendships) as essentially neutral, indicating it

had neither a positive nor a negative impact.

Study 3

Participation in Advanced Placement (AP) courses was a positive predictor of educational success and satisfaction for intellectually

talented students.

Study 4

Roughly 90% of the exceptionally talented students studied took part in some form of acceleration. The vast majority reported a

positive experience with acceleration.

Study 5

Grade-based acceleration, when used appropriately with very highly-able mathematically talented adolescents, can have positive

effects on long-term productivity in STEM ﬁelds, 30 years or more after the educational intervention.

Study 6

Even when controlling for ability, participants with a higher dose of STEM educational acceleration and enrichment were more likely to

have earned creative educational and occupational achievements more than 20 years later. This is evidence for the powerful impact

that pre-college eduational experiences can have on students’ later accomplishments.

ceives a consistent and sucient educational dose across

his or her educational experience, which will thus essential-

ly comprise what we might consider to be life-long learning

(Lubinski, Benbow, & Kell, 2014).

It is important to emphasize that appropriate developmental

placement is important for all students (Humphreys, 1985).

Educational acceleration is essentially appropriate pacing

and placement that ensures advanced students are engaged in

learning for life. Every student deserves to learn something

new each day (Stanley, 2000). The evidence clearly supports

allowing students who desire to be accelerated to do so, and

does not support holding them back.

References

Allport, G. W. (1960). Uniqueness in students. In W. D. Weatherford

(Ed.), e goals of higher education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univer-

sity Press.

ACT (2014). e ACT. http://www.act.org/products/k-12-act-test/

Assouline, S. G., Colangelo, N., Lupkowski-Shoplik, A., Lipscomb, J., &

Forstadt, L. (2009). Iowa Acceleration Scale Manual (3rd ed.). Tucson,

AZ: Great Potential Press.

Assouline, S. G., & Lupkowski-Shoplik, A. (2012). e talent search mod-

el of gifted identiﬁcation. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 30,

45-59.

Benbow, C. P., Lubinski, D., Shea, D. L., & Eftekhari-Sanjani, H. (2000).

Sex diﬀerences in mathematical reasoning ability: eir status 20 years

later. Psychological Science, 11, 474-480.

Benbow, C. P., & Stanley, J. C. (1996). Inequity in equity: How “equity” can

lead to inequity for high-potential students. Psychology, Public Policy,

and Law, 2, 249-292.

Bleske-Rechek, A., Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (2004). Meeting the edu-

cational needs of special populations: Advanced Placement’s role in de-

veloping exceptional human capital. Psychological Science, 15, 217-224.

Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. C. (1963). Experimental and quasi-experi-

mental designs for research on teaching. In N. L. Gage (Ed.), Handbook

of research on teaching. Chicago: Rand McNally.

Ceci, S. J. (2000). So near and yet so far: Lingering questions about the use

of measures of general intelligence for college admission and employ-

ment screening. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 6, 233-252.

Colangelo, N., Assouline, S. G., & Gross, M. U. M. (Eds.). (2004). A nation

deceived: How schools hold back America’s brightest students. (V.II.) Iowa

City, IA: e Connie Belin & Jacqueline N. Blank International Center

for Gifted Education and Talent Development.

Colangelo, N., & Davis, G. A. (2003). (Eds.). Handbook of gifted education

(3rd ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

College Board (2014). About the SAT. http://sat.collegeboard.org/about-

tests/sat

Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (1979). Quasi-experimentation: Design and

analysis issues for ﬁeld studies. Chicago: Rand McNally.

Erickson, J. B., & Lefstein, L. M. (1991). Indiana youth poll: Youths’ views of

high school life. Indianapolis: Indiana Youth Institute.

Gallagher, J. (2004). Public policy and acceleration of gifted students. In N.

Colangelo, S. G. Assouline, & M. Gross (Eds.), A Nation deceived: How

schools hold back America’s brightest students (V.II., pp. 39-46). Iowa

City, IA: e Connie Belin & Jacqueline N. Blank International Center

for Gifted Education and Talent Development.

Heller, K. A., Mönks, F. J., Sternberg, R. J., & Subotnik, R. F. (Eds.). (2000)

International handbook of research on giftedness and talent (2nd ed.). New

York: Elsevier.

Hertzog, N. B., & Chung, R. U. (2015). Outcomes for students on a fast

track to college: Early college entrance programs at the University of

Washi ng ton. Roeper Review, 37, 39-49.

A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2 83

Long-Term Eects of Educational Acceleration : Wai

Hobbs, N. (1951). Community recognition of the gifted. In P. Witty (Ed.).

e gifted child (pp. 163-183). Boston: Heath.

Hollingworth, L. S. (1926). Gifted children: eir nature and nurture. New

York: Macmillan.

Humphreys, L. G. (1985). A conceptualization of intellectual giftedness.

In F. D. Horowitz & M. O’Brian (Eds.), e gifted and talented: De-

velopmental perspectives (pp. 331-360). Washington, DC: APA Press.

Kulik, J. A., & Kulik, C. C. (1984). Eﬀects of acceleration on students.

Review of Educational Research, 54, 409-425.

Lubinski, D. (2004). Long term eﬀects of educational acceleration. In N.

Colangelo, S. Assouline, and M. Gross (Eds.) A Nation deceived: How

schools hold back America’s brightest students (V.II., pp. 23-37). Iowa

City, IA: e Connie Belin & Jacqueline N. Blank International Center

for Gifted Education and Talent Development.

Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (2000). States of excellence. American Psy-

chologist, 55, 137-150.

Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (2001). Choosing excellence. American Psy-

chologist, 56, 76-77.

Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (2006). Study of Mathematically Precocious

Youth after 35 years: Uncovering antecedents for the development of

math-science expertise. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1, 316-345.

Lubinski, D., Benbow, C. P., & Kell, H. J. (2014). Life paths and accom-

plishments of mathematically precocious males and females four de-

cades later. Psychological Science.

Lubinski, D., Benbow, C. P., Shea, D. L., Eftekhari-Sanjani, H., & Hal-

vorson, M. B. J. (2001). Men and women at promise for scientiﬁc ex-

cellence: Similarity not dissimilarity. Psychological Science, 12, 309-317.

Lubinski, D., Webb, R. M., Morelock, M. J., & Benbow, C. P. (2001). Top

1 in 10,000: A 10-year follow-up of the profoundly gifted. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 86, 718-729.

National Mathematics Advisory Panel (2008). Foundations for success: e

ﬁnal report of the national mathematics advisory panel. Wash ing ton, D C :

U.S. Department of Education.

Park, G., Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (2013). When less is more: Eﬀects

of grade skipping on adult STEM accomplishments among mathemati-

cally precocious youth. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105, 176-198.

Paterson, D. G. (1957). Conservation of human talent. American Psychol-

ogist, 12, 134-144.

Pressey, S. L. (1949). Educational acceleration: Appraisals and basic prob-

lems. Columbus, OH: e Ohio State University.

Pressey, S. L. (1955). Concerning the nature and nurture of genius. Scien-

tiﬁc Monthly, 81, 123-129.

Rogers, K. B. (2007). Lessons learned about educating the gifted and tal-

ented: A Synthesis of the research on educational practice. Gifted Child

Quarterly, 51, 382-396.

Seashore, C. E. (1922). e gifted student and research. Science, 56, 641-

648.

Southern, W. T., Jones, E. D., & Stanley, J. C. (1993). Acceleration and

enrichment: e context and development of program options. In K. A.

Heller, F. J. Mönks, & A. H. Passow (Eds.), International handbook for

research on giftedness and talent (pp. 387-409). Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Stanley, J. C. (2000). Helping students learn only what they don’t already

know. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 6, 216-222.

Terman, L. M. (1954). e discovery and encouragement of exceptional

talent. American Psychologist, 9, 221-230.

orndike, E. L. (1927). e measurement of intelligence. New York: Teach-

ers College, Columbia University.

Tyler, L. E. (1974). Individual diﬀerences: Abilities and motivational direc-

tions. New York: Meredith.

VanTassel-Baska, J. (1998). Excellence in educating gifted and talented learn-

ers. (3rd ed.) Denver: Love Publishing Co.

Wai, J., Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (2009a). Spatial ability for STEM

domains: Aligning over ﬁfty years of cumulative psychological knowl-

edge solidiﬁes its importance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101,

817-835.

Wai, J., Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (2009b). Aligning potential and pas-

sion for promise: A model for educating intellectually talented youth.

In J. S. Renzulli (Ed.) Systems and models for developing programs for the

gifted and talented. Mansﬁeld Center, CT: Creative Learning Press, Inc.

Wai, J., Lubinski, D., Benbow, C. P., & Steiger, J. H. (2010). Accomplish-

ment in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM)

and its relation to STEM educational dose: A 25-year longitudinal

study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102, 860-871.

84 A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2

Long-Term Eects of Educational Acceleration : Wai

A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2 85

Early Entrance to College : Brody and Muratori

Applications of

Acceleration

86 A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2

Early Entrance to College : Brody and Muratori

A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2 87

Professional Development : Cro & Wood

Introduction

Jordan A., with curly brown hair and hazel eyes, is a

six-year-old in ﬁrst grade. His birthday is October 2,

making him one of the oldest children in his class (his

district has a cut-o date of October 1 for entry to kin-

dergarten at 5, or entry to ﬁrst grade at 6). As well, he’s

already almost 4 feet tall, weighing just under 50 pounds,

making him one of the bigger children in the class.

Jordan could put together large puzzles before he

even turned 1; by the age of 3, he was oering his sis-

ter ideas on her homework om her 2nd grade class.

He was reading and writing by age 4, and while he

enjoyed playing with the iends his older sister and

brother would bring home, he showed no interest in

playing with the other preschool-aged children in his

class. By age 5, he was calling addition and subtraction

“easy peasy”; by the time he was 6, he told his mother

that he knew what multiplication was (and he did!).

Jordan ran away om his preschool one day in the

spring, unhappy that they always did the “same things,”

and he was so excited to start real school, like his sister

and brother. Within the ﬁrst few weeks of kindergar-

ten, however, he had grown very quiet about his class,

the other kids, and his teacher. Just before Halloween,

Jordan was in a serious automobile accident and had to

miss weeks of school; he was hospitalized with several

broken bones. As he improved, he continued reading,

writing, and playing computer games related to math—

and anything that featured dinosaurs. He seemed hap-

py to see his teacher when she visited with cards om

the other kids, and he seemed pleased when he was

able to return to school in January aer winter break.

Within a month, however, he seemed more and more

unhappy and complained of headaches and stom-

achaches that kept him home om school. His par-

ents took him to see his doctor, who assured them

that Jordan had no lasting eects om the accident

that would cause these symptoms. Nevertheless, this

bright and articulate boy just didn’t seem like himself.

Abstract

Acceleration in its various forms (such as early entrance to kindergarten, combined classes, curriculum compacting, and whole-grade

acceleration) has had a robust history of research support and positive outcomes as a programmatic option for gifted and talented youth.

However, teachers and counselors who may be consulted by parents regarding possibly accelerating their student may not have access

to accurate information on acceleration. Without this knowledge, teachers and counselors both may default to anecdotal or erroneous

information. These educators beneﬁt from professional development (PD) that encourages them to reﬂect on their existing attitudes about

acceleration, as well as review research-based ﬁndings about the practice, so that they can provide accurate consultations and student

interventions. This chapter explores elements of optimal professional development, including access to independent learning and professional

learning communities. The chapter concludes with a proposed model for professional development around the topic of acceleration and

includes resources for educators.

Professional Development for Teachers and

School Counselors: Empowering a Change in

Perception and Practice of Acceleration

Laurie Cro and Susannah M. Wood

The University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa

Chapter 7

88 A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2

Professional Development : Cro & Wood

The Need for Professional

Development Focused

on Acceleration

Jordan’s story provides challenges for teachers and school

counselors alike, as well as a strong rationale for facilitating

the professional development of these educators in their

roles related to the concept and practice of acceleration,

as Jordan appears to be a candidate for acceleration. With-

out intervention, the school risks Jordan’s withdrawal and

underachievement due to boredom and lack of challenge.

Acceleration in its various forms (such as early entrance to

kindergarten, combined classes, curriculum compacting,

and whole-grade acceleration) has had a robust history of

research support and positive outcome as a programmatic

option for gifted and talented youth (e.g., Colangelo, Assou-

line, & Gross, 2004). However, there is no guarantee that

either teachers or school counselors in a given school have

been exposed to the concept and practice of acceleration, its

research underpinnings, or school district or state policies

regarding acceleration. Yet both sets of professionals may be

called upon not only to intervene in a case such as Jordan’s

but also to provide consultation with parents and other peo-

ple in Jordan’s life around the need for the practice of acceler-

ation. Because parents and other educators may endow these

professionals with perceived power and expertise due to their

roles in the schools, they may also believe that the gifted ed-

ucation teacher, general education teacher, and school coun-

selor have a solid foundation and working understanding of

acceleration. This may include knowledge of interventions

that would be appropriate for a student like Jordan, and ways

to provide accurate consultations around the issue when

asked. In addition, as the case of Jordan illustrates, teachers

and school counselors will no doubt be working together to

help Jordan and his family, both in terms of academic inter-

vention as well as social and emotional concerns.

For many gifted students, the social and emotional issues and

concerns that may bring them to see the school counselor

may actually be alleviated if their need for mental stimula-

tion is met, thus avoiding academic boredom and possible

underachievement. Research suggests, however, that school

counselors may never have received accurate information

about gifted and talented students during their preparation

programs, let alone information that will help them decide

which students would beneﬁt from acceleration (Peterson &

Wachter Morris, 2010; Wood, Portman, Cigrand, & Colange-

lo, 2010). Teachers may only receive “cursory glimpses” con-

cerning dierentiation and acceleration in a theories course

as part of their pre-service training (Dixon, Yssel, McConnell,

& Hardin, 2014, p. 114). Without speciﬁc knowledge about

the academic needs of gifted students, teachers and counsel-

ors both may default to anecdotal or erroneous information,

often informed by popular stereotypes and years of experi-

ence in traditional classrooms and schools, in order to inform

their practices of intervention and consultation (Wood et al.,

2010). Thus, it becomes paramount that these practitioners

receive the information they need to provide accurate con-

sultations and student interventions. The primary venue of

gaining new knowledge and skills for practicing professionals

is through professional learning opportunities, commonly re-

ferred to as professional development (PD).

Professional Development

and Acceleration

The availability of a shared body of knowledge is essential for

professionals (Coleman, Gallagher & Job, 2012); without spe-

cialized knowledge and skills, educators will have inadequate

understandings of the distinct and asynchronous ways in

which gifted children learn and develop. Decades of research

have posited that eective PD is the “critical component of

improving the quality of education” (Jones & Dexter, 2014, p.

368), enhancing overall quality of professionals in the schools,

including eective interaction with students, instruction-

al practice, and student learning (Desimone, Porter, Garet,

Yoon, & Birman, 2002; Borko, 2004; Caena, 2011; Guskey,

2002; Organization for Economic Cooperation and Devel-

opment [OECD], 2009; Penuel, Fishman, Yamaguchi, & Gal-

lagher, 2007; Yoon, Duncan, Lee, Scarloss, & Shapley, 2007;

Yuen, 2012). Research also suggests that PD related to gift-

ed education is essential (Croft, 2003; Dettmer & Landrum,

1998; Dettmer, Landrum, & Miller, 2006; Gallagher, 2001;

Karnes, Stephens, & Whorton, 2000; Reis & Westberg, 1994;

Tomlinson et al., 1994; VanTassel-Baska et al., 2008), yet the

2012-2013 State of the States in Gied Education (National Asso-

ciation for Gifted Children [NAGC] & Council of State Di-

rectors of Programs for the Gifted [CSDPG], 2013), reports

that only one state requires more than a minimal reference to

gifted education for preservice teachers and just two states

require professional learning related to gifted education for

general education teachers. Similarly, only two states require

coursework in gifted education for those earning credentials

as school counselors. Seventeen states do require that profes-

sionals working in gifted programs have credentials/endorse-

ments, but only ﬁve require annual sta development for

teachers of the gifted. Only 14 states rank “training for gener-

al education teachers in GT instruction” (NAGC & CSDPG,

2013, p. 107) as one of the four most essential areas in need

A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2 89

Professional Development : Cro & Wood

of attention; even in those states, the topic of acceleration

might or might not be included in that training.

In 2003, NAGC and The Council for Exceptional Children,

The Association for the Gifted (CEC-TAG) emphasized the

importance of “a continuum of educational opportunities

to ensure that a sucient variety of options are available to

assist each child to develop one or more apparent or emer-

gent area of strength” (Callahan, Cooper & Glascock, p. 3).

By 2006, the two organizations had collaborated to develop

knowledge and skill standards essential for the professionals

working with gifted children (Johnsen, 2012), and in 2013 the

standards were updated (NAGC & CEC-TAG, 2013). “Accel-

eration” jumps out as the ﬁrst entry in the Glossary (p. 8), and

each of the seven standards alludes to the need for profes-

sional collaboration to ensure “advanced, conceptually chal-

lenging, in-depth, distinctive, and/or complex content” (p. 3).

Standard 5: Instructional Planning and Strategies explicitly

states “gifted education professionals possess a repertoire of

evidence-based strategies to dierentiate and accelerate the

curriculum for individuals with gifts and talents” (NAGC &

CEC-TAG, 2013, p. 5). Standard 6: Professional Learning and

Ethical Practice elaborates:

Gifted education professionals … participate ac-

tively in professional learning communities that

beneﬁt individuals with gifts and talents, their

families, colleagues, and their own professional

growth. They view themselves as lifelong learners

and regularly reﬂect on and adjust their practice,

and develop and use personalized professional de-

velopment plans. They plan and engage in activities

that foster their professional growth and keep them

current with evidence-based practices…. (p. 7)

The national Pre-K – Grade 12 Gied Programming Standards

(NAGC, 2010) explicitly references acceleration, but the State

of the States in Gied Education (NAGC & CSDPG, 2013) reﬂects

limited acceptance of acceleration from responding states:

• 9 have a policy that explicitly permits

acceleration;

• 1 explicitly prohibits acceleration;

• 32 allow local education agencies (LEAs) to de-

termine local policy related to acceleration, but

only 11 of those have state policy that requires

the LEA to take a position;

• 8 permit early entrance to kindergarten;

• 16 prohibit early entrance to kindergarten;

• 18 allow LEAs to permit early entrance to

kindergarten, but only 7 require the LEA to

take a position;

• 29 permit dual enrollment, allowing high

school students to enroll in college-level

courses, but in 22 of these states, families must

pay for the accommodation.

Positioning Acceleration in the

Context of Professional Development

Teachers. Teachers in today’s classrooms experience an array

of demands; various types of acceleration are not a priority

for most schools or districts. Trying to prepare the next gen-

eration of students to thrive in a diverse society, succeed in a

rapidly growing global economy, and engage with constantly

evolving technological innovations, educators simultaneous-

ly are trying to adapt to the demands of high-stakes account-

ability requirements. According to Valli and Buese (2007),

“Teachers’ work has increased, intensiﬁed, and expanded in

response to federal, state, and local policies aimed at raising

student achievement” (p. 520). Because they “need the skills

to help all students succeed, no matter the student’s learning

dierence, disability, or command of the English language”

(M. Miller, 2009, p. 4), teachers have increased needs for pro-

fessional learning opportunities. Because PD is envisioned as

key to meeting educational reform objectives, and to school

system and district needs for school improvement (Caena,

2011; Education Resource Strategies, 2013; Garet, Porter

Desimone, Birman, & Yoon, 2001), teachers of the gifted ﬁnd

limited support for PD about acceleration or other gifted

topics even when they perceive its importance for students

such as Jordan.

School Counselors. Similarly, with the call to meet the aca-

demic, career and personal-social needs of all K-12 students,

the roles of the professional school counselor are many and

diverse. School counseling responsibilities can range from

facilitating classroom guidance, conducting small groups,

working with child study teams, collaborating with parents,

and gathering data supporting their individual and program-

matic interventions. The complexity and variety of their re-

sponsibilities require school counselors to seek professional

development in order update their current skills, develop new

skills around areas of demand or special student populations,

and to avoid accusations of malpractice (Carey & Dimmitt,

2005; Herlihy, Gray, & McCollum, 2002; Howell, et al., 2007;

Studer, 2005). However, other than the continuous call for

clinical supervision which is not normally provided to school

counselors post-graduation (Herlihy, Gray, & McCollum,

90 A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2

Professional Development : Cro & Wood

2002; Perera-Diltz & Mason, 2012; Studer, 2005), not much is

known about school counselors and their professional learn-

ing. In their study of 206 Utah school counselors and their

professional development, Howell and authors found that

the primary reason school counselors sought PD was to “im-

prove knowledge and skills” followed by the reasons of “re-

certiﬁcation” and “personal enrichment” (Howell et al., 2007,

p. 14). Participants also listed barriers to PD commonly cited

in the literature, including balancing PD with other respon-

sibilities, ﬁnancial support for PD (Sutton & Page, 1994), and

identifying PD opportunities that ﬁt their role and function

as counselors (Splete & Grisdale, 1992). Providing dedicated

time and professional development opportunities appropri-

ate for their role and function is often challenging for school

counselors. School counselors must ﬁrst acknowledge that

serving all students, including gifted and talented students,

is part of their role and function before they explore profes-

sional development around acceleration.

Current research and policy tends to drive the type of PD

that is available to school counselors (Rhyne-Winkler &

Woolen, 1996). In order to meet the current educational de-

mands in the United States driven by the era of accountabili-

ty, the American School Counselor Association (ASCA) pro-

vides specialist training in the areas of: 1) bullying prevention,

2) data and programming, 3) leadership, and 4) law and ethics

(see http://www.schoolcounselor.org/). Because school coun-

selors face barriers such as funding their own professional

development and trying to ﬁnd time to leave their oces due

to the demands on their time (Howell, et al., 2007), organiza-

tions like ASCA are beginning to provide an increasing num-

ber of online PD such as webinars and reading for continuing

education credits. Given the obstacles that prevent school

counselors from ﬁnding and receiving PD, it can be dicult

to make an argument for in-service training in gifted and

talented generally, and acceleration speciﬁcally. When ques-

tioning where professional development around acceleration

may fall in their requirements for PD, school counselors can

refer to the ASCA position statement on gifted and talented

students and programs. It states that school counselors “seek

to keep current on the latest gifted and talented programing

research and recommendations to employ best practices to

meet the needs of identiﬁed students and collaborate with

other school personnel to maximize opportunities for gifted

and talented students” (ASCA, 2013, para. 6).

Similar to teachers of the gifted, school counselors need

in-service PD around acceleration, its research underpin-

nings, current practice and policy. Because gifted students can

be considered a special population, school counselors can look

at PD around acceleration as increasing their awareness of the

unique development and academic needs of gifted students,

expanding their knowledge of academic interventions for this

special population, and diversifying their skills in meeting

these needs (Levy & Plucker, 2008). School counselors will be

familiar with the awareness, knowledge and skills paradigm

that is used to teach concept of multiculturalism in counsel-

ing preparation program (Sue & Sue, 2013). By conceptualiz-

ing gifted students as a unique population that may require

dierentiated skills in academic planning, school counselors

can make the argument for participating in professional de-

velopment opportunities that focus on increased awareness

and knowledge about gifted students, their characteristics,

developmental needs and talent development. Professional

development in these areas could, and perhaps should, in-

clude the topic of acceleration as an educational intervention.

Effective Professional

Development: Approaches

that Facilitate

Understanding of Acceleration

The No Child Le Behind Act (NCLB, 2002) established crite-

ria for high-quality PD. These criteria included features such

as the following: (a) sustained, intensive, and focused on spe-

ciﬁc content areas; (b) alignment with state academic content

standards, student achievement standards, and assessments;

edge of content areas and in improving teacher awareness

of research-based instructional strategies; and (d) utilizing

evaluations for impact on teacher eectiveness and concom-

itant student achievement (Yoon et al., 2007). Many recent

studies of eective professional learning (e.g. Caena, 2011;

Darling-Hammond et al, 2009; Desimone et al., 2020; Garet

et al., 2001; Penuel et al., 2007; Pedder & Opfer, 2013; Yates,

2007) have described core and structural features of success-

ful programs, again emphasizing a focus on academic content

areas and how students best learn that content (pedagogi-

cal content knowledge), with an emphasis on constructivist

strategies. As well, they suggest that eective PD is partici-

pant driven and situated in the workplace, characterized by

active and collaborative learning by participating educators,

preferably organized as cohorts from the same school, grade,

and/or department. Coherence, that is, consistency with

overall district and/or school PD, building on and leading to

additional learning experiences is another recommended fea-

ture. Current research has stressed the alignment of PD with

subject-area standards and has advocated PD characterized

by extended duration, in terms of both hours and overall span

A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2 91

Professional Development : Cro & Wood

Table 1: What do Teachers and School Counselors Need to Know About Acceleration?

1. Acceleration works. An extensive research base supports acceleration for gifted students (e.g., Colangelo, Assouline, & Gross, 2004; Assouline,

Colangelo, VanTassel-Baska, & Lupkowski-Shoplik, current volume).

2. There are well-researched methods (e.g., Assouline et al., 2009) for systematically evaluating a candidate for acceleration and guiding teachers,

counselors, administrators, and the student through the process.

3. Acceleration can be provided in a variety of ways, including content acceleration (where a student might study advanced content in only one

subject), grade-skipping, curriculum compacting, and dual enrollment in high school and college. Therefore, acceleration can be tailored to the

academic and social needs of the individual student.

4. Acceleration supports the social/emotional development of students by placing them with other students demonstrating similar academic abilities

and interests.

5. Acceleration provides academic challenges and stimulation, which are needed for continuous development of students’ abilities.

6. Acceleration is an inexpensive educational option.

of time, optimally including ongoing interactions among par-

ticipants and experts.

Access to Professional Development

Some of the features mentioned above, however, work

against an emphasis on acceleration as a topic for PD. An im-

plicit goal reﬂected in much of this PD literature is “build-

ing collective teaching capacity….especially critical in closing

the achievement gap” (Education Resource Strategies [ERS],

2013). Research has suggested that the emphasis on closing

the achievement gap has slowed the academic growth of tal-

ented students (Xiang, Dahlin, Cronin, Theaker, & Durant,

2011). Certainly, greater understanding of both content and

pedagogical knowledge is crucial for advanced learners, un-

derpinning, for example, Advanced Placement coursework.

That emphasis can be an important asset for other types of

acceleration, including continuous progress, supervision of

self-paced instruction; subject-matter acceleration, curricu-

lum compacting, and telescoping curriculum (see Colange-

lo, Assouline, & Gross, 2004). Support for and facilitation

of other acceleration options, however, is predicated on lo-

cal beliefs and attitudes related to acceleration as a process,

sometimes prohibited by policy; in general, gifted education

is “an area somewhat limited in dedicated professional devel-

opment time because of other school and district initiatives”

(Little & Housand, 2011, p. 20). Acceleration requires a look

beyond grade-level achievement standards and assessments,

unlikely to be coherent with other district or school initia-

tives. Valli and Buese (2007), for example, determined that

between 2001-2005, faced with high-stakes accountability,

schools that had facilitated acceleration as a part of their

comprehensive practice of dierentiation eliminated the

option, because “in schools at risk of inadequate yearly prog-

ress, bringing sucient numbers of students … to proﬁciency

became dierentiation’s primary goal” (p. 534).

While much recent research has explored PD within the

context of school improvement (Evans, 2014), alternative

approaches to professional learning suggest options for edu-

cators who want to better understand, and to help colleagues

understand, the importance of acceleration for talented stu-

dents. Teachers experience many of the same barriers to ac-

cessing formal PD as do school counselors: ﬁnancial costs, a

lack of extra hours in the day, and an unwillingness to miss op-

portunities to interact with their students are fundamental

concerns (Cameron, Mulholland, & Branson, 2013). Never-

theless, as Guskey noted, “most teachers engage in sta devel-

opment because they want to become better teachers,” and

PD “presents a pathway to increased competence and greater

professional satisfaction” (1986, p. 6). Teachers as individuals

are responsible for enhancing professional performance, and

individual teachers will be responsible for planning, imple-

menting, and evaluating the success of acceleration on stu-

dent learning (Caena, 2011; Roberts & Roberts, 1986). Inde-

pendent teacher learning provides educators of the gifted the

pathways to understand topics such as acceleration that are

critical to the talent development process (Jones & Dexter,

2014; Yates, 2007); Joyce and Calhoun (2010) validate inde-

pendent learning, suggesting it is “vastly underused” but has

“tremendous promise,” explaining “some types [of PD] focus

on the individual as a person and provide avenues for people

to grow according to their own lights” (p. 12).

92 A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2

Professional Development : Cro & Wood

Independent Learning

Independent learning revolves around “activities that teach-

ers engage in on their own initiative and accord” (Jones &

Dexter, 2014, p. 371). Learning can be informal, with teachers

seeking information and/or assistance from colleagues or ex-

perts when needed. Independent does not necessarily equate

to solitary learning, however, and several educators can share

information and collaborate to develop greater understand-

ing about speciﬁc issues such as acceleration. Interaction can

be face-to-face or virtual. Websites such as that of the Accel-

eration Institute (www.accelerationinstitute.org ), an integral

part of The Connie Belin & Jacqueline N. Blank Interna-

tional Center for Gifted Education and Talent Development

(Belin-Blank Center); Hoagies Gifted Education Page (www.

hoagiesgifted.org/); or the Davidson Institute for Talent De-

velopment (www.davidsongifted.org/) can provide speciﬁcs

about the research basis for types of acceleration, as well as

other practices in gifted education.

Additional technological options, from Twitter, Facebook,

and YouTube, to the Belin-Blank Center’s gifted-teacher

listserv, can enhance a sense of connectivism, representing

a cycle of ﬁrst learning independently and then with others

(Jones & Dexter, 2014). Little and Housand (2011) extensive-

ly explore online professional learning, noting that “online

learning opportunities have the potential to open many more

possibilities for teacher professional growth around working

with gifted learners” (p. 20). Informal learning communities

evolve in an eort to understand and facilitate a strategy es-

sential for student well-being; they often meet several of the

criteria for eective PD. These educators perceive a need, sit-

uated in their classrooms or associated with their profession-

al roles; they direct the learning, collaborating as needed, and

they construct understandings coherent with their speciﬁc

roles (Borko, 2004), even if their goals might not align with

broader organizational objectives (Lovett & Gilmore, 2003;

Robinson, Myran, Strauss, & Reed, 2014).

Professional Learning Communities

Other general forms of more formal or organized indepen-

dent professional learning that have proven successful include

the use of professional learning communities (PLCs). Teach-

ers who join a PLC demonstrate that they are “reﬂective

practitioners, taking responsibility for learning to improve

the quality of professional performance” (Caena, 2011, p. 4).

Members of PLCs share a sense of collective responsibility,

as well as a commitment to inquiry and individual learning.

Research has shown that in successful PLCs, members have

“shared expert knowledge, gained ideas, and examined beliefs

in ways uncommon in most schools” (Caskey & Carpenter,

2012, p. 56). Caskey and Carpenter also describe the success

of Critical Friends Groups, a speciﬁc articulation of PLCs

that build on protocols designed to maximize reﬂection, em-

powerment, autonomy, and collaborative translation of theo-

ry and research into practice; more information is available at

the National School Reform Faculty (NSRF) website (www.

nsrarmony.org/). Lovett and Gilmore (2003) explore simi-

lar features of the Quality Learning Circle, emphasizing the

teachers’ choice of topic or theme for study, and interactions

with one another as well as with the whole group.

A Proposed Model of

Professional Development

Around Acceleration

VanTassel-Baska et al. (2008) noted “much of the educational

reform agenda in the United States and other countries hing-

es on positive teacher change in the use of research-based

pedagogy” (p. 298). Without question, the use of the various

types of acceleration to facilitate the academic progress of

gifted and talented learners hinges on greater understand-

ing and acceptance of acceleration as an option. Thus, the

current authors argue that the most important features of

PD about the topic of acceleration are the identiﬁcation of

teacher and counselor attitudes and perceptions around its

practice, explicit examination of those attitudes, and inter-

nalization of new attitudes, knowledge, and skills that facili-

tate its implementation.

Attitudes

Teachers and counselors committed to understanding issues

of acceleration—and to helping others develop their own

understanding—need to begin with an honest appraisal of

pre-existing beliefs about gifted learners, and about the ef-

ﬁcacy of acceleration for talented students. Professionals in

schools hold complex belief systems that are separate from

the knowledge systems underpinning their work. Their be-

liefs stem from thousands of hours spent as students. These

largely unexamined beliefs, which are highly resistant to

change, aect their behaviors as educators.

Teachers and counselors hold implicit beliefs about the na-

ture of learning; about student characteristics and respon-

sibility, in the context of perceptions of student ability and

eort in the classroom; and about their own professional ac-

tions required to maximize student success (M. Miller, 2009;

A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2 93

Professional Development : Cro & Wood

Nespor, 1987; Pajares, 1992). Robinson et al. (2014) suggested

that these unexamined beliefs can be a threat to PD goals,

and some studies in the ﬁeld of gifted education (McCoach

& Siegle, 2007; Miller, E.M., 2009) have found that PD

does not always result in changes in teacher attitudes about

gifted education, or speciﬁcally about acceleration. There-

fore, eective PD for acceleration should begin with a pre-

assessment of teacher knowledge, skills, and attitudes.

Pre-assessment

Since the 1980s, one instrument was systematically validat-

ed and has been used by schools and researchers alike to ex-

amine attitudes toward giftedness (e.g., McCoach & Siegle,

2007). The Gagné and Nadeau (1991) Opinions About the Gied

and Their Education instrument uses 35 items to measure atti-

tudes across six factors. The factors include Support for Spe-

cial Services, Objections to Special Services, Opposition to

Acceleration, Perceptions of [gifted student] Rejection and

Isolation, Social Value [of gifted learners], and Opposition to

Homogeneous Grouping.

Szymanski and Croft (2013; 2014) have validated an instru-

ment that includes more systematic exploration of attitudes

toward types of acceleration, cultural and ethnic diversity in

gifted programming, and other issues in gifted education.

The Determining Attitudes Toward Ability (DATA) uses 27

items to measure six factors, including Social and Emotion-

al Needs, Focus on Others [rather than on gifted learners],

Grade-skipping [whole-grade acceleration], Problems with

Acceleration, Identiﬁcation Issues, and Curriculum and

Policy [related to gifted education]. Each subscale provides

a snapshot of attitudes about a subcategory, and results can

reveal combinations of attitudes that are contradictory, for

example, support for Curriculum and Policy that facilitate

gifted programming, but opposition to acceleration. This in-

strument will reveal strengths and needs in the broader con-

text of gifted education and in the speciﬁc contexts of accel-

eration issues, including a focus on whole-grade acceleration.

Professional Learning Plan

The results of the pre-assessment will allow individuals or co-

horts of professionals to determine the attitudes they need

to examine, as well as their objectives for learning, including

necessary knowledge and skills. Figure 1, A Proposed Model

of Professional Development Around Acceleration, incorpo-

rates concepts that have evolved about PD, from the classic

Guskey “Model of the Process of Teacher Change” (1986),

to the Clarke and Hollingsworth “Interconnected Model of

Teacher Growth” (2002), and the informal Benedict et al.

“Special Educator Expertise” (2014).

Figure 1 illustrates the complex interactions that facilitate

professional growth for teachers and counselors, regard-

less of the speciﬁc model of PD utilized, from independent

learning to a collaborative process. Professional growth is

not a linear process, but a representation of each individual’s

unique journey. When professionals identify an unexpected

need for one or more students, they search for responses that

seem both feasible and appropriate, within a context of ex-

isting personal and cultural attitudes. Professional learning is

accompanied by thoughtful questioning and reﬂection, what

Yuen (2012) calls “co-exploration: the repeated, thoughtful,

and heart-felt discussions of our strategies for teaching, our

purpose, and other strategies we could employ” (p. 388). The

examination of options leads to a change in practice. This

change could include utilization of a new but appropriate

response to student need, and/or increased reﬂection based

on informal and formal feedback from student(s), parents,

other teachers and administrators. If the response facilitates

positive outcomes for the student(s), then the professional(s)

are likely to internalize new attitudes and add the response to

their existing repertoire of strategies.

In Jordan’s case, his teacher, counselor, or parent suspects

that he is unhappy because he is unchallenged in his current

academic setting. In addition, Jordan has no true friends

among the other children in his kindergarten class, perhaps

because his abilities and interests are quite dierent from

other children his age. Someone who cares about Jordan asks

about acceleration, and the professionals dedicated to meet-

ing the boy’s needs realize they require more information.

Drawing on models of independent professional learning, a

child-study team can assume the characteristics of a profes-

sional learning community or Jordan’s teacher or counselor

can create an individual professional development plan (see,

for example, Besnoy, 2007, or Karnes & Shaunessy, 2004).

Resources

With Jordan’s needs as a catalyst for professional learning, the

educators can turn to both A Nation Deceived (Colangelo et al.,

2004) and the current volume for a powerful collection of re-

search-based evidence about acceleration. Background infor-

mation and chapters relevant to Jordan’s situation may create

a sense of cognitive dissonance with any negative attitudes

about acceleration, leading to discussion and reﬂection. In ad-

dition to undertaking focused research or a book study, partic-

ipating educators can review resources available through the

94 A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2

Professional Development : Cro & Wood

Acceleration Institute (www.accelerationinstitute.org/). The

site provides videos and written records of personal stories

about acceleration from students who have beneﬁted from

the practice, as well as multiple links to additional resources.

Educators may also refer to Table 2 for a list of resources.

The Iowa Acceleration Scale (IAS; Assouline, Colangelo, Lup-

kowski-Shoplik, Lipscomb, & Forstadt, 2009) is a resource

that allows a child study team to systematically assess a stu-

dent such as Jordan for whole-grade acceleration. The IAS

provides background information, as well as a template for

collecting student data that “minimizes any potential bias for

or against whole-grade acceleration” (p. ix). The tool allows

educators to review Jordan’s ability, aptitude, and achieve-

ment, as well as personal factors, including interpersonal

skills, which could impact Jordan’s success. The IAS will help

Jordan’s child-study team determine if whole-grade accel-

eration is the best option, or if other types of acceleration

might be a better match for his needs. Additionally, IDEAL

Solutions for STEM Acceleration is available to inform de-

cisions about acceleration in mathematics and other STEM

subjects. IDEAL Solutions is a web-based system found at

www.idealsolutionsmath.com. Jordan’s teachers, counselor,

and parents will be able to evaluate his academic progress and

sense of well-being, and they will be able to support him if he

encounters unexpected challenges. Implementing successful

acceleration in the school and district will reinforce the edu-

cators’ commitment to the practice, as well as their sense of

success as professionals.

Continued Professional

Learning and Advocacy

Many teachers of the gifted, especially those from smaller

districts, are lone voices advocating for the needs of advanced

learners; they may have no local cohort to call for or support

situated collaborative learning about a student such as Jor-

dan’s need for accelerative options. By providing a united,

collaborative front in support of acceleration, teachers and

counselors working with students like Jordan may be able to

gain more traction in their argument for acceleration with

other stakeholders who have more power over policy and

logistics. For example, in a study conducted by Siegle, Wil-

son, and Little (2013), educators who attended a week-long

summer workshop on gifted education participated in a

Figure 1. A Proposed Model of Professional Development Around Acceleration

Change in Attitudes

Towards Acceleration

Change in Practice -

Utiliization of

Acceleration Options

Change in Student

Outcomes - Success

and Achievement

Process of Change

Foci of Professional

Development

Teacher and School Counselor

Content

Application

Support

Reflection

Reflection & Feedback

Questioning Attitudes

• Regarding students

• Regarding concept of giftedness

• Regarding concept and practice

of acceleration

Questioning Practice

• Degree of confidence

• Number of attempts at new

practice

• Degree of perceived positive

student change

Figure 1: A Proposed Model of Professional Development Around Acceleration

A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2 95

Professional Development : Cro & Wood

Table 2: Where can Teachers and Counselors Learn More About Acceleration?

Resource Website More Information

National Association for Gifted Children (NAGC) www.nagc.org Annual convention usually includes multiple

sessions about how to do acceleration and the

latest research on its effectiveness

Webinars and publications on acceleration

State gifted conference Your state gifted education organization Yearly conference may include sessions on

accelerative options

Consultations and networking with other gifted

educators

Hoagies Gifted www.hoagiesgifted.org A wealth of information pertaining to almost

all areas of gifted education. Educators can

ﬁnd resources related to accelerative options

including differentiation and grouping

The Davidson Institute for Talent Development http://www.davidsongifted.org/ A national nonproﬁt organization that supports

profoundly gifted students under the age of 18

Includes an Educators’ Guild, which is a free

online community for educators

Belin-Blank Center, College of Education,

University of Iowa

www.belinblank.org Online graduate courses on acceleration

MOOCs and webinars on acceleration

Summer programs for teachers

Talent Search

Advanced Placement courses for students and

training for teachers

Acceleration Institute www.accelerationinstitute.org Website devoted to providing resources about

academic acceleration

Special sections for educators, parents,

researchers, and policymakers

A project of the Belin-Blank Center, College of

Education, University of Iowa

The Belin-Blank Center’s gifted-teacher listserv To subscribe to the Gifted Teachers e-mail list,

send an email to LISTSERV@LIST.UIOWA.

EDU and, in the text of your message (not

the subject line), write SUBSCRIBE GIFTED-

TEACHERS First-Name Last-Name

Educators of the gifted can ask questions or send

suggestions and resources to other educators

A Nation Empowered report, Volumes 1 and 2 www.nationempowered.org A signiﬁcant update to the 2004 watershed

publication, A Nation Deceived (www.

nationdeceived.org)

Iowa Acceleration Scale http://www.accelerationinstitute.org/resources/

IAS.aspx

A tool designed to help school personnel and

families make a research-based decision about

whole-grade acceleration

Available from Great Potential Press

IDEAL Solutions for STEM Acceleration http://www.idealsolutionsstem.com/ A web-based system informing decisions about

academic acceleration in STEM subjects

Individualized recommendations aligned with

national standards

96 A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2

Professional Development : Cro & Wood

survey focusing on their thoughts and perceptions on accel-

eration. Participants in this study reported not being person-

ally concerned with potential negative eects of acceleration

on academic performance; they did indicate, however, that

they believed that administrators and parents would not sup-

port acceleration. The authors concluded that the educators’

reluctance to accelerate students in their schools was more

likely attributed to their perceptions of what others believed

about acceleration rather than their own beliefs and atti-

tudes. Thus, educators who have a solid foundation of knowl-

edge regarding acceleration can act as advocates not just for

the student in question, but to provide solidarity behind a

proposal to accelerate a student if administrators question it.

Stakeholders who believe in this powerful accommodation

can provide a united front in support of Jordan’s acceleration

(Siegle et al., 2013).

Successful implementation of one type of acceleration is

likely to spur interest in other options, and the cycle of pro-

fessional learning may continue. When a school or district

experiments successfully with one type of acceleration, stake-

holders may develop an interest in advocacy for acceleration,

and may turn again to the Acceleration Institute website for

the Guidelines for Developing an Academic Acceleration Policy

(IRPA, NAGC, & CSDPG, 2009). Professionals can partici-

pate in Webinars or academic credit options to further guide

their learning. The school or district may adopt PD related to

types of acceleration as a component of a coherent systemic

plan “to ensure that [all] their students’ learning experiences

are maximized” (Benedict et al., 2014, p.149).

Conclusions

As demands on teachers and counselors evolve, requiring

them to prepare students for new challenges confronting

the world, professional development has been identiﬁed as

essential for school improvement. In addition to improving

school systems, PD also facilitates overall support for indi-

vidual student success. Meaningful professional learning ex-

periences also enhance teachers’ and counselors’ job satisfac-

tion and sense of professional identity.

The individuals working with students are among the most im-

portant catalysts for student learning and well-being in school;

ongoing and meaningful learning is one of the most import-

ant ways to reinforce and enhance teachers’ and counselors’

sense of professionalism and ability to meet the needs of their

students. Jordan is but one case example of a student who can

beneﬁt from acceleration that is facilitated by well-informed

counselors and teachers who are willing to act on his behalf.

Professional development in gifted education topics that in-

clude acceleration as an intervention is the glue that holds to-

gether appropriate opportunities for such students.

References

American School Counselor Association. (2013). e professional school

counselor and gifted and talented programs. Retrieved from www.

schoolcounselor.org/asca/media/asca/home/position%20statements/

PS_Gifted.pdf

Assouline, S., Colangelo, N., Lupkowski-Shoplik, A., Lipscomb, J., &

Forstadt, L. (2009). Iowa Acceleration Scale. (3rd ed.) Scottsdale, AZ:

Great Potential Press.

Benedict, A.E., Brownell, M.T., Park, Y., Bettini, E.A., & Lauterbach, A.A.

(2014). Taking charge of your professional learning. Teaching Excep-

tional Children, 46(6), 147-157.

Besnoy, K. (2007). Creating a personal technology improvement plan for

teachers of the gifted. Gifted Child Today, 30(4), 44-48.

Borko, H. (2004). Professional development and teacher learning: Map-

ping the terrain. Educational Researcher, 33(8), 3-15.

Brooks, M., Steen, S., & Williams, F. (2009). Professional development

schools: A model for preparing school counselor trainees. Journal of

School Counseling, 7(16). Retrieved from http://www.jsc.montana.edu/

articles/v7n16.pdf

Caena, F. (2011). Literature review: Quality in teachers’ continuing profession-

al development. Luxembourg: European Commission.

Callahan, C., Cooper, C., & Glascock, R. (2003). Preparing teachers to

develop and enhance talent: e position of national educational or-

ganizations. Arlington, VA: ERIC Clearinghouse on Disabilities and

Gifted Education. ERIC Document ED477882.

Cameron, S., Mulholland, J., & Branson, C. (2013). Professional learning

in the lives of teachers: Towards a new framework for conceptualizing

teacher learning. Asia-Paciﬁc Journal of Teacher Education, 41(4), 377-

397.

Carey, J., & Dimmitt, C. (Mar, 2005). e Web and school counseling: Com-

puters in the schools. Mar, 2005, 21 (3-4), pp. 69-79.

Caskey, M.M. & Carpenter, J. (2012). Organizational models for teacher

learning. Middle School Journal, 43(5), 52-62.

Clarke, D. & Hollingsworth, H. (2002). Elaborating a model of teacher

professional growth. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18(8), 947-967.

Colangelo, N., Assouline, S.G., & Gross, M.U.M. (2004). A Nation de-

ceived: How schools hold back America’s brightest students (V.II.). Iowa

City, IA: e Connie Belin & Jacqueline N. Blank International Center

for Gifted Education and Talent Development, University of Iowa.

Coleman, M.R., Gallagher, J.J., & Job, J. (2012). Developing and sustain-

ing professionalism within gifted education. Gifted Child Today, 35(1),

27-36.

Croft, L.J. (2003). Teachers of the gifted: Gifted teachers. In N. Colangelo

& G.A. Davis (Eds.),Handbook of Gifted Education. (3rded.;pp. 558-

571). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Darling-Hammond, L., Wei, R.C., Andree, A., Richardson, N., Ophanos,

S., & e School Redesign Network at Stanford University. (2009).

Professional Learning in the Learning Profession: A Status Report on

Teacher Development in the United States and Abroad. Dallas: National

Staﬀ Development Council.

A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2 97

Professional Development : Cro & Wood

Desimone, L.M., Porter, A.C., Garet, M.S., Yoon, R.S., & Birman, B.F.

(2002). Eﬀects of professional development on teachers’ instruction:

Results from a three-year longitudinal study. Educational Evaluation

and Policy Analysis, 24(2), 81-112.

Dettmer, P. & Landrum, M., Eds. (1998). Staﬀ development: e key to eﬀec-

tive gifted education programs. Waco, TX: Prufrock.

Dettmer, P.A., Landrum, M.S., & Miller, T.N. (2006). Professional devel-

opment for the education of secondary gifted students (pp. 611-648).

In F. A. Dixon & S.M. Moon (Eds.). e handbook of secondary gifted

education. Waco, TX: Prufrock.

Dixon, F.A., Yssel, N., McConnell, J.M., & Hardin, T. (2014). Dif-

ferentiated instruction, professional development and teacher ef-

ﬁcacy. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 37(2), 111-127. Doi:

10.11770/0162353214529042

Education Resource Strategies. (2013). A new vision for teacher profes-

sional growth and support: Six steps to a more powerful school system

strategy. Waterstown, MA: Education Resource Strategies. Retrieved

from http://www.erstrategies.org/library/a_new_vision_for_pgs

Evans, L. (2014). Leadership for professional development and learning:

Enhancing our understanding of how teachers develop. Cambridge

Journal of Education, 44(2), 179-198.

Gallagher, J.J. (2001). Personnel preparation and secondary education

programs for gifted students. Journal for the Education of the Gifted,

12(3),133-138.

Garet, M.S., Porter, A.C., Desimone, L., Birman, B.F., Yoon, K.S. (2001).

What makes professional development eﬀective? Results from a na-

tional sample of teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 38(4),

915-945.

Gagné, F., & Nadeau, L. (1991). Opinions about the gifted and their edu-

cation. Unpublished instrument.

Guskey, T.R. (1986). Staﬀ development and the process of teacher change.

Educational Researcher, 15(5), 5-12.

Guskey, T.R. (2002). Professional development and teacher change. Teach-

ers and Teaching: eory and Practice, 8(3/4), 381-391.

Herlihy, B., Gray, N., & McCollum, V. (2002). Legal and ethical issues in

school counselor supervision. Professional School Counseling, 6, 55-60.

Howell, S. L., Bitner, K. S., Henry, N. J., Eggett, D. L., Bauman Jr., J., Saw-

yer, O., & Bryant, R. (2007). Professional development and school

counselors: A study of Utah school counselor preferences and practic-

es. Journal of School Counseling, 5(2). Retrieved from http://www.jsc.

montana.edu/articles/v5n2.pdf

Institute for Research and Policy on Acceleration, National Association for

Gifted Children, and Council of State Directors of Programs for the

Gifted. (2009). Guidelines for Developing an Academic Acceleration Pol-

icy. Iowa City, IA: Institute for Research and Policy on Acceleration,

Belin-Blank Center, University of Iowa.

Johnsen, S.K. (2012). Standards in gifted education and their eﬀects of

professional competence. Gifted Child Today, 35(1), 49-57.

Jones, W.M. & Dexter, S. (2014). How teachers learn: e roles of formal,

informal, and independent learning. Education Technology and Research

Development, 62(3), 367-384.

Joyce, B. & Calhoun, E. (2010). Models of Professional Development: A Cel-

ebration of Educators. ousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

Karnes, F. & Shaunessy, E. (2004). e application of an individual profes-

sional development plan to gifted education. Gifted Child Today, 27(3),

60-64.

Karnes, F.A., Stephens, K.R. & Whorton, J.E. (2000). Certiﬁcation

and specialized competencies for teachers in gifted education pro-

gram.Roeper Review, 22(3),201-202.

Levy, J.J., & Plucker, J.A. (2008). A multicultural competence model for

counseling gifted and talented children. Journal of School Counseling,

6(4). Retrieved from http://www.jsc.montana.edu/articles/v6n4.pdf

Little, C. A., & Housand, B. C. (2011). Avenues to professional learning

online: Technology tips and tools for professional development in gift-

ed education. Gifted Child Today, 34(4), 18-27.

Lovett, S., & Gilmore, A. (2003). Teachers’ learning journey: e Quality

Learning Circle as a model of professional development. School Eﬀec-

tiveness and School Improvement, 14(2), 189-211.

McCoach, D.B., & Siegle, D. (2007). What predicts teachers’ attitudes to-

ward the gifted? Gifted Child Quarterly, 51(3), 246-255.

Miller, E.M. (2009). e eﬀect of training in gifted education on elemen-

tary classroom teachers’ theory-based reasoning about the concept of

giftedness. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 33(1), 65-105.

Miller, M. (2009). Teaching for a new world: Preparing high school educa-

tors to deliver college- and career-ready instruction. Washi ng ton, DC:

Alliance for Excellent Education. Retrieved from http://all4ed.org/

reports-factsheets/teaching-for-a-new-world-preparing-high-school-

educators-to-deliver-college-and-career-ready-instruction/

National Association for Gifted Children. (2010). 2010 Pre-K – grade 12

gifted programming standards. Retrieved from http://www.nagc.org/

resources-publications/resources/national-standards-gifted-and-tal-

ented-education/pre-k-grade-12

National Association for Gifted Children & Council for Exceptional Chil-

dren, e Association for the Gifted. (2013). NAGC-CEC teacher

preparation standards in gifted and talented education. Retrieved from

http://www.nagc.org/resources-publications/resources/national-stan-

dards-gifted-and-talented-education/nagc-cec-teacher

National Association for Gifted Children & the Council of State Directors

of Programs for the Gifted. (2013). State of the states in gifted education:

National policy and practice data 2012-2013. Washington, DC: Nation-

al Association for Gifted Children.

Nespor, J. (1987). e role of beliefs in the practice of teaching. Journal of

Curriculum Studies, 19(4), 317-328.

No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110, § 115,

Stat. 1425 (2002).

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development

(OECD). (2009), Creating Eﬀective Teaching and Learning Environ-

ments: First Results from TALIS. Paris, France: OECD Publishing.

Retrieved from http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/education/creating-ef-

fective-teaching-and-learning-environments_9789264068780-en

Pajares, M.F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning

up a messy construct. Review of Educational Research, 62(3), 307-332.

Pedder, D. & Opfer, V.D. (2013). Professional learning orientations: Pat-

terns of dissonance and alignment between teachers’ values and practic-

es. Research Papers in Education, 28(5), 539-570.

Penuel, W.R., Fishman, B., Yamaguchi, R., & Gallagher, L.P. (2007). What

makes professional development eﬀective? Strategies that foster cur-

ricular implementation. American Educational Research Journal, 44(4),

921-958.

Perera-Diltz, D. M., & Mason, K. L. (2012). A national survey of school

counselor supervision practices: Administrative, clinical, peer, and tech-

nology mediated supervision. Journal of School Counseling, 10(4). Re-

trieved from http://www.jsc.montana.edu/articles/v10n4.pdf

Peterson, J. S., & Wachter Morris, C. (2010). Preparing school counselors

to address concerns related to giftedness: A study of accredited counsel-

or preparation programs. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 33(3),

311-366.

98 A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2

Professional Development : Cro & Wood

Reis, S.M., & Westberg, K.L. (1994). e impact of staﬀ development

on teachers’ ability to modify curriculum for gifted and talented stu-

dents.Gifted Child Quarterly, 38(3),127-135.

Rhyne-Winkler, M.C., & Woolen, H.R. (1996). e school counselor

portfolio: Professional development and accountability. e School

Counselor, 44, 146-150.

Roberts, J.L. & Roberts, R.A. (1986). Diﬀerentiating inservice through

teacher concerns about education for the gifted. Gifted Child Quarterly,

30(3), 107-109.

Robinson, J., Myran, S., Strauss, R., & Reed, W. (2014). e impact of

an alternative professional development model on teacher practices in

formative assessment and student learning. Teacher Development, 18(2),

141-162.

Siegle, D., Wilson, H. E., & Little, C. A. (2013). A sample of gifted and

talented educators’ attitudes about academic acceleration. Journal of Ad-

vanced Academics, 24(1) 27–51.

Splete, H.H., & Grisdale, G.A. (1992). e Oakland Counselor Academy:

A professional development program for school counselors. e School

Counselor, 39, 176-182.

Studer, J. R. (2005). Supervising school counselors-in-training: A guide for

ﬁeld supervisors. Professional School Counseling, 8, 353-359.

Sue, D.W., & Sue, D. (2013). Counseling the culturally diverse: eory and

practice. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Sutton, J.M. Jr., & Page, B.J. (1994). Post-degree clinical supervision of

school counselors. e School Counselor, 42, 32-39.

Szymanski, A. & Croft, L. (2014). Using the DATA to enhance gifted re-

search and education. In Proceedings from the annual American Edu-

cational Reserachers Association Conference, Philadelphia, PA.

Szymanski, A. & Croft, L.J. (2013, November). Using DATA to improve

professional development. Poster presented at the annual meeting of

the National Association for Gifted Children, Indianapolis, IN.

Tomlinson, C.A., Tomchin, E.M., Callahan, C.M., Adams, C.M., Piz-

zat-Tinnin, P., Cunningham, C.M., Imbeau, M. (1994). Practices of

pre-service teachers related to gifted and other academically diverse

learners.Gifted Child Quarterly, 38(3),106-114.

Valli, L. & Buese, D. (2007). e changing roles of teachers in an era of

high-states accountability. American Educational Research Journal,

44(3), 519-558.

VanTassel-Baska, J., Feng, A.X., Brown, E., Bracken, B., Stambaugh, T.,

French, H., McGowan, S., Worley, B., Quek, C., & Bai, W. (2008). A

study of diﬀerentiated instructional change over 3 years. Gifted Child

Quarterly, 52(4), 297-312.

Wood, S., Portman, T.A.A., Cigrand, D.L., & Colangelo, N. (2010).

School counselors’ perceptions and experience with acceleration as a

program option for gifted and talented students. Gifted Child Quarterly,

54(3), 167-178. doi: 10.1177/0016986201367940

Xiang, Y, Dahlin, M., Cronin, J., eaker, R., & Durant, S. (2011). Do

High Flyers Maintain eir Altitude? Performance Trends of Top Stu-

dents. Washington, DC: omas B. Fordham Institute. Retrieved from

http://edexcellence.net/publications/high-ﬂyers.html

Yates, S.M. (2007). Teachers’ perceptions of their professional learning ac-

tivities. International Educator Journal, 8(2), 213-221.

Yoon, K.S., Duncan, T., Lee, S.W.-Y., Scarloss, B., & Shapley, K. (2007).

Reviewing the evidence on how teacher professional development aﬀects

student achievement (Issues & Answers Report, REL 2007–No. 033).

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Educa-

tion Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional

Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory Southwest. Retrieved

from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs

Yuen, L.H. (2012). e impact of continuing professional development on

a novice teacher. Teacher Development, 16(3), 387-398.

A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2 99

Accelerating Common Core Standards : VanTassel-Baska & Johnsen

Introduction

The positive impact on gifted students of routinely applying

content acceleration to multiple subject areas, grade levels,

and types of learning environments has been well-docu-

mented over the past 40 years by researchers interested in

seeing the eects of advancing gifted learners in their areas

of academic strength (see Colangelo, Assouline & Gross,

2004; Olszewski-Kubilius, 2002; Lubinski & Benbow, 2006).

Moreover, the research has been documented under dierent

learning conditions that include fast-paced classes, intensive

summer experiences, online learning opportunities, as well

as more traditional classroom settings in which advanced

coursework is taught.

In response to the inconsistencies across state standards

and the United States’ poor performance on international

assessments, the National Governors Association (NGA)

and the Council of Chief State School Ocers (CCSSO) re-

leased the Common Core State Standards in Mathematics

and in English Language Arts (NGA & CCSSO, 2010a; NGA

& CCSSO, 2010b; NGA & CCSSO, 2010c). Informed by

research and designed by teachers, administrators, and con-

tent experts, the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) are

intended to prepare K-12 students for college and the work-

place and incorporate knowledge and skills required for the

21st century, including critical thinking and problem solving,

communication, collaboration, and creativity and innovation

(Partnership for 21st Century, 2009). These new standards in

English Language Arts and Mathematics present a daunting

challenge to our schools at a time when they may be least pre-

pared to take it on, especially given the lack of funding for

teacher salaries, declining morale, and competing agendas.

Yet the standards oer the best hope for coherent high-lev-

el schooling for all of our students. As educators move into a

new era of national standards, it is critical that attention be

paid to the adaptation of these new standards with respect

to the realities of gifted students and their learning needs at

advanced levels.

Creating appropriate learning opportunities in a ﬂexible

scope and sequence is essential for the eective accommoda-

tion of the CCSS. In considering this need, the National Asso-

ciation for Gifted Children (NAGC) has created guidebooks

for teachers on how to accomplish such accommodations

in the areas of language arts and mathematics (See Hughes-

Lynch, Kettler, Shaunessy-Dedrick, & VanTassel-Baska, 2014;

Johnsen, Ryser, & Assouline, 2014; Johnsen & Sheeld, 2013;

VanTassel-Baska, 2013). These books provide the rationale for

addressing the needs of gifted students within the context of

the CCSS and oer speciﬁc examples so needed by teachers

to advance the learning material to appropriate levels in those

Abstract

The new Common Core State Standards (CCSS) in English Language Arts and Mathematics present a daunting challenge to our schools at

a time when they may be least prepared to take it on, especially given lack of funding for teacher salaries, declining morale, and competing

agendas. In this chapter, we examine how the new CCSS can be used as a framework for creating accelerative opportunities for gifted

learners, illustrate the adaptations that need to be made in both language arts and mathematics, and provide a deeper understanding and

appreciation for the systematic use of content acceleration as a part of gifted programming plans at local and state levels across the K-12

spectrum of academic preparation.

Content Acceleration: The Critical Pathway

for Adapting the Common Core State

Standards for Gifted Students

Joyce VanTassel-Baska, College of William and Mary, Williamsburg, Virginia

and Susan K. Johnsen, Baylor University, Waco, Texas

Chapter 8

100 A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2

Accelerating Common Core Standards : VanTassel-Baska & Johnsen

subject areas and to apply accelerative strategies as a natural

part of the process of curricular progression.

The threefold purpose of this chapter is (a) to present a clear

explanation of how the new CCSS can be used as a framework

for creating accelerative opportunities for gifted learners; (b)

to illustrate the adaptations that need to be made in both lan-

guage arts and mathematics; and, (c) to provide a deeper un-

derstanding and appreciation for the systematic use of content

acceleration as a part of gifted programming plans at local and

state levels across the K-12 spectrum of academic preparation.

Acceleration: The Basic

Differentiation Technique for

Curriculum for Gifted Students

We have observed physical therapists go about their work

with patients in a rehab facility. While the time spent was of-

ten engaging the patients in practicing the skills needed for

healthy return to functioning, often a signiﬁcant amount of

time was spent assessing where the patient was, what they

were capable of doing and not, as well as deﬁning the next

level of appropriate challenge for them to tackle. Therapists

often would ask the patient to try an exercise and then they

would adjust based on how the patient responded, either by

raising or lowering the challenge level. They would often re-

mark that what you do in rehab should be dicult; if it were

easy, you wouldn’t need to be practicing the skill anyway.

Similar to the process used by physical therapists, who tailor

the therapy to the client, teachers also strive to engage the

learner by assessing what they already know, providing chal-

lenging grade-level work, and adjusting as needed to ensure

that real learning can occur based on the level prescribed. If

teachers’ underlying assumptions about learning for gifted

students embraced this approach, use of acceleration would

become a natural part of their repertoire for working with

these learners. Not all such instruction need be individual-

ized; small cluster groups of gifted learners could go through

a similar routine with a skilled teacher who knew the subject

area under study well, had adapted the CCSS standards to al-

low for advanced level challenge, and was skilled in dieren-

tiating instruction for the gifted learner. Learners could be

grouped and regrouped for instruction, based on the contin-

uous assessment of strengths and needs.

In both language arts and mathematics, basic skills underlie

much of the curriculum. If students are ready for advanced

work, they must demonstrate the extent to which relevant

basic skills have been mastered. In language arts, the relevant

skills are those of reading, writing, speaking, and listening.

Advanced language arts skills boast an emphasis on analysis

of text, use of advanced literature based on reading level, and

integrated project work. In mathematics, those skills empha-

size key concepts, procedural skills, ﬂuency in calculations,

and applications within and outside the classroom. At the

advanced skill levels, the emphasis on multi-step problems,

non-algorithmic problem solving and accelerated learning

constitute the level of rigor employed at the process level in

all content aspects. Thus the need to ensure that gifted learn-

ers are sequenced in skill sets at appropriate levels becomes

paramount to their growth pattern and enjoyment of school-

based learning. In language arts, an assessment of reading

level is a critical ﬁrst step in deciding where on the CCSS

continuum of developmental reading skills a student should

be and how it would impact the choice of texts to use in ad-

vanced discussions. In mathematics, the level of skill acquisi-

tion in problem solving techniques as well as underlying basic

knowledge within a domain such as geometry would dictate

the level of work for which advanced students are ready.

The sections that follow attempt to portray the integra-

tion of acceleration techniques by adapting the Common

Core Standards.

What Are the New Standards and

How Are They Distinctive?

The Common Core State Standards in Mathematics

(CCSS-M) and in English Language Arts (CCSS-ELA) pro-

vide consistency around a level of acceptable proﬁciency for

students and guidance to educators involved in curriculum

design and assessment of students’ acquisition of knowl-

edge and skills. According to the Common Core State Stan-

dards Initiative (NGA & CCSSO, 2010a, 2010b, 2010c), the

CCSS-M and the CCSS-ELA dier from previous standards,

including those that advanced the state of the art in both

content areas in the 1990s, in distinct ways. The CCSS-M (a)

focus on fewer topics so that students deepen their knowl-

edge and gain a strong foundation; (b) are organized into co-

herent progressions from grade to grade and across topics;

and (c) emphasize rigor in conceptual understanding of key

concepts, procedural skills and ﬂuency in calculations, and

applications inside and outside the classroom. The CCSS-

ELA (a) stress the comprehension of more complex texts

and their academic vocabulary; (b) build knowledge through

content-rich nonﬁction; and (c) require careful analysis of

evidence from literary and informational texts. While the

CCSS-ELA standards do not include a speciﬁc reading list,

they do include certain types of content such as classic myths

and stories from around the world, foundational U.S. docu-

A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2 101

Accelerating Common Core Standards : VanTassel-Baska & Johnsen

ments, and seminal works of American literature and the

writings of Shakespeare.

Both sets of standards overlap with one another and the

Programming Standards developed by the NAGC. All of the

standards ask educators to develop comprehensive, cohe-

sive programming and use speciﬁc strategies such as critical

and creative thinking, problem solving and inquiry models

(NAGC, 2010). The clear beneﬁt to gifted students in the

new standards is the emphasis on higher level thinking in

the language arts area (e.g., analysis and interpretation) and

in higher level problem solving in mathematics (e.g., multi-

ple pathways to answers). However, the Common Core State

Standards (CCSS) are not as clear about how to dierentiate

for gifted students who might pass through the standards

before the end of high school or who might need dierent

pacing within a content strand or domain. States and local

districts must identify the key content and cognitive process-

es in the standards within and across grade levels and provide

classroom teachers with ways for accelerating the standards

for gifted students.

Review of Research on

Differentiation for the Gifted

Students in ELA and Math

Current research on dierentiation of the language arts cur-

riculum for gifted learners has centered on the importance of

an integrated approach that attends to both accelerative and

enriched approaches (see Hughes-Lynch et al., 2014; VanTas-

sel-Baska, 2013). Research-based guides have been developed

in both math and ELA to provide models for school districts

to employ in the implementation of the new Common Core

Standards that stress the importance of higher-level thinking

and problem solving (see Johnsen et al, 2014; Hughes-Lynch

et al., 2014). The development of these guides has been but-

tressed by the research base in each subject area.

Research studies have demonstrated that dierentiated lan-

guage arts curriculum, using advanced texts accelerated by

two years, enhances critical reading behaviors including tex-

tual analysis (VanTassel-Baska, Zuo, Avery, & Little, 2002;

VanTassel-Baska, 2010). Studies have also documented that

growth in literary analysis and persuasive writing have con-

sistently resulted from the use of dierentiated materials

that feature advanced reading selections in multiple genres

(VanTassel-Baska, Avery, Little, & Hughes, 2000; Feng, Van-

Tassel-Baska, Quek, Bai, & O’Neill, 2005). The achievement

of low income students has been studied, suggesting that

the use of advanced materials and strategies in language arts

demonstrates longitudinal growth for these students as well

in both reading comprehension and critical thinking (Van-

Tassel-Baska & Stambaugh, 2006). Other studies have docu-

mented enhanced ﬂuency as a lower-level outcome of strate-

gy dierentiation (Reis, Eckert, McCoach, Jacobs, & Coyne,

2008). In a study of gifted student preferences for dierenti-

ation, Kanevsky (2011) found that students enjoy challenging

and ecient learning opportunities that demonstrate real

learning, suggesting the need for strategies that focus on real

world issues and themes.

In mathematics, grouping by ability with curricular modi-

ﬁcations and acceleration have proven to be viable tools to

dierentiate content for gifted students (Brody, 2004; Lee,

Olszewski-Kubilius, & Peternel, 2010). Mathematically ad-

vanced students who are grouped by ability and receive cur-

ricular adjustments in elementary school show signiﬁcant

math gains (Gavin, Casa, Adelson, Carroll, & Sheeld, 2009;

Tieso, 2005). Curricular adjustments incorporate above-level

curriculum and open-ended problems with opportunities for

creative applications (Gavin et al., 2007; Gavin et al., 2009;

Mann, 2006). Moreover, gifted students who participated

in individualized and self-paced instruction in mathematics

showed signiﬁcant increases in math performance (Yssel-

dyke, Tardrew, Betts, Thill, & Hannigan, 2004).

Because of the sequential nature of mathematics coursework,

students taking algebra at an earlier age have the opportunity

to enroll in more advanced courses in the future and college

courses in math at greater rates than those who did not (Rob-

inson, Abbott, Berninger, Busse, & Mukhopadhyay, 1997;

Spielhagen, 2006). Young children who are advanced in math

typically continue to be advanced relative to their age peers,

and may even develop future math skills faster than expected

(Robinson et al., 1997). Students who are accelerated not only

perceived accelerated math courses as more challenging but

also reported increased motivation and greater conﬁdence as

a result of being in these classes (Lee et al., 2010). There is

no evidence that acceleration in mathematics or other sub-

jects including English language arts has a negative eect on

students’ social and emotional development although not all

studies of acceleration focus on eects beyond those that are

cognitive (see Rogers, this volume).

Creating Accelerative

Opportunities within the

Common Core Standards

Content acceleration can be achieved in many ways. One ap-

proach is through reorganizing curriculum within and across

102 A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2

Accelerating Common Core Standards : VanTassel-Baska & Johnsen

grades and courses. Individual learners may be assessed for

their level of mastery and accelerated through the grade lev-

el material as appropriate. Another approach is to calibrate

learning material to be provided at two years level of advance-

ment, consistent with documented achievement levels of

gifted learners. The use of above-level assessments provides

another strategy for accelerating content. Above-level diag-

nostic assessments allow us to see how advanced students

may be in a given area of learning and provide matching ma-

terial to meet their needs for challenge. We also can create

dierent pathways for secondary courses, based on aptitudes

and interests of students. In math, students may want to pre-

pare for the AP Statistics and Probability course because of

their interest in conducting social science research in an in-

ternship at a local museum during their senior year. In lan-

guage arts, gifted students may want to take the AP class in

French as a preparation for advanced study at university in

that subject area through a dual enrollment program. The

following sections describe how this reorganization may be

accomplished in language arts and mathematics.

Reorganizing the Curriculum in ELA

To create accelerative opportunities, educators need to un-

derstand how the standards are organized within and across

grade levels. The CCSS integrate standards within themes,

concepts, or topics in an orderly progression (i.e., the “tra-

ditional” curriculum scope and sequence of topics and skills,

now referred to as learning progressions). The CCSS-ELA

curriculum framework (NGA & CCSSO, 2010a) identiﬁes

the important understandings for each strand (reading, writ-

ing, speaking and listening, and language) at speciﬁc grade

levels. Students must demonstrate the skills in each of the

strand-speciﬁc sets of College and Career Readiness Anchor

Standards, which include key ideas and details, craft and

structure, integration of knowledge and ideas, range of read-

ing, and text complexity.

Reorganizing the Curriculum

in Mathematics

The CCSS-M (NGA & CCSSO, 2010b) are organized by

grade levels, standards, clusters, and domains. Standards de-

ﬁne speciﬁc knowledge and skills at dierent grade levels,

clusters summarize groups of related standards, and domains

group larger sets of related clusters. For example, at the third-

grade level, within the domain of “Number and Operations in

Base 10” (3.MD), the student is expected to “Use place val-

ue understanding and properties of operations to perform

multi-digit arithmetic” (cluster heading). Speciﬁc standards

within the cluster heading include “using place value under-

standing to round whole numbers,” “ﬂuently add and sub-

tract within 1000,” and “multiply one-digit whole numbers

by multiples of 10” (NGA & CCSSO, 2010b, p. 24).

The domains, clusters, and standards are related to one an-

other not only at the same grade level but also at dierent

grade levels, forming learning progressions and interconnec-

tions across concepts (Johnsen, et al., 2014). For example, the

domain of “Numbers and Operations in Base Ten” at the ele-

mentary level builds the foundation for the domain of “Ratios

and Proportional Relationships” at middle school, and the

“Number and Quantity” domain at high school. The clusters

are also connected from one level to the next. In examining

the clusters, it is easy to see how one cluster builds the foun-

dation for the next cluster. For example, “understanding place

value” would be important to “using place value understand-

ing and properties to add and subtract,” and “performing

operations with multi-digit whole numbers” is foundational

to “performing operations with multi-digit whole numbers

with decimals to hundredths” (see Table 1). Speciﬁc standards

further distinguish the characteristics of the clusters. For ex-

ample, the characteristic of “understand place value,” which

is a common cluster heading in grades one and two, is delin-

eated within the standards. In grade one, the students should

understand that “two digits of a two-digit number represent

amounts of tens and ones” and in grade two, students should

understand that “three digits of a three-digit number repre-

sent hundreds, tens and ones.” Horizontal alignment also oc-

curs between domains, clusters, and standards. For example,

in grade four, similar mathematical operations are integrated

within these domains: “Operations and Algebraic Thinking,”

“Number and Operations in Base 10,” “Number and Opera-

tions-Fractions,” and “Measurement and Data,” allowing for

the compacting of the curriculum.

How to Accomplish Differentiation

of the CCSS-ELA

Based on the research evidence, a necessary dierentiation in

the ELA Common Core is in the judicious selection and use

of above-level reading material for the gifted at all stages of

development (see Standard 10 in NGA & CCSSO, 2010a, p.

10). In general, all text selections should be matched to gift-

ed students’ Lexile levels, commonly one to two grade levels

above the designated grade level band, and/or the students’

level of complexity of language and thought. An excellent re-

source that has consistently been used in the gifted commu-

nity to locate such texts is Some of My Best Friends Are Books

A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2 103

Accelerating Common Core Standards : VanTassel-Baska & Johnsen

Table 1: Sequence of Clusters for the Domain of “Number and Operations in Base 10”

Grade K Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5

Work with numbers

11-19 to gain

foundations for place

value

Extend the counting

sequence

Understand place value Use place value

understanding

and properties of

operations to perform

multi-digit arithmetic

Generalize place value

understanding for

multi-digit whole

numbers

Understand the place

value system

Understand place value Use place value

understanding

and properties of

operations to add

and subtract

Use place value

understanding

and properties of

operations to perform

multi-digit arithmetic

Perform operations

with multi-digit

whole numbers

with decimals to

hundredths

Use place value

understanding

and properties of

operations to add

and subtract

(Halsted, 2009). Furthermore, it is important to ensure that

in the informational text standards, there is stronger atten-

tion to primary source documents than to those that are sec-

ondary. The use of original speeches, seminal documents, and

artifacts such as diaries and letters is encouraged and should

be reﬂected in the examples provided for advanced learners.

In the literary text standards, the use of classical texts is fa-

vored over the use of children’s and adolescent literature that

may have little lasting value. The use of varied genres encour-

ages a wider scope of reading, and the employment of poetry,

myths, fables, and short stories contributes to exposure to,

and appreciation of, multiple forms of literature. Moreover,

the use of genres that favor short selections requires great-

er depth of reading for sucient analysis by students, even

those who are advanced readers. Consideration of reader

preferences for certain genres, authors, and speciﬁc works

should also be considered in the selection of texts. Activity

archetypes may be held constant across ability levels when

more individualized reading selections are made. Indepen-

dent reading of advanced learners should focus on their inter-

ests but be balanced with challenging choices that provide a

broad scope of reading materials. (See Table 2.)

Proﬁciency in reading for the gifted may best be judged

through an assessment of reading comprehension and critical

reading behaviors, not ﬂuency, as many of these readers come

to school already ﬂuent beyond current age and grade place-

ments. Consequently, the use of silent reading time, mandat-

ed in many school settings, should be targeted toward these

skills through the use of center-based activities, book discus-

sion groups, and reﬂective writing based on a recent reading.

Once Standard 10 has been addressed for gifted learners,

then the translation of the CCSS may be dierentiated fur-

ther through adding greater complexity, depth, and creativity

to any given task demand through attending to the explicit

translation of other reading standards. In language arts, there

is an alignment of the literature strand and the information

text strand, using the same skill sets to be applied to both

types of texts. Moreover, the alignment of writing with read-

ing is achieved through the use of standards that combine

these areas of emphasis. Further integration across the lan-

guage arts standards is encouraged through project and pre-

sentation standards in speaking and listening.

Foundational skills are sequenced within each ELA strand in

predictable ways. In the Strand 3 literacy standard, for exam-

ple, which “asks students to analyze how and why individu-

als, events, or ideas develop and interact over the course of a

text,” the suggested sequence moves from providing support

for students to make connections among these variables in

text (K-2) to describing such connections (3-5) to analyzing

the nature of the connections as interactions (6-10) to ex-

amining author intent in the use of these variables (11-12).

For gifted learners, the sequence can be compressed and

compacted by asking students to describe the nature of the

connections and interactions at early primary, beginning to

analyze the interactions by intermediate levels, deepening

the analysis of relevant textual interactions by middle school,

104 A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2

Accelerating Common Core Standards : VanTassel-Baska & Johnsen

and studying author intent in the interactions of character,

plot, and themes by high school. Rather than spreading out

the nature of the learning in this standard across 12 years, it is

conceivable that many students can master it in half the time

designated and have the skill of analyzing textual variables in-

corporated into their repertoire by high school. It is also pos-

sible to add a writing standard (“Conduct short research proj-

ects”) and a listening/speaking standard (“Engage eectively

in a range of collaborative discussions on topics and texts”) in

order to address two more ELA standards in the same lesson,

thus saving instructional time and integrating standards ef-

fectively within the subject area.

How to Accomplish Differentiation

of the CCSS-Mathematics

Understanding vertical and lateral alignments becomes crit-

ical when accelerating students who are gifted in mathemat-

ics. If a student has already acquired the expectations for one

grade level, he or she can progress to the next level’s expecta-

tions. As an example, students who know how to “compose

and decompose numbers from 11 to 19 into ten ones and some

further ones” in kindergarten (NGA & CCSSO, 2010b, p. 12),

should be learning how to “compare two two-digit numbers

based on the meanings of the tens and ones digits, record-

ing the results of comparisons with the symbols >, =, and <,”

(NGA & CCSSO, 2010b, p. 16), or to “compare three-digit

numbers based on meaning of the hundreds, tens, and ones

digits” (NGA & CCSSO, 2010b, p. 19) and so on. By studying

the standards and clusters of standards, teachers can incor-

porate above-level concepts into their teaching to address

gifted students’ needs. Looking across domains within a

grade level, the teacher can also compact the curriculum by

combining similar concepts such as using the four operations

with whole numbers (see the domain of “Operations and Al-

gebraic Thinking”) to solve problems involving measurement

(see the domain of “Measurement and Data”). As mentioned

in the CCSS-M documents, “What students can learn at any

particular grade level depends upon what they have learned

before” (NGA & CCSSO, 2010b, p. 5). The authors of the

standards caution users to remember that the learning pro-

gressions are based on state and international comparisons,

not necessarily on research. Therefore, it is important that

teachers identify clusters and related standards that meet the

needs of individual students based on assessments.

Acceleration should occur not only across grade levels and

courses but also within learning activities (Johnsen, 2014;

Johnson et al., 2014). Since gifted learners are often able to

reach proﬁciency more quickly, they may not need as many

examples to learn a particular concept or procedure. Students

with similar rates of learning can be grouped together homo-

geneously within and/or across grade levels and receive in-

struction matched to their abilities so that they are challenged

consistently. For example, as mentioned previously, grouping

by ability and modifying the curriculum have been successful

strategies for dierentiating content for mathematically gift-

ed students (Brody, 2004; Lee, Olszewski-Kubilius, & Peter-

nel, 2010) and have resulted in signiﬁcant gains in mathemat-

ics for such students (Gavin et al., 2009; Tieso, 2005).

Open-ended mathematical problems incorporating abstract

concepts, higher order thinking skills, more than one opera-

tion or variable, multiple domains, and novel situations are

engaging for gifted learners and allow them to think more

deeply and to persevere in solving the problem (Johnsen &

Sheeld, 2013). These problems need to be authentic, repre-

sent professional work and oer opportunities for students

to create new problems. For example, gifted students can use

national databases from the American Statistical Association

to pose new problems and conduct statistical investigations

or can analyze data collected about interventions in their lo-

cal school to improve performance on tests (see Johnsen et

al., 2014). These open-ended problems also provide opportu-

nities for the integration of mathematics into multiple disci-

plines (e.g., measuring plant growth in science or projecting

population growth in social studies). (See Table 2.)

Engaging students in problems and learning activities that

are of interest to them is important to their long-term de-

velopment of mathematical skills and to their enjoyment

of mathematics (Gavin et al., 2009). Students may choose

the ways they want to solve problems, select their own re-

search projects, and participate in extracurricular activities

such as clubs, competitions, talent search activities, and

mentor-based studies.

Foundational to all of these dierentiation strategies is the

need for varying time based on students’ rates of learning.

Less time might be needed for one unit of study and more

for another; more time might be needed for conducting re-

search projects and probing complex problems while less

time might be needed for building ﬂuency. Assessments pro-

vide the means for identifying students’ strengths and needs,

including the need for acceleration. Acceleration allows them

to pursue their interests in math and in other subjects. Dif-

ferent forms of above-level assessments are discussed in the

next section. Table 2 summarizes the general and speciﬁc

strategies for dierentiating the standards.

A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2 105

Accelerating Common Core Standards : VanTassel-Baska & Johnsen

Using Above-Level Assessments

Once educators recognize how the CCSS are organized with-

in and across grade levels and understand some instruction-

al strategies for dierentiation, they can select assessments

that would examine the full range of knowledge and skills a

gifted student might have acquired within or outside of the

school setting. In examining these assessments, educators

might ask themselves:

1. Does the assessment address all of the import-

ant standards and student outcomes for gifted

students? (Is it comprehensive?)

2. How will I use the assessments in planning

instruction and monitoring the gifted students’

learning progress? (Is it continuous?)

3. How will I use the assessments to determine

if they relate to the curriculum I am teaching

and its eectiveness with gifted students? (Is it

coherent?)

To address these purposes for assessments, educators will

want to use dierent types of assessments: pre-assessments,

ongoing assessments, and summative assessments. Pre-as-

sessments help teachers identify the existing knowledge and

skills for each individual student and determine how to group

students based on their needs. Ongoing or formative assess-

ments are used throughout the learning process to plan the

next steps for instruction and student learning activities and

provide students with feedback they can use to improve the

quality of their work. Summative assessments occur at set

points and provide information about students’ achievement

and the eectiveness of the curriculum and instruction.

Depending on the content, the format of the assessments

might vary, with some requiring the student to select a re-

sponse (multiple choice, short answer), while others require

students to make an extended response (solve a problem, de-

scribe in detail) or create a product or presentation. For ex-

ample, in reviewing the CCSS-M content, educators might

use an extended response to assess if students can read and

Table 2: General and Speciﬁc Strategies for Differentiating the Standards

Content Area Strategies

General (Across Content Areas) • Reorganize curriculum within and across grades and courses. Assess individual learners for their level of

mastery and move them ahead through grade-level material as appropriate.

• Calibrate learning material to be provided at two years level of advancement, consistent with achievement

levels of gifted learners.

• Use above-level diagnostic assessments to determine how advanced students may be in a given area of

learning and provide material to meet their need for challenge.

• Create different pathways for secondary courses, based on aptitudes and interests of students.

• Vary time based on students’ rate of learning. Less time may be needed for one unit of study and more for

another; more time might be needed for research projects and probing complex problems while less time

might be needed for building ﬂuency.

• Group by ability while providing curricular modiﬁcation and acceleration.

English Language Arts • Use advanced texts accelerated by one to two years.

• Select differentiated materials featuring advanced reader selections in multiple genres.

• Employ strategies that focus on real world issues and themes.

• Use original speeches, seminal documents, and artifacts such as diaries and letters.

• An emphasis on abstract concept development through thematics.

• The use of advanced projects as assessment evidence of proﬁciency.

Mathematics • Incorporate above-level curriculum and open-ended problems with opportunities for creative applications.

• Offer opportunities to participate in individualized and self-paced instruction.

• Utilize open-ended problems incorporating abstract concepts, higher order thinking skills, multiple

operations or variables, multiple domains, and novel situations.

• Include authentic problems that represent professional work, and offer opportunities for students to create

new problems.

106 A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2

Accelerating Common Core Standards : VanTassel-Baska & Johnsen

write numbers to 1000, but a product assessment to see if

students might be able to formulate problems involving mea-

surement and conversion of measurements. In either of these

cases, the assessments would incorporate standards above a

particular grade level to ensure that the full range of a gifted

student’s knowledge was assessed. For example, the assess-

ment in ﬁrst grade would have students compare not only

two two-digit numbers based on their understanding of place

value but also two three-digit numbers, explaining what each

place might represent (e.g., 10 times as much as it represents

in the place to its right).

In ELA, the assessment of the standards noted in this chapter

might be accomplished in dierent ways. Standard 3 may be

assessed through the use of an extended essay that examines

student understanding of textual variables at work in a writ-

ten piece they had not read, or it also could be assessed by a

research product or presentation on a new text they had read.

Standard 9 might best be assessed through a project that re-

quires students to read and analyze three texts of their choos-

ing on a relevant topic that is controversial and have them

evaluate the perspectives presented and the author’s intent

in writing the piece. For each of these approaches, a rubric

would need to be developed, tailored to the key elements of

the higher-level aspects of the standard being assessed.

Different Pathways for

Secondary Opportunities

Gifted learners will need to consider accelerated options not

just within the conﬁnes of a K-12 education. They will need to

plan for their futures using a model that considers the role of

college or university and beyond. This planning may be quite

dierent, depending on the subject area(s) of greatest inter-

est to the students and the area(s) in which they exhibit their

strongest abilities.

Along with the acceleration of content and the use of

above-level assessments, educators will want to consider ac-

celerated pathways to allow gifted students to reach calculus

and other college-level courses by their junior or senior years,

which is important for preparing them for STEM ﬁelds in

college (Assouline & Lupkowski-Shoplik, 2011; Colangelo,

Assouline, & Gross, 2004). Appendix A in the CCSS-M de-

scribes four dierent pathways at the high school level: a tra-

ditional pathway, a compacted traditional pathway, an inte-

grated pathway, and a compacted integrated pathway (NGA

& CCSSO, 2010c). The traditional pathway consists of two

algebra courses and a geometry course. The compacted ver-

sion of the traditional pathway, where no content is omitted,

is where students complete the content of the seventh- and

eighth-grade courses in the seventh grade, and the high school

algebra course (Algebra I) in the eighth grade. This accelerat-

ed trajectory allows advanced students to reach calculus or

other college-level courses by their junior or senior year. The

integrated pathway consists of a sequence of three courses,

with each including number and quantity, algebra, functions,

geometry, statistics, and probability. The compacted version

of the integrated pathway is similar to the compacted version

of the traditional pathway. The seventh- and eighth-grade

math is combined into a single compacted course in the sev-

enth grade. At the eighth-grade level, the students take the

high school Mathematics I course (Note: See NGA & CCSSO,

2010c for an overview of each pathway organized by course,

conceptual category, clusters, and standards.). When these

accelerated classes are taught by experienced teachers who

are aware of gifted students’ needs, these students are more

likely to take rigorous college courses, complete advanced de-

grees, and feel academically challenged and socially accepted

(Colangelo, Assouline, & Gross, 2004; Gross, 2006; Kolitch

& Brody, 1992; Swiatek, 1993).

While trajectories for high school work in mathematics may

be seen as alternative routes to dierent objectives at the lev-

els of college and career in STEM ﬁelds, the use of advanced

secondary courses in the English Language Arts have not

been so carefully described by individual course-taking mod-

els. For students gifted in language and interested in related

careers, the traditional accelerated route would take them

into the two Advanced Placement English courses early (by

Grades 9-11) or lead them to consider the International Bac-

calaureate (IB) English program options. This may lead to

early entrance to college or to a senior year of independent

research with a college mentor. A less traditional route might

be to accelerate a course of study in a second language area

as well, taking Advanced Placement courses in the language

of choice by grade 10 with opportunities for studying a third

language in the last two years of high school.

Since language arts is a collection of subjects and skill sets,

it may be judicious and practical for gifted students to focus

more sharply on one or two of those skills that have strong

interest for them or that are tied to career paths of interest.

A third option might be to focus on the development of ad-

vanced writing ability or advanced speaking, channeled into

theater or debate opportunities, in small seminar settings

through dual enrollment opportunities oered co-terminus

with AP or IB.

A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2 107

Accelerating Common Core Standards : VanTassel-Baska & Johnsen

Other Strategies

for Differentiation

While this chapter focuses on the use of accelerative tech-

niques for purposes of ensuring that the new CCSS are appro-

priate for gifted learners, there are also other dierentiation

strategies that might be employed in concert with accel-

eration to enhance the learning of gifted students. The use

of greater complexity within the advanced use of literature

coupled with the use of integrated themes and greater depth

in the project work recommended would be additional ways

to dierentiate the language arts standards. In mathemat-

ics, the use of open-ended problems and the employment of

challenging, co-disciplinary projects provide additional ave-

nues for successful dierentiation. What is critical in the use

of the new standards, however, is the use of acceleration as

the initial and main tool for dierentiation to ensure that the

content and process base is suciently elevated.

The following questions and processes illustrate a template

for thinking that may be used to create appropriate dieren-

tiated task demands at a given grade level for gifted students

in the English/language arts area:

Questions to ask in the design process

1. What reading selections (literature and informational

text) will illustrate appropriate advanced level texts for

gifted learners to use as the standards are addressed?

Process to be followed:

• Locate advanced texts (two grade levels

above, on average) that also match the de-

mands of the standards.

• Deconstruct the text through higher-level

questions and activities.

• Design corresponding writing, speaking and

listening activities.

2. What level and type of complexity needs to be added to

ensure challenge for the gifted?

Process to be followed:

• Move to an upper-level standard in the same

strand (acceleration) to attain a focus on

multiple texts.

• Focus on higher order skill sets including

analysis, synthesis, evaluation, and creation.

• Add variables to study.

• Design corresponding writing, speaking, and

listening activities.

3. What aspects of creativity can be designed into the

task demands that provide open-endedness in product

modality and/or response?

Process to be followed:

• Provide choice in activity sets, products to be

developed and questions to be answered.

•

Ask students to design a real-world model and

articulate how it works visually and verbally.

• Design corresponding writing, speaking and

listening activities.

4. What approach to the task demand will ensure depth

of thinking and understanding of important concepts

and ideas?

Process to be followed:

•

Focus questions and activities on an abstract

concept or theme found in the selected texts.

• Ensure that questions probe connections of

the concept to other texts and stimuli.

Content Acceleration as a Central

Feature of Gifted Programs

Adaptation of the CCSS for gifted students represents an

important approach to acceleration within the context of

programs in mathematics and language arts in schools. Oth-

er areas of the curriculum, especially science, also should be

adapted in similar ways. The ﬁeld has demonstrated how this

might be done in the area of science with the new next gener-

ation standards (see Adams, Cotabish & Ricci, 2014). There is

also a need to accelerate learning in the social studies curric-

ulum, world languages, and the visual and performing arts in

order to ensure challenge for the gifted.

Additionally, the use of content acceleration at the core cur-

ricular level presages the need for other forms of acceleration

to be used as students traverse through school. For example,

the consistent use of content acceleration in elementary and

middle school in any area opens up the need for more advanced

programs at the high school level, including the increased use

of Advanced Placement and dual enrollment in 4-year col-

leges or universities. Content acceleration also suggests the

need to employ alternative delivery systems for coursework,

including online and summer opportunities that introduce

fast-paced learning opportunities to students who are ready

for them. For students who are advanced in all subject areas,

grade-skipping may be quite appropriate at key stages of de-

velopment (see Lupkowski-Shoplik, Assouline, & Colangelo,

108 A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2

Accelerating Common Core Standards : VanTassel-Baska & Johnsen

this volume). Natural transitions may occur at many grade lev-

el points. One model of grade-skipping would use the natural

transitions at ﬁrst grade, sixth grade, and ninth grade, given

the organizational pattern employed in schools for moving

into the levels of elementary, middle, and high school. For

many gifted learners, transitioning one grade above at these

stages, based on diagnostic data, provides an important part

of the dierentiated learning experience.

Conclusion

The CCSS are intended to prepare K-12 students for college

and the workplace and incorporate knowledge and skills re-

quired for the 21st century such as critical thinking and prob-

lem solving, communication, collaboration, and creativity

and innovation. The new standards stress rigor, depth, clar-

ity, and coherence, drawing from national and international

studies. While the new standards are strong, they are simply

not suciently accelerated to accommodate the needs of

gifted and advanced learners. Modiﬁcations must be made.

This chapter has focused on research-based strategies for

accelerating the standards that include using above-level

curriculum and self-paced instruction in mathematics and

advanced texts in ELA accelerated by two years and advanced

reading selections in multiple genres.

The new CCSS in English Language Arts and Mathematics

present a daunting challenge to our schools at a time when

they may be least prepared to take it on, especially given lack

of funding for teacher salaries, declining morale, and com-

peting agendas. Yet it also oers the best hope for coherent

high-level schooling for our students. The gifted community

must join this eort and transform our work to demonstrate

to all that high-level standards need high-level translations in

the classroom if all students are to fulﬁll their learning poten-

tial. For gifted learners, who need accelerative interventions,

this will require dierentiation of the Common Core Stan-

dards in a comprehensive, articulated way.

References

Adams, C. M., Cotabish, A., & Ricci, M. C. (2014). Using the Next Gen-

eration Science Standards with gifted and advanced learners. Waco, TX:

Prufrock Press.

Assouline, S. G., & Lupkowski-Shoplik, A. E. (2011). Developing math tal-

ent: A comprehensive guide to math education for gifted students in elemen-

tary and middle school (2nd ed.). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

Brody, L. (2004). Grouping and acceleration practices in gifted education.

ousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Colangelo, N., Assouline, S. G., & Gross, M. U. M. (Eds.). (2004). A na-

tion deceived: How schools hold back America’s brightest students (V.II.).

Iowa City: University of Iowa, e Connie Belin & Jacqueline N. Blank

International Center for Gifted Education and Talent Development.

Feng, A. X., VanTassel-Baska, J., Quek, C., Bai, W., & O’Neill, B. (2005). A

longitudinal assessment of gifted students’ learning using the Integrat-

ed Curriculum Model (ICM): Impacts and perceptions of the William

& Mary Language Arts and Science Curriculum. Roeper Review, 27,

78–83.

Gavin, M. K., Casa, T., Adelson, J. L., Carroll, S. R., & Sheﬃeld, L. J.

(2009). e impact of advanced curriculum on the achievement of

mathematically promising students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 53, 188-

202.

Gavin, M. K., Casa, T., Adelson, J. L., Carroll, S. R., Sheﬃeld, L. J., & Spi-

nelli, A. M. (2007). Project M3: Mentoring Mathematical Minds—A

research-based curriculum for talented elementary students. Journal of

Advanced Academics, 18, 566-585.

Gross, M. U. M. (2006). Exceptionally gifted children: Long-term out-

comes of academic acceleration and nonacceleration. Journal for the Ed-

ucation of the Gifted, 29, 404-429.

Halstead, J. W. (2009). Some of my best friends are books: Guiding gifted

readers from preschool to high school (3rd Ed.). Tucson, AZ: Great Po-

tential Press.

Hughes-Lynch, C. E., Kettler, T., Shaunessy-Dedrick, E., & VanTa s-

sel-Baska, J. (2014). A teacher’s guide to using the Common Core State

Standards with gifted and advanced learners in the English Language Arts.

Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

Johnsen, S. K. (2014). Gifted education and programming standards. In F.

Karnes & S. Bean (Eds.) Strategies for teaching gifted students (4th ed.,

pp. 3-41). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

Johnsen, S. K., Ryser, G. R., & Assouline, S. G. (2014). A teachers’ guide

to using the Common Core State Standards with mathematically gifted and

advanced learners. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

Johnsen, S. K., & Sheﬃeld, L. J. (Eds.) (2013). Using the Common Core

State Standards for Mathematics with gifted and advanced learners. Waco,

TX: Prufrock Press.

Kanevsky, L. (2011). Deferential diﬀerentiation: What types of diﬀerentia-

tion do students want? Gifted Child Quarterly, 55, 279–299.

Kolitch, E. R., & Brody, L. E. (1992). Mathematics acceleration of highly

talented students: An evaluation. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36, 78-86.

Lee, S.-Y., Olszewski-Kubilius, P., & Peternel, G. (2010). e eﬃcacy of

academic acceleration for gifted minority students. Gifted Child Quar-

terly, 54, 189–208.

Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (2006). Study of Mathematically Precocious

Youth after 35 years: Uncovering antecedents for the development of

math-science expertise.Perspectives on psychological science,1(4), 316-

345.

Mann, E. L. (2006). Creativity: e essence of mathematics. Journal for the

Education of the Gifted, 30, 236-262.

A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2 109

Accelerating Common Core Standards : VanTassel-Baska & Johnsen

National Association for Gifted Children (2010, November). NAGC Pre-

K-Grade 12 gifted programming standards: A blueprint for quality gifted

education programs. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://

www.nagc.org/uploadedFiles/Information_and_Resources/Gifted_

Program_Standards/K-12%20programming%20standards.pdf.

National Governors Association Center for Best Practices (NGA), &

Council of Chief State School Oﬃcers (CCSSO). (2010a). Common

Core State Standards for English Language Arts. Retrieved from http://

www.corestandards.org/the-standards

National Governors Association Center for Best Practices (NGA), &

Council of Chief State School Oﬃcers (CCSSO).(2010b). Common

core state standards in mathematics. Retrieved from http://www.core-

standards.org/the-standards

National Governors Association Center for Best Practices (NGA), &

Council of Chief State School Oﬃcers (CCSSO).(2010c).Appendix

A. Common core state standards in mathematics. Retrieved from http://

www.corestandards.org/the-standards

Olszewski-Kubilius, P. M. (2002). A summary of research regarding early

entrance to college. Roeper Review, 24, 152-157.

Partnership for 21st Century (2009). P21 Framework deﬁnitions. Wash-

ington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://www.p21.org/storage/

documents/P21_Framework_Deﬁnitions.pdf

Reis, S. M., Eckert, R. D., McCoach, D. B., Jacobs, J. K., & Coyne, M.

(2008). Using enrichment reading practices to increase reading ﬂuen-

cy, comprehension, and attitudes. Journal of Educational Research, 101,

299–314.

Robinson, N. M., Abbott, R. D., Berninger, V. W., Busse, J., & Mukhopad-

hyay, S. (1997). Developmental changes in mathematically precocious

young children: Longitudinal and gender eﬀects. Gifted Child Quarterly,

41, 145-158.

Spielhagen, F. R. (2006). Closing the achievement gap in math: e long-

term eﬀects of eighth-grade algebra. Journal of Advanced Academics, 18,

34-59.

Swiatek, M. A. (1993). A decade of longitudinal research on academic

acceleration through the study of Mathematically Precocious Youth.

Roeper Review, 15, 120-123.

Tieso, C. (2005). e eﬀects of grouping practices and curricular adjust-

ments on achievement. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 29, 60-89.

VanTassel-Baska, J. (Ed.). (2013). Using the Common Core State Standards

for English Language Arts with gifted and advanced learners. Waco, TX:

Prufrock Press.

VanTassel-Baska, J., Avery, L. D., Little, C., & Hughes, C. (2000). An eval-

uation of the implementation of curriculum innovation: e impact of

the William & Mary units on schools. Journal for the Education of the

Gifted, 23, 244-272.

VanTassel-Baska, J., & Stambaugh, T. (2006). Project Athena: A pathway

to advanced literacy development for children of poverty. Gifted Child

To d a y , 29(2), 58-65.

VanTassel-Baska, J., Zuo, L., Avery, L., & Little, C. A. (2002). A curricu-

lum study of gifted-student learning in the language arts. Gifted Child

Quarterly, 46, 30-43.

VanTassel-Baska, J. (2010). (Series Ed.) Patterns and proﬁles of low income

gifted learners. Volume IV, Critical issues in equity and excellence in gifted

education. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

Ysseldyke, J., Tardrew, S., Betts, J., ill, T., & Hannigan, E. (2004). Use

of an instructional management system to enhance math instruction

of gifted and talented students. Journal for the Education of the Gifted,

27, 293-310.

110 A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2

Accelerating Common Core Standards : VanTassel-Baska & Johnsen

A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2 111

Talent Searches : Olszewski-Kubilius

Introduction

“Talent search” has taken on a very specific meaning in the

field of gifted education. It refers to programs that identify

and assess gifted children with above-grade-level testing and

provide subsequent educational services matched to their

tested abilities. The programs are run by universities (see the

Center for Talent Development of Northwestern University,

the Talent Identification Program of Duke University, the

Center for Talented Youth of Johns Hopkins University, the

Belin-Blank Center of the University of Iowa, and the Center

for Bright Kids), and all have a 25 to 30 year history. There is a

significant body of research to support the practices associat-

ed with talent search, including several forms of acceleration.

The first “talent search” was instituted by Dr. Julian Stanley at

Johns Hopkins University in an effort to measure and identi-

fy extreme mathematical aptitude among junior high school

students (Assouline & Lupkowski-Shoplik, 2011a; Lupkows-

ki-Shoplik, Benbow, Assouline, & Brody, 2003). Stanley found

that using the SAT, a test designed as a college-entrance exam

for college-bound 11

and 12

graders, worked very well for

the purpose of measuring exceptional mathematical aptitude

among younger students. The talent searches of the 1980s

identified so many academically advanced students whose

highly specialized needs were not being met and provided

such an easy, cost efficient method of identification that the

idea grew enormously over the next two and a half decades.

Currently, talent searches exist nationwide as well as in Can-

ada, Australia, The Peoples’ Republic of China, Ireland, and

Spain and the services have been augmented to include use

of the ACT Assessment; a wide variety of types of education-

al programs; newsletters and other informational resources;

workshops for parents; training for educators; and the inclu-

sion of assessments for other abilities (e.g. spatial) and for

younger (i.e. elementary school-aged) children.

The Rationale for the

Talent Search Model

The Talent Search Model is built upon the idea of “above-

grade-level” testing. A basic premise underlying talent search

is that because children develop at different rates, they should

be allowed to take tests at the level of their abilities, not at

the level that school officials or testing companies deem ap-

propriate for their age. Students who are scoring very well on

typically used standardized achievement tests, above the 95

or 97

percentile for their school grade, are eligible for the

talent search. For these students, performance on grade-lev-

el achievement tests indicates a high level of mastery of the

grade-level curriculum. However, these tests cannot tell how

Abstract

The Talent Search Model has taken on a very speciﬁc meaning in the ﬁeld of gifted education referring to university-based programs that

identify and assess gifted children with above-grade-level testing and provide subsequent educational services matched to their tested

abilities. The components of talent search programs include diagnosis and evaluation of domain and level of ability, guidance regarding

educational placement, particularly the use of accelerative strategies, and the provision of a variety of talent development opportunities

including summer, weekend, and online programs. There is a signiﬁcant body of research to support the practices associated with

talent search and speciﬁcally the use of accelerative strategies such as whole-grade acceleration, subject area acceleration, curriculum

compacting, fast-paced classes and early entrance college programs.

Talent Searches and

Accelerated Programming for

Gifted Students

Paula Olszewski-Kubilius

Center for Talent Development, Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois

Chapter 9

112 A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2

Talent Searches : Olszewski-Kubilius

far beyond or above the grade curriculum children are func-

tioning because they do not have an adequate “ceiling,” that

is, enough difficult items. Tests such as the Scholastic Assess-

ment Test (SAT) or the American College Testing Program (ACT)

provide more accurate measurement of gifted students’ abili-

ties because they are designed to be used with older students.

In addition, talent search programs have yielded important

research that has significantly increased our understanding

of giftedness and the development of talent. Talent search

testing has shown that adult achievements, including creative

accomplishments, can be predicted from test performance

on above grade-level tests taken in middle school (Benbow,

Lubinski, Shea & Eftekhari-Sanjani, 2000; Lubinski, Ben-

bow, Webb & Bleske-Rechek, 2006); that knowledge of pat-

terns of abilities such as stronger performance on a test of

mathematical versus verbal reasoning (or vice versa) are re-

lated to future college majors and areas of achievement and

can be helpful in directing children to appropriately matched

courses of study (e.g. STEM, Lubinski & Benbow, 2007; Wai,

Lubinski & Benbow, 2009); that there is no threshold for

ability and differences even within the top 1% of mathemati-

cal or verbal ability translate into differences in achievements

(Lubinski & Benbow, 2006; Wai, Lubinski & Benbow, 2005);

and that the “dosage” of educational opportunities available

to students subsequent to talent search testing is important

and contributes to adult achievement (Wai, Lubinski, Ben-

bow, & Steiger, 2010).

The Components of Talent Search

Currently, talent search is more suitably viewed through

three different “lenses”: as a tool for diagnosis/evaluation, as

a guide for educational placement, and as a structure to pro-

vide talent development opportunities (Olszewski-Kubilius,

1998a; Olszewski-Kubilius & Thomson, 2014; Corwith &

Olszewski-Kubilius, 2012a). See Table 1.

Diagnosis/Evaluation

Talent search is a diagnostic tool–one that discovers areas

(e.g. math, verbal) and levels of ability thereby enabling edu-

cators to match students to programs that are appropriate in

pace of learning and level of content. Consider, for example,

two seventh-grade students who both score at the 97

per-

centile on the mathematics composite of their in-grade-level

achievement test. When they take the SAT-Math, however,

one student earns a score of 600 (75

percentile compared to

college-bound 12

graders) and the other earns a score of 340

(6th percentile compared to college-bound 12

graders). See

Figure 1 for a graphic representation of the discriminatory

power of above-level testing. These students look very sim-

Table 1: Components of Talent Search

Diagnosis and

Evaluation

Educational Placement

and Guidance

Talent Development

Opportunities

• Assesses areas of ability (math, verbal, spatial)

• Measures level of ability

• Yields estimate of learning rate

• Recommendations for types of in-school

accommodations, both accelerative and

enrichment-oriented

• Recommendations for appropriately matched

outside of school educational programs

• Recommendations for curriculum modiﬁcations

such as compacting and telescoping

• Recommendations for speciﬁc types of

accelerative options such as grade or subject

acceleration, early entrance to high school or

college, early access to AP

• Weekend programs

• Summer programs

• Contests and competitions

• Magazines

• College and career counseling

• Recognition and awards ceremonies

• Distance education courses

• Individualized academic and psycho-social

testing and evaluation

• Access to experts in gifted education

• Opportunities to meet with other families of

gifted children

• Parent education programs

• Workshops for educators

• Coursework and degree programs for

educators

A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2 113

Talent Searches : Olszewski-Kubilius

ilar to one another on the basis of the in-grade achievement

test and would be treated similarly educationally by schools

and teachers. In reality, they are quite different and need very

different educational placements and programs.

The child who scores 340 on SAT-Math already has a high lev-

el of mastery of his/her grade-level mathematics and is func-

tioning in mathematics like a child in an advanced grade. This

child would benefit from enrichment in mathematics and

acceleration to the next grade for mathematics instruction.

The child who scores 600 on SAT-Math is functioning math-

ematically like a child four to five years older and likely knows

a great deal of pre-calculus mathematics without having tak-

en a formal course (see Assouline & Lupkowski-Shoplik,

2011b for additional examples). For this student, an individu-

alized mathematics program that includes a very accelerated

grade placement and a much more rapid pace is appropriate.

For both of these children, however, the typical curriculum is

probably insufficient–insufficient in scope, or pace, or both.

In addition to discerning areas and levels of ability with-

in areas, talent search programs give educators a useful

estimate of learning rate or the extent to which typi-

cal school instruction will be inappropriately slow-paced

and/or conversely, the rate at which instruction should be

accelerated in order to be appropriately challenging for a par-

ticular student.

During the 2012-2013 academic year, approximately 50,000

seventh through ninth grade students took the SAT with a

talent search organization (See Appendix E). During the peri-

od of 2009-2011, more than 107,000 students in grades seven

and eight took the ACT through a talent search organiza-

tion and 21,698 students in grades three through six took the

ACT test Explore, which was developed for eighth graders,

through one of the talent search organizations (G. Johns0n,

personal communication, March 2014).

Of the children who participate in talent search, a substan-

tial percentage score extremely well—above the means for

the students for whom the test was designed. See Table 2.

These data indicate that above-level testing is not too dif-

ficult for qualified participants and significant proportions

of students who score at the top of grade-level achievement

tests have knowledge and abilities similar to students three

to five years older. Consequently, these students are ready

for more challenging coursework.

Educational Placement and Guidance

The information yielded from talent search testing is very

useful for educational placement and guidance in several key

ways. Different scores may be required depending upon the

focus of the course and the degree of acceleration or pacing

of the program or course. For example, scores on the ACT

Figure 1

Percentile

SAT 340

ACT 14

Percentile

SAT 470

ACT 17

Percentile

SAT 514

ACT 20

Percentile

SAT 600

ACT 25

Percentile

SAT 800

ACT 34

Percentiles on In-grade Achievement Tests

95 96 97 98 99

Percentile and Corresponding ACT or SAT Scores in Math

114 A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2

Talent Searches : Olszewski-Kubilius

or SAT reading might be used for entrance into an accelerat-

high school biology course that involves a lot of advanced

vocabulary and critical reading, whereas SAT and ACT math

scores might be used for a mathematically-based high school

physics course. Similarly, a summer program course that com-

presses a full year high school course into three weeks will re-

quire higher entrance scores than a distance learning course

that is advanced in content but runs over a nine month period

(i.e., is accelerated in level but not instructional pacing

Patterns of performance on different subtests can be helpful

to parents and educators in terms of future courses of study

and college majors for their students. Park, Lubinski, and

Benbow (2007) followed a large sample of talent search par-

ticipants longitudinally and found that “ability tilt,” that is

whether SAT-Math scores were higher than SAT-Verbal scores

or vice versa, predicted whether their adult accomplishments

were in the verbal domains or the STEM domains. The adult

accomplishments included earning advanced degrees and

tenure track positions in STEM versus the humanities and

producing literary publications or scientific articles or ob-

taining patents. Spatial ability scores, currently not widely

assessed in talent search programs, are also predictive of in-

terest in and entry into STEM fields, especially engineering

and physics, as well as adult accomplishments in these fields.

Scores on above-grade-level tests such as are used in talent

search (SAT, ACT, and Explore) can discern levels of ability

that are also important for decisions about an appropriate

degree of acceleration for individual students. Researchers

have asserted that one third of the entire range in ability re-

sides in the top 1% of ability (Lubinski & Benbow, 2006). A

Table 2: Percentage of Talent Search Testers

Scoring Above Means for Older Normative Groups

Explore English Reading Math Science

Fourth Graders

(n=2956)

46% 29% 13% 21%

Fifth Graders

(n=9435)

72% 52% 34% 46%

Sixth Graders

(n=8248)

86% 68% 61% 67%

Mean for Eighth Graders

nationwide

(2010-2011)

14.4 14.6 15.5 16.6

Note: Data based on national talent search participants in 2010-2011

ACT

Seventh Graders

(n=93,518)

21% 24% 8% 13%

Eighth Graders

(n=13,723)

49% 52% 41% 40%

Mean for Seniors

(2011)

20.6 21.3 21.1 20.9

Note: Data based on national talent search participants in 2009-2011

SAT

Sixth Graders

(n=1771)

16% 18%

Seventh Graders

(n=4598)

32% 33%

Eighth Graders

(n=5635)

52% 52%

Mean College Bound Seniors 496 514

Note: SAT data is based on 2013-2014 participants in the Northwestern University Midwest Academic Talent Search

A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2 115

Talent Searches : Olszewski-Kubilius

study comparing the adult achievements of talent search stu-

dents whose SAT-M scores placed them in the top quartile of

the top 1% of ability to students whose scores placed them in

the bottom quartile of the top 1% revealed striking individual

differences in terms of achievement including rates of earned

doctorates in STEM fields, patents, and tenured positions at

top research institutions (Wai, Lubinski, and Benbow, 2005).

To respond to that variation, Northwestern University’s

Center for Talent Development has developed recommend-

ed accelerated course sequences within each of the content

areas and a set of program recommendations matched to a

student’s talent search scores (see Table 3). Another example

of programming recommendations matched to talent search

scores is the Pyramid of Educational Options by Assouline

and Lupkowski-Shoplik (2011b). The bases for these rec-

ommendations are individual differences in gifted students’

reasoning capabilities and learning rates—based on differ-

ences in their above-level scores. These differences must be

matched to educational programs that are appropriate in lev-

el, scope, and pace and sequentially and systematically, devel-

op a student’s talents and interests over time.

Table 3 illustrates how talent search scores relate to accelera-

tive practices in two important ways. One is that they help to

determine how far above grade level a child is able to work in-

tellectually and should be placed for instruction. Accelerative

practices such as grade-skipping, early entrance to middle or

high school or college (including radical acceleration of three

or more years) and subject area acceleration can be used to

place a child at a more appropriate level for instruction. Sec-

ond, they help to determine the degree of acceleration that

needs to occur for the pacing of instruction within programs

and classes. Accelerative practices such as fast-paced classes,

which compress a year’s worth of high school level course-

work into 3 weeks; curriculum compacting or diagnostic-pre-

scriptive teaching that use testing to eliminate already known

material; and telescoped classes in which, for example, four

years of high school math is compressed or compacted into

two years, can be used to proved a more appropriate pace of

instruction. The data presented in Table 2 suggest that many

of the students who participate in talent search are candi-

dates for some form of acceleration.

Talent Development Opportunities

When children participate in a talent search program, they

are able to access a whole host of outside-of-school oppor-

tunities, including award ceremonies, summer programs, af-

ter-school or Saturday programs, distance learning programs,

and weekend workshops and seminars. In addition, they re-

ceive information in the form of newsletters and magazines

on other opportunities such as contests, competitions, and

scholarships, as well as expert advice on issues such as ac-

celeration, social-emotional aspects of giftedness, college

majors and career paths. Typically, students who participate

in talent search as seventh or eighth graders continue to be

Table 3: Northwestern University Midwest Academic Talent Search Program

Recommendations Based on SAT or ACT Scores

Range 1 Range 2 Range 3

• 230-440 on SAT-CR

• 200-460 on SAT-M

• 1-19 on ACT-Eng or ACT-Read

• 1-18 on ACT-Math

• 440-580 on SAT-CR

• 460-600 on SAT-M

• 19-25 on ACT-Eng or ACT-Read

• 18-23 on ACT-Math

• 580+ on SAT-CR

• 600+ on SAT-M

• 25+ on ACT-Eng or ACT-Read

• 24+ on ACT-Math

Program options should include: Program options should include: Program options should include:

1. Long-range academic planning following

course sequence 1 in area of strength

2. Early access to advanced school courses

3. Supplemental enrichment courses in-school

and outside of school in summer, weekend, or

distance education programs

4. AP, IB and dual enrollment programs in high

school

5. Early career and college counseling

1. Long-range academic planning following

course sequence 2 in area of strength

2. Fast-paced courses in area of strength in

school or through outside of school summer,

weekend, or distance education programs

3. Early access to college-level work via AP, dual

enrollment, or summer programs

4. Early career and college counseling, including

access to mentors and internships

Options 1 to 4 from Range 2, plus:

5. Individualized program of study, using “test-

out” approach in areas of strength

6. Consider whole-grade acceleration or early

admission to college

7. Individualized work with a mentor to pursue

advanced study in an area or areas of interest

and strength.

116 A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2

Talent Searches : Olszewski-Kubilius

notified about opportunities and receive information until

the completion of high school. Talent search is more properly

viewed as the gateway to many other important, educational-

ly advantageous opportunities for students and the effects of

these opportunities on students can be enormous.

Some of the most compelling research about the efficacy and

impact of gifted programming on the achievement of gifted

students comes from follow-up studies of talent search par-

ticipants. For example, Wai, Lubinski, Benbow, and Steiger

(2010) examined the paths and accomplishments of a group

of individuals who had been identified as mathematically tal-

ented in middle school by virtue of their performance on the

SAT-M. All of the study participants retrospectively report-

ed their participation in advanced classes such as STEM AP

courses and dual enrollment programs as well as in enrich-

ment activities both in and outside of school such as science

fairs and math competitions, clubs, summer programs, etc.

Individuals with “notable STEM accomplishments” such as

getting a doctorate in STEM and choosing a STEM career,

having STEM publications, and securing tenure in a STEM

field, had a richer STEM educational dose consisting of a

larger number and variety of precollege STEM experiences.

Differences in ability between high- and low-dose groups

were small and could not account for the differences in STEM

accomplishments. The finding was replicated with students

who had attended top STEM graduate programs in the U.S.,

suggesting that motivation also could not account for the dif-

ferences. Similarly, Subotnik, Tai, Almarode & Crowe (2013),

in an investigation of the impact of attendance at specialized

STEM high schools, found that students who participated in

talent search and subsequent summer programs were as like-

ly to pursue STEM degrees in college (i.e. twice the national

rate for all college students) and STEM careers as students

who attended specialized STEM high schools, suggesting

that talent search participation offers an equally viable, alter-

native path for students who are talented in science and math

and interested in STEM careers.

The research above adds to the growing body of evidence

that educational opportunities play a significant role in the

development of gifted children, leading them towards con-

tinued paths of achievement into early adulthood. Universi-

ty-based talent search programs provide these opportunities

to many gifted students.

Research on Acceleration and

the Talent Search Model

As a result of talent search programs, various kinds of accel-

erative program models for gifted students have been devel-

oped. These include fast-paced summer classes in which 120

hours of honors level high school coursework is compressed

into 60 to 75 hours, programs that compress four years of

high school study in mathematics or language arts into two

years, and programs that accelerate students one to two years

in particular subject areas.

SAT or ACT scores necessary for acceptance into the fast-

paced summer programs typically are comparable to the

average scores of college bound, high school seniors. Thus,

programs select middle school-aged children whose rea-

soning abilities are advanced by four to five years. Entrance

scores are adjusted for the particular demands of the course;

math and verbal scores may be used, for example, for cours-

es that are thought to require aptitude in both areas such as

an advanced, mathematically-based physics or chemistry

course. Scores may be adjusted upwards for courses that are

very advanced and/or very compressed. The available re-

search evidence suggests that these practices are valid (see

Olszewski-Kubilius, 1998b and Olszewski-Kubilius & Thom-

son, 2014 for reviews).

Using performance on standardized achievement tests

matched to the content of summer classes, Olszewski-Kubi-

lius, Kulieke, Willis and Krasney (1989; Olszewski-Kubilius &

Thomson, 2014) found that SAT cutoff scores used to select

students into fast-paced summer literature classes (in which

120 hours of honors level, high school instruction was com-

pressed into 75 hours) were appropriate. Additionally, these

authors found that achievement in self-paced summer math-

ematics classes was also high and comparable to high school

students who took year-long mathematics courses.

Bartkovich and Mezynski (1981) found that students who

scored a 600 or above on SAT-Math were able to successfully

complete two high school level mathematics classes in just

50 hours of in-class instruction during the summer, as deter-

mined by performance on standardized mathematics tests.

Similarly, middle school students whose average SAT-M

scores were above 600 evidenced high levels of achievement

in a special program in which four years of high school math-

ematics was compressed into two and a half years (Benbow,

Perkins, & Stanley, 1983).

Lynch (1992) found that junior high-aged students who com-

pleted year- long high school science classes, such as biology,

chemistry or physics, within a three week summer program

scored above the 70th percentile on average on standardized

tests in these subjects compared to high school students who

had the typical one full year of instruction. Similarly, Kolitch

and Brody (1992) reported that almost all of the talent search

students they studied who had accelerated themselves by

A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2 117

Talent Searches : Olszewski-Kubilius

taking high school or college level mathematics classes early

earned grades of A or B and excelled on the Advanced Place-

ment calculus examination, The results of these studies all

suggest that acceleration, whether in terms of instructional

pace and/or level of the course, is an appropriate and success-

ful practice for gifted students who are selected on the basis

of talent search scores.

Talent search students who accelerate their coursework in

special programs do not experience adverse consequences

in their educational careers. There is no evidence that stu-

dents burnout (Kolitch & Brody, 1992; Swiatek, 1993; Swiatek

& Benbow, 1991a) as students remained interested in study-

ing mathematics and continued to take rigorous courses

throughout high school and college. Learning mathematics

at an accelerated rate, such as in a fast-paced class, does not

result in superficial learning nor does it negatively affect sub-

sequent learning (Brody & Benbow, 1987; Kolitch & Brody,

1992; Mills, Ablard, & Lynch, 1992; Swiatek, 1993; Swiatek

& Benbow, 1991a); students who took fast-paced summer

classes self-reported success in later classes, which was also

confirmed by reports from their teachers. Learning at a faster

pace is not detrimental to long-term retention of the subject

matter (Benbow, Perkins, & Stanley, 1983) as evidenced by

strong performance on standardized achievement tests tak-

en long after the class is completed. Also, accomplishing high

school coursework through fast-paced classes did not neg-

atively affect college placement; talent search participants

who used supplemental programs to accelerate were placed

at an appropriate and advanced levels in mathematics in col-

lege (Kolitch & Brody, 1992) unless they requested a special,

alternate placement.

Talent search students who chose to accelerate do not differ

on various personality characteristics, locus of control, and

other psychosocial measures compared to equally able stu-

dents who chose not to (Brody & Benbow, 1987; Richardson

& Benbow, 1990; Swiatek, 1993). Also, they participated in

extra-curricular activities to the same extent as students who

did not accelerate, except, as expected, for students who were

radically accelerated (Swiatek, 1993). Talent search students

who opted for acceleration during high school overwhelm-

ingly reported satisfaction with their choices; they viewed

acceleration as having been a positive influence on their ac-

ademic progress, interest in learning, and peer relationships

(Benbow, Lubinski, & Suchy, 1996).

In summary, the research evidence suggests that talent search

scores can provide a valid indication of level of developed

reasoning ability and learning rate within specific domains

and that these can be matched to educational programs ad-

justed for pacing and level of advanced content. Whereas

the research base on these issues is more substantial in the

mathematical area (see Benbow, 1992, for a review) than the

verbal area, the findings challenge widely held ideas about

the amount of instructional time that is needed for mastery

of content material and the typical approach to using age for

placement in courses and grade-level for the determination

of curriculum content.

Short- and Long-Term Effects

of Talent Search

Accelerative Programs

An important question about accelerative programs is their

influence on students both in the short and long term. The

studies reported below were direct assessments of the effects

of talent search accelerative programs and involved compar-

isons between groups of participants and nonparticipants or

between participants who took different courses or were in

different kinds of programs.

Fox, Brody and Tobin (1985) and Brody and Fox (1980) as-

sessed the impact of three different kinds of educational

programs (an accelerative summer mathematics program,

an in-school accelerated mathematics program and a career

awareness program) completed during middle school on stu-

dents’ subsequent course taking in high school. Comparisons

were made between the three intervention programs and to

control groups of students with similar tested abilities who

were not in any program. Girls who participated in the accel-

erated mathematics summer program continued to be accel-

erated at grade 9 compared to control boys and girls, but that

advantage was lost by grade 11. By grade 11, the summer pro-

gram girls were on par with boys who had not been in a pro-

gram but were more accelerated in mathematics compared to

girls who had not been in a program. The authors concluded

that their results indicate that the summer program helped

talented females to keep up with talented boys who are more

likely to accelerate without any intervention.

Barnett and Durden (1993) compared students who had par-

ticipated in talent search testing only to students who had

participated in the talent search and subsequently in special

summer programs. While both groups of students exhibit-

ed patterns of high achievement and both completed a high

school program of rigorous courses, compared to the tal-

ent-search testing-only group, the students who participated

in summer programs took more advanced courses and AP ex-

ams at an earlier age, were more likely to take the more rigor-

ous AP Calculus BC exam, took College Board Achievement

Figure 1: Income Differences

$4,500

$4,000

$3,500

$3,000

$2,500

$2,000

$1,500

$1,000

$500

118 A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2

Talent Searches : Olszewski-Kubilius

Tests more frequently and earlier, and took more college

classes while still in high school. In summary, the summer

students showed a pattern of continuing to choose acceler-

ative options to a greater extent as they continued through

school than did the talent search only students.

Similarly, Olszewski-Kubilius and Grant (1996) compared tal-

ent search participants who took mathematics classes during

the summer to students who took fast-paced courses in other

subjects. They found that females who studied math accrued

more benefits than did students who took other courses. The

mathematics females earned more honors in math during

high school as well as took more advanced mathematics class-

es. An interesting finding of this study was that benefits ex-

tended beyond mathematics for female subjects as participa-

tion in a summer mathematics program was associated with

taking more AP courses in any subject. The generalization

of effects beyond the specific subject studies in the summer

program may be the result of a general increase in confidence

to succeed in other rigorous academic settings.

Research suggests that students who participate in a fast-

paced mathematics class subsequent to participation in

talent search are more likely to attend a more selective un-

dergraduate institution (Barnett & Durden, 1993; Swiatek

& Benbow, 1991a) and to enter college early (Swiatek & Ben-

bow, 1991a). Other effects include that females are more like-

ly to major in a STEM field in college (Olszewski-Kubilius

and Grant, 1996), attend graduate school (Swiatek and Ben-

bow, 1991), and have higher educational aspirations (Olsze-

wski-Kubilius & Grant, 1996).

A major concern with any type of accelerative educational

option is the effect on student’s self-esteem or self-concept.

A large body of research suggests that students who place

themselves in more academically competitive environments

can experience declines in their perceptions of their academic

abilities as a result of social comparison (Marsh & Hau, 2003;

Marsh, Hau, & Craven, 2004), which can ultimately lower

their educational aspirations and academic effort (Marsh

& Yeung, 1997). This is called the “Big Fish, Little Pond”

phenomenon. However, recent research on talent search

students suggests that those that participate in accelerated

summer programs did not experience significant declines in

either their academic self-concepts or their educational as-

pirations (Makel, Lee, Olszewski-Kubilius, & Putallaz, 2012).

Researchers in gifted education assert that there are many

psycho-social benefits to exposure to challenging academic

environments such as accelerated courses and programs, in-

cluding benchmarking of progress and goal setting, acquisi-

tion of coping skills and resiliency in response to

academic

challenge, and reinforcement of critical mindsets and atti-

tudes about effort (Dai & Rinn, 2008). These benefits may

accrue even in situations where acceleration was not success-

ful. Lee, Olszewski-Kubilius, & Peternel (2010) found that mi-

nority students who were unsuccessfully accelerated in math

in middle school, still saw advantages to learning new material

earlier than their peers, were not discouraged from pursuing

further academic challenges by having to repeat a class, and

most later succeeded in earning good grades in their advanced

math course. Future research needs to clarify how personali-

ty and other aspects of accelerated educational environments

affect academic self-concept, but there is currently little evi-

dence to suggest negative social and emotional effects of tal-

ent search accelerative programming.

In summary, participation in special accelerative programs

subsequent to talent search can have many positive effects

and these extend to high school and college course-tak-

ing and educational aspirations. These effects, particularly

potent for talented females, may be due to increased inter-

est in the subject and enhanced motivation. However, it is

more likely that achieving success in a class that is challeng-

ing, both because of the pacing and advanced nature of the

content matter and placement with intellectual peers, does

much to bolster confidence, raise one’s expectations and

alter mindsets. The fact that students continue to use

accelerative options attests to perceived value and benefits of

these programs.

The effects of participation in talent search programs can

also be less direct. Students who participate in talent search

often are surprised at their performance on the SAT or ACT.

They and their families become aware that their abilities in

an area are exceptional. This may influence their choices of

classes and extracurricular programs within school and result

in a more rigorous educational program that can have pro-

found benefits for students. Benbow and Arjmand (1990) dif-

ferentiated a group of high and low academic achievers, based

on college performance, within a group of students initially

identified as mathematically talented through talent search.

They found that schooling variables, or the precollege curric-

ula and experiences in mathematics and science prior to col-

lege, were the best predictors of differences in achievement

between the two groups. Educational opportunity in terms

of both in school and outside of school-gifted programs has

found to be a distinguishing factor affecting achievement in

early adulthood (Wai, Lubinski, Benbow & Steiger, 2010).

Opportunities must be available to students but also taken

by them. Exposure to an academically rigorous education-

al program over a period of years is also associated with the

development of cognitive abilities measured by the SAT

A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2 119

Talent Searches : Olszewski-Kubilius

and results in greater gains on SAT scores from junior high

to high school (Brody & Benbow, 1990), thereby potentially

enabling more students to qualify for advanced secondary and

college programs.

There is ample research evidence to support the validity of

the accelerative instructional models that have resulted from

the talent searches. There is also evidence about the positive

impact of the Talent Search Model and talent search educa-

tional programs on students. Clearly this is one of the most

successful accelerative models within the field of gifted ed-

ucation. Unfortunately the model is often perceived as ap-

propriate only for access to supplemental summer programs

and has had little impact on programming within schools

(Olszewski-Kubilius & Lee, 2005). Talent search scores can

be used effectively to select students for in-school accelerat-

ed learning programs. A good example of this is the Academi-

cally Talented Youth Program, which operates at several sites

in Michigan. In this program, students are identified via tal-

ent search scores for accelerated programming in high school

that enables them to complete high school coursework in En-

glish or mathematics in 2 or 3 years, starting in middle school,

and begin college studies early (McCarthy, 1999). Students

are released from their home schools to go to a local college

or university to receive their math and/or language arts in-

struction and schools and districts agree to honor and accept

high school credits earned in the program.

Implications of the Talent

Search Programs and Research

for Schools

1. Domain specific assessments, particularly those that assess

several broad areas of ability (e.g. math, verbal, spatial) and

have sufficient ceiling to detect above-grade-level ability and

achievement; therefore, these measures should be used by

schools no later than middle school. The information from

such assessments should be employed by schools: to design

programs and services for students; to place individual stu-

dents into appropriately advanced and accelerated programs;

to provide longer-term academic planning for students; and,

to guide students and parents towards appropriate outside of

school programs and courses.

2. Level of ability and individual differences within a gifted

sample -- especially in the top 1% of ability – represent mean-

ingful information about readiness for academic challenge

and need to be responded to educationally. These differenc-

es have implications for instructional pacing within courses

and level of acceleration within subject areas for individual

students. Educators must be familiar with and be able to

implement a variety of acceleration models that fit content

areas and match student needs (e.g., curriculum compacting,

fast-paced classes, telescoping, subject area acceleration, full

grade acceleration, dual enrollment).

3. Continuous educational programming focused on talent

development is critical, particularly the amount and variety

of experiences that are matched to a student’s interests and

level of ability. These can include opportunities for both ac-

celeration and enrichment, both through school and outside-

of-school programs. Educational dose is related to whether

students continue on talent development paths and to their

adult accomplishments.

4. Schools and districts must actively develop policies that

support acceleration (e.g. early entrance to all levels of school-

ing), allow for earlier specialization of course-taking in areas

of talent, award credit for courses taken outside of school

walls, and support individualization of school programming

for gifted students.

5. Access to above-grade-level testing and subsequent edu-

cational programming is important for all gifted students,

especially those who have been historically under-repre-

sented in gifted programs, such as minority and low-income

students (Lee, Matthews, & Olszewski-Kubilius, 2008). Tal-

ent search programs offer fee waivers and scholarships for

students who need them. More importantly, talent search

programs have developed “preparatory” type program mod-

els that work with students who have had limited education-

al experiences to get them ready to take talent search tests

such as Project Excite (Lee, Olszewski-Kubilius, & Peternel,

2010). This model can be implemented by schools to ensure

that all qualified students have their abilities appropriately

assessed and access to supplementary accelerative, talent de-

velopment educational programs.

References

Assouline, S. G., & Lupkowski-Shoplik, A. E. (2011a). e Talent Search

Model of gifted identiﬁcation. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment,

1-15. doi: 10.1177/0734282911433946.

Assouline, S. G., & Lupkowski-Shoplik, A. E. (2011b). Developing math

talent: A comprehensive guide to math education for gifted students in ele-

mentary and middle school (2nd ed.). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

Barnett, L. B., & Durden, W. G. (1993). Education patterns of academ-

ically talented youth. Gifted Child Quarterly, 37(4), 161-168. doi:

10.1177/001698629303700405

Bartkovich, K. G., & Mezynski, K. (1981). Fast-paced precalculus mathemat-

ics for talented junior-high students: Two recent SMPY programs. Gift-

ed Child Quarterly, 25(2), 73-80. doi: 10.1177/001698628102500206

120 A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2

Talent Searches : Olszewski-Kubilius

Benbow, C. P (1992). Mathematical talent: Its nature and consequences.

In N. Colangelo, S. G. Assouline, & D. L. Ambroson (Eds.), Tal e n t

development: Proceedings from the 1991 Henry B. and Jocelyn Wallace

National Research Symposium on Talent Development (pp. 95 - 123).

New York: Trillium Press.

Benbow, C. P., & Arjmand, O. (1990). Predictors of high academic achieve-

ment in mathematics and science by mathematically talented students:

A longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(3), 430-441.

doi: 10.1037/2200-0663.82.3.430

Benbow, C. P., Lubinski, D., Shea, D. L., & Eftekhari-Sanjani, H. (2000).

Sex diﬀerences in mathematical reasoning ability: eir status 20

years later. Psychological Science, 11(6), 474-480. doi: 10.1111/1467-

9280.00291

Benbow, C. P., Lubinski, D., & Suchy, B. (1996). e impact of SMPY’s

educational programs from the perspective of the participants. In C. P.

Benbow & D. Lubinski (Eds.), Intellectual talent (pp. 266-300). Balti-

more, MD: e Johns Hopkins University Press.

Benbow, C. P., Perkins, S., & Stanley, J. C. (1983). Mathematics taught

at a fast pace: A longitudinal evaluation of SMPY’s ﬁrst class. In C. P.

Benbow and J. C. Stanley (Eds.), Academic precocity: Aspects of its devel-

opment (pp.51-78). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Brody, L. E., & Benbow, C. P. (1990). Eﬀects of high school coursework

and time on SAT scores. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(4), 866-

875. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.82.4.866

Brody, L. E., & Benbow, C. P. (1987). Accelerative strategies: How eﬀec-

tive are they for the gifted. Gifted Child Quarterly, 31(3), 105-109. doi:

10.1177/001698628703100302

Brody, L., & Fox, L. H. (1980). An accelerative intervention program for

mathematically gifted girls. In L. H. Fox, L. Brody & D. Tobin (Eds.),

Women and the mathematical mystique. (pp. 164-178). Hillsdale, NJ:

Erlbaum.

Corwith, S., & Olszewski-Kubilius, P. (2012a). Talent search. In T. Cross

& J. R. Cross (Eds.), Handbook for school counselors serving gifted stu-

dents (pp. 543- 554). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

Corwith, S., & Olszewski-Kubilius, P. (2012b). Academic planning for gift-

ed students. In T. Cross & J. R. Cross (Eds.), Handbook for school coun-

selors serving gifted students (pp. 477-494). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

Dai, D. Y., & Rinn, A. N. (2008). e big-ﬁsh-little-pond eﬀect: What do

we know and where do we go from here? Educational Psychology Review,

20(3), 283-317. doi: 10.1007/s10648-008-9071-x

Fox, L. H., Brody, L., & Tobin, D. (1985). e impact of early interven-

tion programs upon course-taking and attitudes in high school. In S.

F. Chipman, L. R., Brush, & D. M. Wilson (Eds.) Women and math-

ematics: Balancing the equation (pp. 249-274). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Kolitch, E. R. & Brody, L. E. (1992). Mathematics acceleration of highly

talented students: An evaluation. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36(2), 78-86.

doi: 10.1177/001698629203600205

Lee, S. Y., Matthews, M. S., & Olszewski-Kubilius, P. (2008). A national

picture of talent search and talent search educational programs. Gifted

Child Quarterly, 52 (1), 55-69. doi: 10.1177/0016986207311152

Lee, S.-Y., Olszewski-Kubilius,P., & Peternel, G. (2010). e eﬃcacy of ac-

ademic acceleration for gifted minority students. Gifted Child Quarterly,

54 (3), 189-208. doi: 10.1177/0016986210369256

Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (2006). Study of Mathematically Precocious

Youth after 35 years: Uncovering antecedents for the development of

math-science expertise. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1(4), 316-

345. doi : 10.1111/j.1745-6916.2006.00019.x

Lubinski, D., Benbow, C. P., Webb, R.M., & Bleske-Rechek, A. (2006).

Tracking exceptional human capital over two decades. Psychological Sci-

ence, 17(3), 194-199. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01685.x

Lupkowski-Shoplik, A. E., Benbow, C. P., Assouline, S. G., & Brody, L. E.

(2003). In N. Colangelo & G. Davis (Eds.) Handbook of gifted educa-

tion, 2nd Ed. (pp. 204-218). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon

Lynch, S. J. (1992). Fast-paced high school science for the academically tal-

ented: A six-year perspective. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36(3), 147-154.

doi: 10.1177/001698629203600305

Makel, M. C., Lee, S.-Y, Olszewski-Kubilius, P., & Putallaz, M, (2012).

Changing the pond, not the ﬁsh: Following high-ability students across

diﬀerent educational environments. Journal of Educational Psychology,

104(3), 778-792. doi: 10.1037/a0027558 f

Marsh, H. W., & Hau, K. (2003). Big-ﬁsh-little-pond eﬀect on academic

self-concept: A cross-cultural (26-country) test of the negative eﬀects

of academically selective schools. American Psychologist, 58(5), 364-

376. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.58.5.364

Marsh, H. W., Hau, K., & Craven, R. (2004). e big-ﬁsh-little-pond

eﬀect stands up to scrutiny. American Psychologist, 59, 269-271. doi:

10.1037/003-066X.59.4.269

Marsh, H. W., & Yeung, A. S. (1997). Coursework selection: Relations to

academic self-concept and achievement. American Educational Research

Journal, 34(4), 691-720. doi: 10.3102/00028312034004691

McCarthy, C. R. (1999). Assimilating the talent search model into the

school day. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 9(3), 114-123. doi:

10.1177/1932202X9800900304

Mills, C. J., Ablard, K. E., & Lynch, S. J. (1992). Academically talented stu-

dents’ preparation for advanced coursework after an individually-paced

precalculus class. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 16(1), 3-17. doi:

10.1177/016235329201600102

Olszewski-Kubilius, P. (Spring, 1998a). Talent search: Purposes, rationale

and role in gifted education. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 9(3)

106-114. doi: 10.1177/1932202X9800900303

Olszewski-Kubilius, P. (Spring, 1998b). Research evidence regard-

ing the validity and eﬀects of talent search educational pro-

grams. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 9(3), 134-138. doi:

10.1177/1932202X9800900306

Olszewski-Kubilius, P. (1989). Development of academic talent: e role

of academic programs. In J. VanTassel-Baska & P. Olszewski-Kubilius

(Eds.) Patterns of inﬂuence on gifted learners. e home, the self, and the

school (pp. 214-230). New York: Teachers College Press.

Olszewski-Kubilius P., & Grant, B. (1996). Academically talented wom-

en and mathematics: e role of special programs and support from

others in acceleration, achievement and aspiration. In K. D. Noble &

R. F. Subotnik (Eds.) Remarkable women: Perspectives on female talent

development (pp. 281-294). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.

Olszewski-Kubilius, P., Kulieke, M.J., Willis, G.B., & Krasney, N.

(1989). An analysis of the validity of SAT entrance scores for accel-

erated classes. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 13(1), 37-54. doi:

10.1177/016235328901300104

Olszewski-Kubilius, P. & Lee. S. Y. (Summer, 2005). How schools use

talent search scores for gifted adolescents. Roeper Review, 27 (4), 233-

240. doi: 10.1080/02783190509554324

Olszewski-Kubilius, P. & omson, D. (2014). Talent search. In J. A.

Plucker and C. M Callahan (Eds.) Critical issues and practices in

gifted education. What the research says (pp. 633-644). Waco, TX:

Prufrock Press.

Park, G., Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (2007). Contrasting intellectual

patterns predict creativity in the arts and sciences. Psychological Science,

18(11), 948-952. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.02007.x

Richardson, T. M. & Benbow, C. P. (1990). Long-term eﬀects of accel-

eration on the social-emotional adjustment of mathematically preco-

cious youths. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(3), 464-470. doi:

10.1037/0022-0663.82.3.464

A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2 121

Talent Searches : Olszewski-Kubilius

Subotnik, R.F., Tai, R.H., Almarode, J., & Crowe, E. (2013). What are

the value added contributions of selective secondary schools of math-

ematics, science, and technology? Preliminary analyses from a U.S.

national research study. Talent Development and Excellence, 5(1), 87-

97. Retrieved on July 14, 2014 from http://www.iratde.org/images/

TDE/2013-1/tde2013-1-08subotnik.pdf

Swiatek, M. A. (1993). A decade of longitudinal research on academic

acceleration through the Study of Mathematically Precocious Youth.

Roeper Review, 15(3), 120-124. doi: 10.1080/02783199309553484

Swiatek, M. A. & Benbow, C. P. (1991a). Ten-year longitudinal follow-up

of participants in a fast-paced mathematics course. Journal for Research

in Mathematics Education, 22(2), 138-150. doi: 10.2307/749590

Swiatek, M. A. & Benbow, C. P. (1991b). Ten-year longitudinal follow-up

of ability-matched accelerated and unaccelerated gifted students. Jour-

nal of Educational Psychology, 83(4), 528-538. doi: 10.1037/0022-

0663.83.4.528

Wai, J., Lubinski, D., Benbow, C. P., & Steiger, J. H. (2010) Accomplish-

ment in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM)

and its relation to STEM educational dose: A 25-year longitudinal

study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(4), 860-871. doi:10.1037/

a0019454

Wai, J., Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (2009). Spatial ability for STEM do-

mains: Aligning over 50 years of cumulative psychological knowledge

solidiﬁes its importance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(4), 817-

835. doi: 10.1037/a0016127

Wai, J., Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (2005). Creativity and occupational

accomplishments among intellectually precocious youths: An age 13 to

33 longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97 (3), 484-

492. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.97.3.484

122 A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2

Talent Searches : Olszewski-Kubilius

A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2 123

Acceleration and STEM : Ihrig & Degner

Introduction

In 1965, Delores Elaine Keller wrote, “Recognizing that, in a

democracy, one must do all within one’s power to take care of

the undernourished, underdeveloped, and underprivileged,

it is equally as important that under such a system some at-

tention be given to those individuals whose intellect is under-

nourished, underworked, and understimulated. … Since high

ability students exist, it is the duty of instructors to provide

the opportunities for these students to think” (pp. 108–110).

Despite the passing of 50 years since Keller advocated for

high-ability students to have access to these opportuni-

ties, her words still ring true. More progress must be made

in changing public conceptions of the needs of high-ability

students and developing opportunities at a high level. This is

true in all content areas and is particularly critical in science,

technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) given the

increasing demands on the STEM workforce and the necessi-

ty of leaders in all disciplines to have deep and robust under-

standings of the nature of STEM disciplines.

Decades of research has informed us that acceleration is

an eective method of challenging academically talented

youth (e.g., Colangelo, Assouline, & Gross, 2004). Research

focusing on students with exceptional talent in STEM, in-

cluding the longitudinal studies conducted by the Study of

Mathematically Precocious Youth (see Wai, this volume),

has demonstrated that students talented in STEM thrive on

accelerative opportunities. Yet, educators and the general

public seem reluctant to consider allowing these students to

move ahead academically. Four primary excuses are frequent-

ly given for not accelerating students in STEM. These excus-

es were adapted from Assouline and Lupkowski-Shoplik’s

(2011) collection of excuses that have a negative impact on

the development of math talent. Students and their families

are inaccurately told:

• Excuse 1: Acceleration in STEM may cause

academic harm.

• Excuse 2: The new standards are advanced and

we dierentiate curriculum.

• Excuse 3: We already have enrichment.

• Excuse 4: This student is bright, but not gifted

enough for acceleration.

These four major excuses, and their related excuses, are listed

in Table 1. The decades-long habit of holding back high-abil-

ity STEM students must be replaced with the habit of pro-

viding appropriate opportunities for them to develop to their

full potential. The remainder of this chapter will elaborate

the reasons why this is so important.

The ratio of STEM to non-STEM degree earners in the

United States is among the lowest in the world (National

Science Board, 2007). As a result, there has been a national

call to develop the potential of students with high ability in

STEM disciplines (National Academy of Sciences, 2007; Na-

tional Science Board, 2010). This appeal was reiterated and

emphasized in the President’s Council of Advisors on Science

and Technology report (Holdren & Lander, 2012) that notes,

Abstract

Developing STEM talent means that appropriate and necessary opportunities for high-ability STEM students—that extend beyond STEM

exposure and literacy—must be created. Years of research supports acceleration as an effective method of challenging academically

talented youth; acceleration is crucial to the development of high level STEM talent so that individuals exhibiting that talent can assume

leadership positions. This chapter highlights four excuses for not accelerating gifted students in STEM coursework during their K–12

schooling experience and provides research-based responses supporting the use of acceleration in a program for those students.

Acceleration and

STEM Education

Lori M. Ihrig, The University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa

Katherine M. Degner, St. Ambrose University, Davenport, Iowa

Chapter 10

124 A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2

Acceleration and STEM : Ihrig & Degner

“the need to add to the American workforce over the next

decade approximately one million more STEM professionals

than the U.S. will produce at current rates” (p. 1). However,

only 40% of students who enter college seeking a STEM

degree realize their aspirations (Hurtado, Chang, Eagan, &

Gasiewski, 2010; Holdren & Lander, 2012).

Those who work with high ability students may attribute the

problem of college attrition to students who lack STEM abil-

ity or burnout. However, in They’re Not Dumb, They’re Dier-

ent, Tobias (1990) reported that very capable science majors

chose to leave for other disciplines in large part because their

science courses lacked intellectual engagement, primarily

emphasized memorization of isolated facts, and ignored the

history and nature of science. She wrote:

They hungered—all of them—for information about how

the various methods they were learning had come to be, why

physicists and chemists understand nature the way they do,

and what were the connections between what they were

learning and the larger world. (p. 81)

Moreover, in a working paper on STEM persistence between

the ﬁrst and second years of college, Grith (2010) found

that when women and minority students earn higher grades

in non-STEM courses during their ﬁrst year of college, they

are less likely to remain in their STEM major. This fact is

particularly devastating when viewed in conjunction with

the knowledge that minority students are underrepresented

in gifted education (U.S. Department of Education, 2008).

What excuses do we provide gifted young women and mi-

norities for excluding them from opportunities for acceler-

ation that would prepare them for success in their ﬁrst years

of college?

One implication of denying high-ability STEM students ap-

propriate acceleration is that they are not adequately chal-

lenged in their formative K–12 years, and they are deprived

of the opportunity to experience struggle. In addition to

their intellect being undernourished, underworked, and un-

derstimulated, their unchallenging educational experiences

may be inadvertently promoting a ﬁxed mindset of intelli-

gence where high-ability students see their intelligence as a

quantity and think they were born with a set amount (Dweck,

2008, 2010). Students with a ﬁxed mindset believe that if you

are smart, then tasks should come easily and naturally. And

because these students value looking smart, they opt out of

challenging experiences where they might struggle. When we

deny high-ability STEM students appropriate opportunities

for academic challenges, including acceleration, we not only

hold them back, but we may be building and reinforcing a

concept of intelligence with repercussions that extend well

beyond slowing them down.

Table 1: Excuses for Not Accelerating Students in STEM

Excuse 1: Acceleration in STEM may cause academic harm.

• High-ability students are not ready to study abstract disciplines such as algebra or chemistry until high school.

• Acceleration leads to detrimental gaps in understanding.

• Students who move through curriculum quickly will run out of classes before they ﬁnish high school.

• Accelerated students will burn out.

Excuse 2: The new standards are advanced, and we also differentiate curriculum.

• The Common Core State Standards in Math weave advanced concepts throughout the school years–beginning in elementary school–making additional

advanced coursework unnecessary for elementary and middle school students.

• The Next Generation Science Standards are rigorous and internationally benchmarked–making additional advanced coursework unnecessary for

elementary and middle school students.

• We have provided our teachers with professional development in differentiating curriculum.

Excuse 3: We already have enrichment.

• Our elementary gifted program provides enrichment opportunities.

• We have extracurricular STEM clubs and a science fair for all of our students.

Excuse 4: The student is bright, but not gifted enough for acceleration.

• While she demonstrates high-ability, she did not earn 100% on the pretest so she does not qualify for accelerated programming.

• He does not solve math problems quickly.

• She always does well on exams, but does not complete homework assignments.

A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2 125

Acceleration and STEM : Ihrig & Degner

Research on STEM Acceleration

In the following sections, the four excuses—and their many

permutations—are reframed as questions, concerns, and ra-

tionales expressed by oftentimes well-meaning, but poten-

tially ill-informed parents, educators, and policy-makers.

Each section explores evidence that trumps the excuses that

are commonly used to justify denying high-ability STEM stu-

dents opportunities to develop to their fullest potential.

Excuse 1—Acceleration in STEM may

cause academic harm

Well-meaning school personnel might say, “We are con-

cerned that the abstract concepts of advanced STEM

courses are developmentally inappropriate for a child of

this age.” Our understanding of children’s abilities to compre-

hend and work with abstract concepts is grounded in the re-

search of Jean Piaget and his theory of cognitive development

(Schunk, 1991). Piaget concluded that children pass through a

ﬁxed sequence regarding the ability to handle abstract think-

ing. Development begins with an initial stage where infants

are creating concrete understandings of the world, for example

“Balls are for throwing.” Subsequently, development continues

and culminates in a stage where teens and adults are acquir-

ing ability to think abstractly—such as thinking about systems

with dependent variables. For example, understanding accel-

eration as meters per second per second (m/s/s).

The work of Piaget and other developmental theorists has

important implications for STEM educators working to

make sense of the conceptual barriers students may encoun-

ter when developing robust and accurate understandings of

abstract concepts. However, developmental theories are

taken out of context when applied to high-ability STEM stu-

dents and used as a rationale for limiting their access to ad-

vanced concepts and courses. Piaget (1972) states:

The rate at which a child progresses through

the developmental succession may vary … Dif-

ferent children also vary in terms of the ar-

eas of function to which they apply formal

operations, according to their aptitudes and

their professional specialization. Thus … it is

best to test the young person in a ﬁeld which

is relevant to his career and interests. (p. 1)

Developmental theories address patterns, but developmen-

tal theorists argue that there can be exceptions. Simply put,

high-ability students may be able engage in abstract thinking

at young ages. In fact, Daniel Keating found evidence to sup-

port the idea that mathematically talented students achieve

the level of formal operational thinking at a younger age than

typical students (Keating, 1975; Keating & Schaer, 1975).

Without child and domain-speciﬁc evidence, claiming that

a high-ability student is too young for a course that requires

abstract thinking is an unfounded excuse.

Educators might also ask, “Won’t accelerated students

have detrimental gaps in their understanding because

they skipped material?” Evidence supports the answer,

“No.” In a review of ﬁndings from over 40 years of research

produced by the Study of Mathematically Precocious Youth,

Benbow (2012) asserts:

Greg Park, as part of his dissertation, compared

students who were accelerated by at least a year

with students who were not accelerated (Park,

Lubinski, & Benbow, 2011). The two groups were

matched on a dozen relevant variables. Park found

that those who were accelerated had achieved

more career-wise with more creative production

by their mid-40s than had those who were not

accelerated. Given the sophistication and extent

of the matching procedure, acceleration had to be

the most likely cause for the dierences in achieve-

ment. Numerous other studies have come to the

same conclusion (e.g., Rogers, 2007; Swiatek &

Benbow, 1991a, 1991b). However, the other studies

were less rigorously designed than Park et al. (2011).

This supports the National Mathematics Advisory

Panel’s (2008) conclusion that, as a policy, acceler-

ation should be a means for meeting the expressed

needs of mathematically talented students.” (p. 23)

In science, Lynch (1992) studied the academic achievement

of gifted students (ages 12–16) who participated in a three-

week science program. Students in this summer program

took biology (n=353; average age 13.6 years), chemistry (n=339;

average age 14.2 years), or physics (n=213; average age 14.8

years) classes taught by Advanced Placement Program teach-

ers. These younger, high-ability students performed better

on College Entrance Examination Board achievement tests

than high school students assessed in their junior or senior

year who had taken the courses for a traditional full academic

year. Moreover, although the students in the accelerated pro-

gram ranged in age from 12–16, there was no signiﬁcant cor-

relation between age and science achievement for chemistry

or physics; however, there was a positive correlation between

age and achievement in biology. In this six-year project, fol-

low-up studies documented that those students who were

accelerated in science through their experiences in the sum-

126 A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2

Acceleration and STEM : Ihrig & Degner

mer program still performed well in the accelerated science

classes they took at their high schools. Lynch concluded,

“[A]cademically talented youngsters can master the second-

ary sciences approximately two years before they are normal-

ly oered in American schools, and in about half the time

typically spent in school” (p. 147). These studies point to the

short- and long-term beneﬁts of STEM acceleration. If there

were detrimental gaps in the understandings of accelerated

STEM students, they would show up in later measures as stu-

dents progress through their schooling and careers. They do

not (Lubinski & Benbow, 2006).

Yet another concern is, “If high-ability STEM students

are accelerated, they will run out of STEM courses before

they graduate high school.” This concern may have been le-

gitimate decades ago, but with the alternatives that current-

ly exist beyond typical high school oerings, it is no longer

reasonable. Programs that oer online Advanced Placement

courses—such as the Iowa Online Advance Placement Acade-

my (see www.belinblank.org/ioapa)—create advanced learning

opportunities for students to participate in without having

to leave their school. Alternatively, students who outgrow

the opportunities within their district may be appropriately

served by early entrance to college programs, such as the Early

Entrance Program at the University of Iowa (formerly called

the National Academy of Arts, Sciences, and Engineering)

and other programs described by Roberts & Alderdice in this

volume. Programs such as these support high ability students

who enter college before completing their senior year of high

school. Denying students accelerated opportunities because

advanced coursework is not available is a misleading excuse.

Other educators assume that, “If we accelerate gifted

STEM students, they will burn out,” but researchers

have found that this is simply not the case. For example,

in her presentation of research on gifted learners in science,

VanTassel-Baska (1998) discussed how young students’ ex-

periences in working with “talented faculty and a highly able

peer group” had a positive impact on students. She also de-

scribed the importance of mentors to providing “high-end

learning opportunities in science at all levels” (p. 3). High

ability STEM students crave challenges prior to their college

years. In fact, early interest in STEM is a predictor of per-

sisting in a STEM major and earning a STEM postsecondary

degree (Tai, Liu, Maltese, & Fan, 2006). Preparing students

for success in pursuing postsecondary STEM degrees neces-

sitates appropriate mathematics and science coursework in

high school (Lynch, 2011).

Moreover, the concept of “educational dose” was introduced

as a part of two 25-year longitudinal studies of adult STEM

accomplishments (Wai, Lubinski, Benbow, & Steiger, 2010).

Educational dose refers to “the number of precollegiate ed-

ucational opportunities beyond the norm that students par-

ticipate in” (p. 870). Students who experienced a higher ed-

ucational dose (e.g., STEM AP classes, college classes while

in high school, participation in science competitions, or re-

search experiences) had greater STEM accomplishments by

the time they were 40, such as STEM PhDs, tenure, patents,

publications, and occupations. Findings from other studies

converge to support the argument that acceleration leads

to increased levels of achievement, not burnout (Makel &

Putallaz, 2014; Rogers, 2007; Swiatek & Benbow, 1991). Pro-

tecting high-achieving STEM students from burnout is a

baseless excuse for denying students opportunities.

Excuse 2—The new standards are

advanced, and we also differentiate

curriculum

If the adoption of new standards is employed as a rationale

for denying high-ability STEM students opportunities for ac-

celeration, then the way mathematics and science standards

are designed and implemented to meet the needs of gifted

students must be carefully examined. The following sections

will examine Common Core Math Standards and the Next

Generation Science Standards in turn.

Educators might say, “We don’t need to accelerate stu-

dents in math because we have adopted the Common

Core Math Standards, which has advanced math con-

cepts throughout.” The authors of the Common Core

State Standards for Mathematics (CCSSM) (National Gov-

ernors Association Center for Best Practices [NGA Center]

& Council of Chief State School Ocers [CCSSO], 2010a)

identify three key shifts in the way mathematics should be

taught to students in grades K – 12:

1. Greater focus on fewer topics

2. Coherence

3. Rigor

While these key shifts in mathematics education are meant

to raise the bar in mathematics instruction for all students,

this does not mean that merely implementing the Common

Core State Standards for Mathematics eliminates the need

for acceleration and more advanced work for some advanced

students. As stated by Johnsen, Ryser, & Assouline (2014):

Although the CCSSM standards are strong,

they were not developed with the mathemati-

A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2 127

Acceleration and STEM : Ihrig & Degner

cally advanced learner as the focus; therefore,

they are not suciently advanced to accommo-

date the needs of most learners who are gift-

ed in mathematics (Johnsen & Sheeld, 2013;

VanTassel-Baska, 2013). The CCSSM develop-

ers noted that some students may traverse the

standards before the end of high school (NGA

& CCSSO, 2010b), which will require educa-

tors to provide advanced content for them. (p. 7)

The implementation of such standards, however, may help

identify a way in which to accelerate gifted students through-

out the mathematics curriculum. Johnsen et al. (2014) ac-

knowledge that a more focused K–12 mathematics curriculum

clearly identiﬁes what concepts children understand. This

focus on particular mathematics topics across the elementa-

ry school mathematics curriculum should make acceleration

through the K–8 mathematics curriculum more coherent

(National Association for Gifted Children [NAGC], 2014).

Additionally, NAGC applauds the standards of mathematical

practice outlined in CCSS-M for placing a renewed emphasis

on the importance of thinking and reasoning, alongside com-

putational mathematical knowledge.

The CCSS-M highlights the importance of mathematical

reasoning and sense-making for all students. However, Ket-

tler (2014) ﬁnds that as early as upper elementary school,

there is a distinct dierence between the critical thinking

skills of gifted elementary school students compared to their

average-ability counterparts. Because of the sophistication

of critical thinking skills already being used by gifted ele-

mentary school students, to continue to expect them to learn

reasoning and sense-making in mathematics does not aord

them the same opportunities for challenge and growth as

their peers. In other words, what is challenging and stimulat-

ing for the typical elementary student will not be adequate-

ly challenging for the mathematically advanced student in

elementary school.

For this reason, acceleration through the mathematics cur-

riculum for gifted elementary school students should not

only be content focused, but also it should be focused on the

mathematical reasoning students are expected to exercise in

their mathematics classes. A recent survey conﬁrmed previ-

ous ﬁndings that elementary school mathematics teachers

in the United States view themselves as competent in the

area of teaching mathematically gifted elementary students.

However, many of these same teachers do not think math-

ematically gifted students should be taught in a classroom

separate from their peers. Participants in this study indicated

that they felt that students could be adequately challenged in

mathematics through dierentiation (Shayshon, Gal, Tesler,

& Ko 2014). This is in contrast to ﬁndings from surveys of

mathematically gifted students who indicate they are bored

and under-stimulated in general education mathematics

classrooms (Archambault et al., 1993).

The introduction of new academic standards is meant to

raise the bar of expectation in the mathematics classroom

for all students. However, raising the bar for all students ex-

cept for the mathematically talented students is to give them

much of the same experience they had before the adoption of

CCSS-M—they are under-challenged, and therefore are likely

to lose interest in an area in which they have great talent.

Similar to the previous excuse, educators might also

state, “We don’t need to accelerate students in science

because we adopted rigorous standards for all students

with the Next Generation Science Standards.” Indeed,

the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) are self-de-

scribed as rigorous standards. However, this claim begs the

question, “Rigorous for whom?” In an article published by

members of the NGSS Diversity and Equity Team (Lee, Mill-

er, & Januszyk, 2014), the authors describe how the NGSS

subtitle “All Standards, All Students” informed their work

while assisting with the development of the standards. “The

NGSS Diversity and Equity Team takes the stance that the

standards must be made accessible to all students, especial-

ly those who have traditionally been underserved in science

classrooms” (p.224). The Team was charged to “highlight di-

versity and equity issues in relation to the NGSS speciﬁcally

as the NGSS present both learning opportunities and chal-

lenges for all students to attain rigorous standards” (p. 226).

The NGSS were designed with the explicit intent of extending

the cognitive expectations traditionally reserved for gifted stu-

dents to all students; however, the NGSS were not designed to ex-

pand the rigor and cognitive expectations for high-ability students.

In the statement “the standards must be made accessible to

all students,” the word accessible can also be understood to

mean providing gifted learners with access to accelerated

opportunities. As argued by the Diversity and Equity Team

in the NGSS appendix materials, “The NGSS are intended

to provide a foundation for all students, including those who

can and should surpass the NGSS performance expectations”

(NGSS Lead States, 2013, p. 1). Caution is required in taking

this statement at face value. Access to appropriate intellectu-

al opportunities for high-ability students may not be grant-

ed by the grade-level standards delineated for students. And

they should not have to patiently languish while they wait for

rigorous opportunities:

128 A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2

Acceleration and STEM : Ihrig & Degner

… the Next Generation Science Standards per-

formance expectations should not limit the

curriculum. Students interested in pursuing sci-

ence further (through Advanced Placement or

other advanced courses) should have the oppor-

tunity to do so. The Next Generation Science

Standards performance expectations provide

a foundation for rigorous advanced courses in

science or engineering that some students may

choose to take. (NGSS Lead States, 2013, p. xxiii)

The NGSS does address the need for teachers to dierentiate

instruction for high ability learners. Yet in a case study devot-

ed to illustrating eective classroom strategies employed by

an elementary teacher, they begin by claiming “Although the

NGSS provide academic rigor for all students, teachers can

employ strategies to ensure that gifted and talented students

receive instruction that meets their unique needs as science

learners” (NGSS Lead States, 2013, p. 1). There is a pervasive

need throughout the NGSS to ardently claim that the NGSS

is rigorous for all students, a claim that disparages high-abili-

ty students who will only experience rigorous content if they

have the opportunity to encounter NGSS standards desig-

nated for higher grades. While the NGSS are considered rig-

orous in comparison to the minimum competency state stan-

dards they were developed to replace, it is a dubious claim

that the needs of all high-ability students are met by rigorous

grade-level NGSS.

Another excuse oered is, “Our teachers meet the needs

of high ability STEM students because they have been

trained in dierentiation.” Teachers must engage in some

key research-based practices to meet the needs of all stu-

dents, including high-ability students. However, as Tomlin-

son (2005) notes, eective practice is necessary, but insu-

cient, in meeting the needs of gifted learners.

Although it is the case that there is no such thing

as eective curriculum and instruction for gifted

learners in the absence of eective curriculum and

instruction, it is not the case that the story ends

there for most gifted learners. Given the cogni-

tive capacity of students who are highly able, it is

likely that they will—at least at some times and in

some contexts—require curriculum and instruc-

tion that is more challenging than we would ex-

pect of less advanced learners, at least if we expect

the advanced learners to continue to grow. (p. 162)

From a base of high quality curriculum and highly eective

instruction, teachers can successfully dierentiate instruc-

tion so that advanced learners can continue to learn. How-

ever, dierentiation has limits that can only be attended to

by acceleration. This is because successful dierentiation re-

quires teachers to attend to:

• Appropriateness of Pacing. For very bright

students, accelerated pacing through dierenti-

ation does not feel accelerated: it is a comfort-

able pace. Tomlinson (2005) states, “There is

considerable evidence that pacing … is one way

of ensuring that good curriculum and instruc-

tion is appropriately adapted to address the

needs of some highly able students” (p. 163). In

fact, even if the pace is increased in the regular

classroom, it might still be too slow for the

talented student. Making these adjustments,

to properly accelerate pacing of instruction,

is challenging for teachers with a classroom of

students who have varying abilities.

• Degree of Challenge. As the educational

community has long known from the work

of Vygotsky (1978), learning takes place when

learners are working beyond what they are

capable of achieving on their own, but within

what they can achieve with the help of more

knowledgeable others. Without appropriate

challenge, high-ability students are not learn-

ing. Encountering challenge ensures that gifted

students “learn to tolerate and tackle challeng-

ing work, and ultimately appreciate the role

of challenge in helping them grow into their

possibilities” (Tomlinson, 2005, p. 164).

• Developing Passion. Dierentiating curric-

ulum for high-ability students to develop in

areas of interest and strength means providing

students with choice to engage in complex

work of high personal relevance. This work

should require the development of advanced

skills, the use of creativity, and critical feed-

back from more knowledge others (Tomlinson,

2005, p. 164).

More knowledgeable others play a signiﬁcant and crucial role

in dierentiating instruction for high-ability STEM students.

Following a review of how schools are meeting the needs of

gifted math students, Dimitriadis (2012a) concludes, “The

education of mathematically gifted children is not an easy

matter that can be addressed simply by separating students

into ability groups and giving more dicult work to more able

ones. Gifted mathematicians are exceptional students who

have special needs, and because of this they need teachers’ at-

A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2 129

Acceleration and STEM : Ihrig & Degner

tention and continuous support through focused instruction

and work at higher cognitive levels in order to develop their

potential to the fullest extent” (p. 73). Skillful accelerated dif-

ferentiation mediated by a teacher is illustrated in the NGSS

case study where a teacher compacts curriculum to make time

for students to study middle school standards as fourth grad-

ers (NGSS Lead States, 2013). However without such accel-

eration, high-ability students are engaging in activities and

they are meeting rigorous standards, but they are not learning

something new (see Southern & Jones, this volume).

While it is possible for teachers to provide opportunities for

acceleration within the context of dierentiating tradition-

al curriculum and instruction (as the NGSS case study illus-

trates), the reality is that teachers face “increased pressure

to meet state testing goals [which] appears to directly aect

teachers’ instructional and assessment behaviors, as they in-

creasingly provide students with experiences that closely re-

semble, if not directly mimic state tests” Brighton, 2002, p.

30). These changes in teachers’ behaviors may partially explain

the results reported from the 2011 National Assessment of Ed-

ucational Progress that the average science scores were “high-

er than the 2009 scores for all but the highest-performing

students” (National Center for Education Statistics [NCES],

2012, p. 7). However, in mathematics—where subject matter

whole-grade acceleration is more common than teacher con-

structed dierentiation of grade-level curriculum and instruc-

tion—the number of students scoring at both the advanced and

proﬁcient levels are signiﬁcantly higher than in 2011 (NCES,

2013). The dierence may also be accounted for by data on the

amount of time students spend engaging in mathematics and

science instruction. While almost all elementary classrooms

have daily mathematics instruction, science is taught daily in

only 20% of classrooms. And even though mathematics is be-

ing taught daily, students are receiving between 22 and 35 more

minutes of reading instruction than mathematics instruction

each day from teachers who do not feel very well-prepared to

teach mathematics (Banilower et al., 2013).

The limited amount of time available to teach STEM disci-

plines in the elementary classroom, and teachers’ low sense

of preparation to teach mathematics, decreases the likeli-

hood that teachers have the time and expertise to eectively

dierentiate for high-ability STEM students. For example, in

a study of dierent models for providing instruction to high

ability elementary mathematics students in England, Dim-

itriadis (2012b) found that “the existence of a special pro-

gramme—even if it is well-organized by an expert, the choice

of challenging work and the good preparation of the teacher

are not enough to meet the needs of gifted mathematicians

within classrooms, and to help them to extend themselves”

on mathematics assessments (p. 254).

For middle and high school students, Appendix J of the

NGSS lists example course maps. However, none of the ex-

ample trajectories are for gifted learners, nor are dierentia-

tion recommendations for high ability students made within

the maps. Adams, Cotabish, and Ricci (2014) argue, “As in

mathematics, advanced and talented science students need

access to advanced classes earlier and more often than typi-

cal learners” (p. 60). The authors of Using the Next Generation

Science Standards with Gied and Advanced Learners (Adams et

al., 2014) recommend the following opportunities for acceler-

ation be made available for high-ability STEM students:

• allowing students to take two science courses

simultaneously;

• allowing students in schools with block sched-

uling to take a science course in both semesters

of the same academic year;

• oering summer courses that are designed to

provide the equivalent experience of a full-year

course;

• creating dierent compaction ratios, includ-

ing 4 years of high school content into 3 years

beginning in ninth grade;

• creating hybrid courses; and

• allowing students to participate in programs

such as the AP Cambridge Capstone Program

(pp. 60–62).

The Common Core State Standards for Mathematics (NGA

Center, & CCSSO, 2010b) explicitly describes models for ac-

celeration for high-ability mathematics students. In Appen-

dix A: Designing High School Mathematics Courses Based

on the Common Core State Standards, the following path-

ways are described. (See Figure 2.):

• Traditional—two algebra courses and one ge-

ometry courses

• Integrated—three integrated courses, each

with number, algebra, geometry, probability,

and statistics concepts

• Compacted Traditional—seventh and eighth

grade math content completed in seventh

grade and Algebra I completed in eighth grade

• Compacted Integrated— seventh and eighth

grade integrated math content completed in

seventh grade and high school Mathematics I

completed in eighth grade

130 A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2

Acceleration and STEM : Ihrig & Degner

Dierentiation is a well-intentioned accommodation and it

may meet the needs of some advanced learners. However, a

matter-of-fact denial of opportunities for acceleration for

high-ability STEM students— based on the ideal of dieren-

tiation—is an unpromising justiﬁcation.

Excuse 3—We already have enrichment

While other sections of this chapter focused on dierent

aspects of an excuse in turn, the sections for Excuses 3 and

4 will address each excuse holistically. The same scholarship

underlies the variety of forms each of these excuses can take.

“While in elementary and middle school, can’t we meet

the needs of our gifted STEM students through our gift-

ed program, STEM club, and science fair?” As discussed

in Developing Math Talent (Assouline & Lupkowski-Shoplik,

2011) the nature of many elementary and middle school gift-

ed programs are pull-out programs, which create opportuni-

ties for extended learning or enrichment, for gifted learners.

Many pull-out programs are structured so that students leave

their regular classroom one or two times a week to attend a

45–60 minute enrichment class. The enrichment curriculum

may be writing biographies, problem-solving activities, mak-

ing a video on the school or town’s history, preparing for a

science fair, etc.

Among many criteria for identiﬁcation for an enrichment

program, there is generally a global cuto score on a stan-

dardized test that a student must achieve to be considered for

enrichment. For example, in one district’s online handbook

for their Extended Learning Program, the process of identiﬁ-

cation states that the student’s Measures of Academic Progress®

(MAP®) assessment reading and math scores must be at or

above the 97th percentile. When using the Cognitive Abilities

Test

(CogAT®) for identiﬁcation of students for enrich-

ment programs, cut-o scores are often used. Nonetheless,

using such cut-o scores is not a recommended practice:

… extreme discrepancies in abilities are much

more common among the most (and least) able

students than among average ability children.

Therefore, procedures for identifying academ-

ically talented students that either deliberately

or inadvertently rely on a single composite score

that averages across ability domains will exclude

many children who reason well in particular sym-

bol systems. Even students with strong ability to

reason in two symbol systems can have scores in

the third area that bring down their composite

score. Consistently high scores across multiple

domains is not a necessary feature of giftedness.

True, those who exhibit high scores in all do-

mains tested are very able. But they are not the

only gifted students who warrant special atten-

tion. (Lohman, Gambrell, & Lakin, 2008, p. 279)

The practice of using composite cut-o scores for selec-

tion and oering only general enrichment programming for

high-ability students means that enrichment programs dier

from acceleration programs in some key goals for students

with high STEM abilities. In fact, some students with excep-

tional abilities in STEM might be completely left out of their

elementary school’s gifted programs.

Figure 1: Traditional and Integrated Course Pathway Models

Adapted om The Common Core Standards for Mathematics (NGA Center, & CCSSO, 2010b, p.4).

Traditional

Pathway Typical

in the U.S.

High School

Algebra 1

Mathematics I

Courses in higher level

mathematics: Precalculus,

Calculus, Advanced Statistics,

Discrete Mathematics,

Advanced Quantitative

Reasoning, or courses

designed for career technical

programs of study

Geometry

Mathematics II

Algebra II

Mathematics III

Integrated

Pathway Typical

Outside of U.S.

A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2 131

Acceleration and STEM : Ihrig & Degner

The ideological dierences between enrichment and domain

speciﬁc acceleration are reﬂected in the identiﬁcation and

selection process for enrichment programs, where selection

criteria often target general ability. Ideological dierences

are also reﬂected in the curricula of enrichment and acceler-

ation programs. Although enrichment-based programs pro-

vide many opportunities for gifted students, they are simply

not structured to do what high-ability STEM students need

to reach their highest potential, provide “systematic pro-

gression through challenging curriculum, which is part of a

predetermined scope and sequence” (Assouline & Lupkow-

ski-Shoplik, 2011, p. 4). Research has demonstrated that, to

increase achievement of mathematically gifted students in

a pull-out program, the program “should be subject speciﬁc

and should address the need for more focused attention and

continuous support for gifted mathematicians… through

teachers speciﬁcally trained for this purpose” (Dimitriadis,

2012b, p. 257). While general enrichment programs promote

valuable goals, they do not meet curricular needs of students

with high abilities in mathematics and science.

Moreover, gifted programs based on cut-o scores are disad-

vantageous to high-potential minority students. Identiﬁca-

tion and selection for enrichment programming using pre-es-

tablished cut scores fails to heed the recommendations of

assessment experts to use assessment data in a more inclusive

manner (Lohman et al., 2008). Inclusive talent identiﬁcation

processes use group speciﬁc norms (i.e., the top 10% of race

group) to identify high-ability learners. This selection pro-

cess takes a step towards supporting high-potential STEM

students who lack the aordances of many high-achiev-

ing STEM students. Lohman asserts that “high-potential

students display the aptitude to develop high levels of ac-

complishment oered by a particular class of instructional

treatments,” but they can only access these opportunities if

inclusive identiﬁcation procedures are employed (p. 334).

STEM clubs and science fairs, like general enrichment, pro-

vide students with valuable activities. But the majority of

STEM clubs and science fairs are considered enrichment

programs and also do not provide students with “systematic

progression through challenging curriculum, which is part of

a predetermined scope and sequence” (Assouline & Lupkow-

ski-Shoplik, 2011, p. 4). Without accelerated programming

that is grounded in inclusive identiﬁcation, appropriate pac-

ing, suitable challenge, and development of passion in STEM

content, general enrichment fails to provide gifted STEM

students with the experience and opportunities students who

need to reach their highest potential. Without inclusive iden-

tiﬁcation and supported acceleration, STEM ﬁelds are losing

high potential and high-ability diverse students who report

leaving postsecondary STEM majors because they lack ap-

propriate coursework (Lee & Luykx, 2006). Moreover, in a

working paper on STEM persistence between the ﬁrst and

second years of college (Grith, 2010) when women and

minority students earn higher grades in non-STEM courses

during their ﬁrst year of college, they are less likely to remain

in their STEM major. This fact is particularly devastating

when understood in conjunction with the knowledge that

minority students are underrepresented in gifted education

(U.S. Department of Education, 2008) and are, therefore,

less likely to enroll in universities and declare STEM majors

in the ﬁrst place. While the enrichment activities of gifted

programs and science fairs are valuable activities, they do not

serve to advance the level of understanding of high-ability

and high-potential STEM students.

Excuse 4—Bright, but not

gifted enough for acceleration

The fourth excuse takes a variety of forms, but each of

these forms has a similar message: “Some of our stu-

dents are certainly bright, but because they are unable to

work quickly or demonstrate mastery of the grade-level

content, they don’t need advanced programming.” This

argument rests on a few troubling premises. The ﬁrst is per-

fectionism. Requiring students to solve problems quickly

with 100% accuracy is an unreasonable expectation. This ar-

gument does not account for the fact that mastery of a sub-

ject and the ability to engage in more challenging material

does not require speed and perfect accuracy. Gifted students

in mathematics may make simple computation errors be-

cause: they are working quickly, they carry out computations

in their heads to challenge themselves, or they lack routine

computation skills even though they have abstract concep-

tual understanding (Assouline & Lupkowski-Shoplik, 2011).

Hewitt and Flett (1991) described three models of perfection-

ism, one of which is rooted in the perception that the people

in the perfectionist’s life have exceptionally high standards.

This belief can have the negative consequence of resulting

in anxiety. Holding standards of perfection for students to

have access to opportunities for appropriate and necessary

challenge has the potential to feed into unhealthy and unpro-

ductive perfectionism. Moreover, by requiring and expect-

ing perfection from high-ability STEM students in order for

them to qualify for challenges, we are fostering a harmful con-

ception of intelligence, known as a ﬁxed mindset. The impli-

cations of a ﬁxed mindset view of intelligence were described

by Dweck (2010):

132 A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2

Acceleration and STEM : Ihrig & Degner

…when students view intelligence as ﬁxed, they

tend to value looking smart above all else. They

may sacriﬁce important opportunities to learn—

even those that are important to their future ac-

ademic success—if those opportunities require

them to risk performing poorly or admitting de-

ﬁciencies. Students with a growth mindset, on the

other hand, view challenging work as an oppor-

tunity to learn and grow. …Students with a ﬁxed

mindset do not like eort. They believe that if

you have ability, everything should come natural-

ly. They tell us that when they have to work hard,

they feel dumb. Students with a growth mindset,

in contrast, value eort; they realize that even

geniuses have to work hard to develop their abil-

ities and make their contributions. (pp. 16–17)

Promoting a growth mindset among our high-ability female

and minority math and science students has an eect on their

sense of belonging in STEM disciplines and STEM college

courses (Hill, Corbett, & St Rose, 2010). Fostering a growth

mindset promotes both achievement and persistence in

STEM (Dweck, 2008). A growth mindset is critical for gifted

STEM students and necessary for them to face the challenges

required to develop to their fullest potential.

The second troubling premise that this excuse rests on is the

argument that students who lack engagement in school are

not deserving of academic challenges. There are signiﬁcant

implications for high-ability STEM students who lack en-

gagement in school (e.g., students who do well on exams but

do not complete their homework, who come from families

who are not involved in school, who have high rates of absen-

teeism) and leaving these students unsupported and unchal-

lenged is unethical. In a longitudinal study of 5,000 eighth-

grade students from 24 middle schools across the country,

the top performing middle school students who demonstrat-

ed low engagement had lower grade point averages, more

failing grades, and more absenteeism than their peers who

demonstrated moderate to high engagement. These stu-

dents, despite their high ability, were less likely to graduate

high school in four years and were less likely to enroll in col-

lege—only 30 percent of the high performing middle school

students who demonstrated low engagement enrolled in col-

lege compared to 82 percent of equally high performing stu-

dents who demonstrated high engagement (ACT, 2012; AC T,

2013; ACT, 2014).

High-ability students who see themselves as scientists and

mathematicians are more likely to persist in STEM profes-

sions, regardless of self-ecacy in STEM courses (Andersen

& Ward, 2013). Gifted STEM students are not seeing their

STEM courses as related to tasks they will actually engage

in with STEM careers; therefore they do not see their per-

formance in these courses as related to their future successes

as scientists and mathematicians. Lack of perceived rele-

vance and a lack of challenge combine as reasons high-abil-

ity STEM students may be unmotivated to complete their

homework assignments.

Barring gifted STEM students from opportunities for ac-

celeration, based on their lack of engagement, does little to

serve their need to be challenged to reach their potential.

Appropriate challenge during the school day has the poten-

tial to increase students’ engagement in school by alleviating

boredom and passive participation in uninspiring activities.

Instead of using lack of student engagement as an excuse to

limit high-ability students’ opportunities for acceleration,

educators should consider what interventions they can im-

plement to mitigate students’ lack of engagement—such

as acceleration and/or enrichment opportunities depend-

ing on students’ abilities. Requiring perfection, speed, and

homework compliance are unsupported excuses for denying

high-ability students opportunities for acceleration.

Tools Used to Make and

Support Decisions About

STEM Acceleration

Over the past 60 years, research has abundantly document-

ed the success of accelerating students demonstrating high

ability in STEM subjects. Many resources based on this re-

search have been developed to guide educators and parents

in making appropriate decisions for speciﬁc students. Sample

resources are listed below.

1. The Talent Search Model (e.g., Olszewski-

Kubilius, this volume) provides detailed infor-

mation about which students would beneﬁt

from acceleration in STEM. University-based

talent search programs oer above-level testing

to identify exceptionally talented students who

may then participate in accelerated summer

and online courses, as well as resources and

support for students, families, and educators.

2. The Diagnostic Testing->Prescriptive

Instruction Model, ﬁrst developed by Julian

Stanley (1978), provides a systematic method

for identifying exceptionally talented students

and providing content at an appropriate level

A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2 133

Acceleration and STEM : Ihrig & Degner

and pace for them. The talent search programs

(above) use the DT->PI model as a basis for

many of their courses. It was originally devel-

oped for use in accelerated math classes. See

Assouline & Lupkowski-Shoplik (2011) for a

detailed description of how schools use the

DT->PI model.

3. IDEAL Solutions for STEM Accelera-

tion is an online tool that assists parents and

educators in making decisions about academ-

ically talented students. Teachers can gain

research-supported recommendations re-

garding students’ readiness for acceleration in

STEM subjects. Recommendations are aligned

with national standards. The goal is to assist

school personnel with accelerated placement

in STEM subjects so they can feel conﬁdent

that their placement decisions are supported

by research. For more information, see www.

idealsolutionsstem.com.

4. Belin-Blank in-school testing. The Be-

lin-Blank Center for Gifted Education at the

University of Iowa (B-BC) oers in-school

testing for academically talented students and

helps school personnel to make placement

decisions and develop appropriate education-

al options for students talented in speciﬁc

subjects. School personnel select test dates

that are convenient for them and administer

appropriate above-level tests, based on recom-

mendations provided by B-BC sta members.

See www.belinblank.org/inschooltesting.

5. The Iowa Algebra Aptitude Test (Schoen &

Ansley, 2005) is one example of a test used to

answer the question, “Is a student ready for

algebra?” This test is typically given to seventh

or eighth graders, but it has also been used

extensively with younger students who may be

ready for math acceleration.

6. Distance learning programs provide talented

students with the opportunity to study ad-

vanced courses without needing to leave their

home schools. A number of online programs

specialize in working with academically talent-

ed youth, including: the Iowa Online Advanced

Placement Academy (IOAPA; www.belinblank.

org/ioapa), Gifted Learning Links

(http://www.ctd.northwestern.edu/program_

type/online-programs), CTY Online (http://cty.

jhu.edu/ctyonline/), and www.GiftedandTalent-

ed.com.

Conclusions and

Recommendations

“The long-term prosperity of our Nation will increasingly

rely on talented and motivated individuals who will comprise

the vanguard of scientiﬁc and technological innovations; ev-

ery student in America deserves the opportunity to achieve

his or her full potential” (National Science Board, 2010, p.

V). This chapter explored excuses used to deny high-ability

STEM students opportunities—excuses rooted in naïve con-

ceptions of gifted learners and acceleration—and presented

the evidence that trumps the excuses. Gifted STEM stu-

dents are a diverse group of learners whose academic needs

vary. Adams et al. (2014, p. 59) declare that “preparation of

high-level STEM students should not be rushed. Appropri-

ate pacing for our top students should include not only accel-

eration, but also time for our top students to experience the

joy of investigating rich concepts in depth and applying in-

novative scientiﬁc reasoning and justiﬁcation to a variety of

scientiﬁc, mathematical, engineering, and other problems.”

Accelerative options are not rushing, they are a means of

matching the curriculum to the needs of the student, and

they should be thoughtfully selected from the menu of avail-

able options (types of acceleration are discussed in detail in

Southern & Jones, this volume). Inclusive above-level testing

through a Talent Search Model is a research-supported prac-

tice that provides educators with the necessary evidence to

make informed recommendations concerning appropriate

educational placements (Olszewski-Kubilius, this volume).

Additionally, tools such as IDEAL Solutions for STEM Ac-

celeration and the Diagnostic Testing -> Prescriptive In-

struction model provide the research-based structure for

making appropriate decisions that match the curriculum to

students’ abilities and achievements.

Developing STEM literacy is a worthy goal, but it does not

address the intensity of study in STEM needed by top stu-

dents to be mentally engaged and challenged by their STEM

coursework. This is an important distinction—if exposure

and literacy are the primary STEM educational goals, then

acceleration is unnecessary. However, if developing STEM

leadership by mentally engaging and challenging top students

in STEM is also an educational goal, then acceleration is crit-

ical. Working towards such a goal requires the dedication of

134 A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2

Acceleration and STEM : Ihrig & Degner

educators who make research-based decisions about acceler-

ation—educators who are committed to creating appropriate

opportunities for the intellectual nourishment and stimula-

tion of high-ability STEM students, instead of excuses.

References

ACT. (2012). e condition of college & career readiness 2012. Iowa City,

IA: ACT, Inc.

ACT. (2013). e condition of college & career readiness 2013. Iowa City,

IA: ACT, Inc.

ACT. (2014). ACT Engage® grades 6–9 user’s guide. Iowa City, IA: ACT,

Inc.

Adams, C., Cotabish, A., & Ricci, M. C. (2014). Using the next generation

science standards with gifted and advanced learners. Waco, TX: Prufrock

Press, Inc.

Archambault, F. A., Jr., Westberg, K. L., Brown, S. W., Hallmark, B. W.,

Emmons, C. L., & Zhang, W. (1993).Regular classroom practices with

gifted students: Results of a national survey of classroom teachers(Research

Monograph 93102). Storrs, CT: e National Research Center on the

Gifted and Talented, University of Connecticut.

Andersen, L., & Ward, T. J. (2013). Expectancy-value models for the

STEM persistence plans of ninth-grade, high-ability students: A com-

parison between Black, Hispanic, and White students.Science Educa-

tion,98(2), 216–242.

Assouline, S. G., & Lupkowski-Shoplik, A. (2011).Developing math talent.

Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

Banilower, E. R., Smith, P. S., Weiss, I. R., Malzahn, K. A., Campbell, K.

M., & Weis, A. M. (2013). Report of the 2012 national survey of science

and mathematics education. Chapel Hill, NC: Horizon Research, Inc.

Benbow, C. P. (2012). Identifying and nurturing future innovators in sci-

ence, technology, engineering, and mathematics: A review of ﬁndings

from the study of Mathematically Precocious Youth.Peabody Journal of

Education,87(1), 16–25.

Brighton, C. M. (2002). Straddling the fence: Implementing best practices

in an age of accountability.Gifted Child Today,25(3), 30–33.

Dimitriadis, C. (2012a). How are schools in England addressing the needs

of mathematically gifted children in primary classrooms? A Review of

practice. Gifted Child Quarterly,56(2), 59-76.

Dimitriadis, C. (2012b). Provision for mathematically gifted children in

primary schools: an investigation of four diﬀerent methods of organisa-

tional provision. Educational Review,64(2), 241–260.

Dweck, C. S. (2008). Mindsets and math/science achievement. New York:

Carnegie Corporation of New York, Institute for Advanced Study,

Commission on Mathematics and Science Education.

Dweck, C. S. (2010). Even geniuses work hard. Educational Leader-

ship,68(1), 16–20.

Griﬃth, A. L. (2010). Persistence of women and minorities in STEM

ﬁeld majors: Is it the school that matters?.Economics of Education Re-

view,29(6), 911-922.

Hewitt, P. L., & Flett, G. L. (1991). Perfectionism in the self and social

contexts: Conceptualization, assessment, and association with psycho-

pathology. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 456–470.

Hill, C., Corbett, C., & St Rose, A. (2010).Why so few? Women in science,

technology, engineering, and mathematics. American Association of Uni-

versity Women. 1111 Sixteenth Street NW, Washington, DC 20036.

Holdren, J. P., & Lander, E. (2012). Report to the President: Engage to excel:

Producing one million additional college graduates with degrees in science,

technology, engineering, and mathematics. Executive Oﬃce of the Presi-

dent. President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology.

Hurtado, S., Chang, M., Eagan, K., & Gasiewski, J. (2010). Degrees of suc-

cess: Bachelor’s degree completion rates among initial STEM majors. Los

Angeles, CA: Higher Education Research Institute, UCLA.

Johnsen, S. K., Ryser, G. R., & Assouline, S. G. (2014). A teacher’s guide to

using the Common Core State Standards with mathematically gifted and

advanced learners. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press, Inc.

Keating, D. P. (1975). Precocious cognitive development at the level of for-

mal operations. Child Development, 46, 276-280. (Also in Dissertation

Abstracts International, 1974, 34, 5655B.)

Keating, D. P., & Schaefer, R. A. (1975). Ability and sex diﬀerences in the

acquisition of formal operations.Developmental Psychology,11(4), 531.

Keller, D. E. (1965). Science training program for high ability secondary

school students: e development of man, an enrichment program.Sci-

ence Education,49(2), 108–111.

Kettler, T. (2014). Critical thinking skills among elementary school stu-

dents: Comparing identiﬁed gifted and general education student per-

formance.Gifted Child Quarterly,58(127),127–136.

Lee, O., & Luykx, A. (2006). Science education and student diversity: Synthe-

sis and research agenda. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Lee, O., Miller, E. C., & Januszyk, R. (2014). Next generation science stan-

dards: All standards, all students.Journal of Science Teacher Education,

25(2), 223–233.

Lohman, D. F. (2005). An aptitude perspective on talent: Implications for

identiﬁcation of academically gifted minority students.Journal for the

Education of the Gifted,28(3–4), 333–360.

Lohman, D. F., Gambrell, J., & Lakin, J. (2008). e commonality of ex-

treme discrepancies in the ability proﬁles of academically gifted stu-

dents.Psychology Science,50(2), 269.

Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (2006). Study of Mathematically Precocious

Youth after 35 years: Uncovering antecedents for the development of

math-science expertise.Perspectives on psychological science,1(4), 316–

345.

Lynch, S. J. (1992). Fast-paced high school science for the academically

talented: a six-year Perspective. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36(3), 147-54.

Lynch, S. J. (2011). Equity and U.S. science education policy from the G.I.

Bill to NCLB: From opportunity denied to mandated outcomes. In G.

E. DeBoer (Ed.), e role of public policy in K-12 science education (pp.

305–354). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.

Makel, M. C., & Putallaz, M. (2014). Following who rises to the top: A

25-year longitudinal study of profoundly gifted students and the devel-

opment of human capital. Paper presented at the Annual Convention of

the National Association of Gifted Children, Baltimore, MD.

National Academy of Sciences. (2007). Rising above the gathering storm: En-

ergizing and employing America for a brighter economic future. Washing-

ton, DC: National Academy Press. Retrieved December 1, 2014, from

http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11463.

National Association for Gifted Children. (2014). Frequently asked

questions about gifted education. Retrieved from http://www.

nagc.org/resources-publications/resources/frequently-asked-ques-

tions-about-gifted-education

National Center for Education Statistics. (2012). e nation’s report card:

Science 2011(NCES 2012–465). Institute of Education Sciences, U.S.

Department of Education, Washington, D.C.

A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2 135

Acceleration and STEM : Ihrig & Degner

National Center for Education Statistics. (2013). e Nation’s Report Card:

A First Look: 2013 Mathematics and Reading (NCES 2014-451). In-

stitute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, Wash-

ington, D.C.

National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, & Council of

Chief State School Oﬃcers. (2010a).Common core state standards for

mathematics.Washington, DC: Authors.

National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, & Council of

Chief State School Oﬃcers. (2010b).Common core state standards for

mathematics (Appendix A).Washington, DC: Authors.

National Science Board. (2007). A national action plan for addressing the

critical needs of the U.S. science, technology, engineering, and mathematics

education system. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.

National Science Board. (2010). Preparing the next generation of STEM in-

novators: Identifying and developing our nation’s human capital. Washi ng-

ton, DC: National Science Foundation. Retrieved from http://www.

nsf.gov/nsb/publications/2010/nsb1033.pdf.

NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by

states (Appendix D: Case 7). Achieve, Inc. on behalf of the twenty-six

states and partners that collaborated on the NGSS.

Piaget, J. (1972). Intellectual evolution from adolescence to adulthood.Hu-

man development,15(1), 1-12. Reprinted inR.M. Lerner, J. Jovanovic

(Eds.), Cognitive and Moral Development and Academic Achievement in

Adolescence (pp. 1-12). New York: Taylor & Francis.

Rogers, K. (2007). Lessons learned about educating gifted and talented:

A synthesis of research on education practices. Gifted Child Quarterly,

51, 382–396.

Schoen, H. L., & Ansley, T. N. (2005). Iowa Algebra Aptitude Test (5th ed.).

Rolling Meadows, IL: Riverside Publishing.

Schunk, D. H. (1991). Learning theories: An educational perspective (6th

ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.

Shayshon, B., Gal, H., Tesler, B., & Ko, E. S. (2014). Teaching mathemat-

ically talented students: a cross-cultural study about their teachers’

views. Educational Studies in Mathematics,87(3), 4094–38.

Stanley, J. C. (1978). SMPY’s DT->PI model: Diagnostic testing followed

by prescriptive instruction. ITYB, 4(10), 7-8.

Swiatek, M. A., & Benbow, C. P. (1991). A ten-year longitudinal follow-up

of ability matched accelerated and unaccelerated gifted students. Jour-

nal of Educational Psychology, 83, 528–538.

Tai, R. H., Liu, C. Q., Maltese, A. V., & Fan, X. (2006). Planning early for

careers in science. Science, 312, 1143–1144.

Tobias, S. (1990). ey’re not dumb, they’re diﬀerent: Stalking the second tier.

Tucson, AZ: Research Corporation.

Tomlinson, C. A. (2005). Quality curriculum and instruction for highly

able students. eory into Practice, 44, 160–166.

U. S. Department of Education. (2008). 2007 Elementary and secondary

school survey. Washington, DC: Oﬃce for Civil Rights.

VanTassel-Baska, J. (1998). Planning science programs for high ability learn-

ers. Reston VA: ERIC Clearinghouse on Disabilities and Gifted Edu-

cation.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. (Michael Cole, Trans.). Cambridge,

MA: Harvard University Press.

Wai, J., Lubinski, D., Benbow, C. P., & Steiger, J. H. (2010). Accomplish-

ment in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM)

and its relation to STEM educational dose: A 25-year longitudinal

study.Journal of Educational Psychology,102(4), 860.

136 A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2

Acceleration and STEM : Ihrig & Degner

A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2 137

State Residential STEM Schools : Roberts & Alderdice

Introduction

Acceleration can be accomplished in various formats, and

two of those involve engaging advanced learners in oppor-

tunities earlier than their age-mates and beginning college

before others of their age group. State residential schools

for mathematics and science oer such opportunities for

acceleration. They provide environments for young people

who are ready for advanced learning and thrive when such

accelerated coursework is oered whether it is with college

courses, Advanced Placement courses, or other types of

accelerated coursework.

Mission

Although the mission statements of the state residential

schools vary, three shared goals are to enhance economic

development for the state, provide advanced educational op-

portunities for students, and assist in teacher training and de-

velopment to extend the beneﬁts of the programs through-

out the state. A stated, or perhaps unstated goal, is to stop the

brain drain and keep outstanding young people from exiting

the state. The economic development advantage comes from

encouraging students who are ready for advanced educa-

tional opportunities in science, technology, engineering, and

mathematics (STEM) disciplines to pursue those studies at

an early age. The long-term goal is to have graduates of resi-

dential STEM high schools become emerging leaders in the

state as they pursue STEM careers. In order to address the

goal of providing advanced educational opportunities, the

instructional and learning experiences at the state residen-

tial schools typically exceed the STEM curriculum that most

high school day programs can oer.

In addition, legislators in a few states established outreach,

teacher professional development, distance education, and

content creation goals within the mission statements for

their residential schools. For example, the strategic plan of

the North Carolina School of Science and Mathematics ex-

tends the mission to provide academically talented students

across North Carolina innovative educational opportunities

in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics that

prepare them to become leaders and innovators in STEM

ﬁelds. The strategic plan also expands the school’s commit-

ment to improve educational opportunities for students and

educators from across North Carolina through distance edu-

cation and other extended programs.

Finn and Hockett (2012) seek to arrive at a working deﬁni-

tion of the nation’s “exam schools,” or selective public high

schools of which the residential math and science academies

Abstract

State residential STEM schools provide unique challenges and opportunities to participating students. The students leave home at a younger

age than is typical, but they are immediately included in a community of other young, like-minded scholars. These schools provide formal

and informal academic and social support systems as well as challenging high school and college coursework. In addition to providing

access to high-level research opportunities, they offer connections between the schools and selected local resources. The authors review 16

STEM schools across the United States, report research ﬁndings, and discuss the pros and cons of attending one of these specialized state

residential schools; additionally, they describe outreach programs and other ways in which the schools have an impact on both teachers and

the broader population of gifted students in their home states.

State Residential

STEM Schools: A Model for

Accelerated Learning

Julia Link Roberts, The Center for Gied Studies, Western Kentucky University, Bowling Green, Kentucky

Corey Alderdice, Arkansas School for Mathematics, Sciences, and the Arts, Hot Springs, Arkansas

Chapter 11

138 A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2

State Residential STEM Schools : Roberts & Alderdice

are a subset. Based on six criteria, the researchers identiﬁed

165 schools in the United States serving thousands of stu-

dents each year with the following characteristics: is public in

nature and predominately supported with tax dollars; facil-

itates a graduating 12th grade class; is a self-contained orga-

nization; oers accelerated curricula leading toward college

readiness; utilizes selective admissions processes to assess

students’ academic potential and/or academic record; and,

ﬁnally, observes that the process for selection is inherently

competitive whereby more students display an interest in en-

rollment than the program can accommodate.

In order to identify this particular subset of schools, two addi-

tional criteria frame the following discussion by the eorts of

16 programs. Residential schools of mathematics and science

must carry these two traits. First, by including a required res-

idential component, programs are able to draw students from

across their state in ways that local or regional magnet pro-

grams cannot while ensuring equity in access to all students.

Second, these particular programs feature coursework, learn-

ing objectives, research, and other experiences directed to-

ward the advanced study of science, technology, engineering,

and mathematics.

Fifteen states have residential schools with a focus on mathe-

matics and science. The ﬁrst of these schools was the North

Carolina School of Science and Mathematics, which opened

in 1980. Other states with residential schools for talented

students who are interested in pursuing careers in STEM are

Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Ken-

tucky, Louisiana, Maine, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma,

South Carolina, and Texas. A few of the schools include the

arts or humanities as their titles indicate - for example, the

Indiana Academy of Science, Mathematics, and the Human-

ities and the Arkansas School for Mathematics, Sciences,

and the Arts. The Louisiana School for Math, Science, and

the Arts (see lsmsa.edu), the 16th school described in this

chapter, oers STEM education in the context of a liberal

arts education.

Table 1 explores the 16 institutions, the year the program

opened to students, location (including aliated universi-

ties), programmatic model, student enrollment for academic

year 2013-14, and website URL. Enrollment in the programs

ranges from relatively small (64 residential students at the

Kansas Academy of Mathematics and Science) to quite siz-

able (680 students in 11th and 12th grades at the North Caro-

lina School for Science and Mathematics).

Literature Review

Evaluation in the residential STEM schools is ongoing and

important to directors of state residential STEM schools.

However, results may be treated in a proprietary way “be-

cause these schools were created for speciﬁc purposes, often

drawing top students from local school districts, and because

the level of support for them within a speciﬁc state is ﬂuid,

sometimes becoming quite volatile” (Cross & Miller, 2007, p.

99). Research on residential STEM schools has been limited

(Cross & Frazier, 2009; McBee & Fields, 2014; Pfeier, Over-

street, & Park, 2010; Roberts, 2007).

“Specialized science high schools oer an environment, both

academic and social, in which interested students can explore

the scientiﬁc world with both support and challenge” (Alma-

rode, Subotnik, Crowe, Tai, Lee, & Nowlin, p. 309). Olszews-

ki-Kubilius (2009) listed having intellectual peers, the oppor-

tunity for models of authentic scientiﬁc work with mentors

and in internships, and the academic challenge as advantages

of special STEM schools.

Coleman (2001) studied a state residential specialized high

school and reported, “The ﬁndings suggest that it is possible

to have a social system that diers from that found in most

high schools” (p. 167). Coleman emphasized the importance

of friendship, and he asserted that “the system of relation-

ships among the students with all its complexity can be char-

acterized by six terms: openness, ﬂuidity, acceptance, busy,

pressure, and shock and amazement” (p. 169).

McBee and Fields (2014) stated, “The research on social

and emotional development for students attending special

schools for the gifted has been loosely organized around two

questions. The ﬁrst is essentially the question of harm” (p.

627). Rollins and Cross (2014) found “no evidence to support

the notion that the residential school experience was harmful

to student psychological development” (p. 337).

Wai, Lubinski, Benbow, and Steiger’s (2010) longitudinal

study indicated that involvement in numerous advanced

pre-collegiate learning opportunities was linked to later

accomplishments in STEM. Almarode et al. (2014) found

“49.8% of the selective STEM school graduates completed an

undergraduate STEM degree” (p. 321) compared with 22.6%

of all U.S. students entering college who complete a STEM

undergraduate degree (National Science Board [NSB], 2012).

They reported, “A student’s feelings of intellectual capacity

in high school and the stability of interest in STEM related

areas are strongly and positively associated with their per-

sistence and earning an undergraduate degree in STEM”

(NSB, 2012, p. 327).

A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2 139

State Residential STEM Schools : Roberts & Alderdice

School

Opening

Year

Location Model

Residential

Enrollment

Website

Alabama School of

Mathmetics and

Science

1991 Mobile, AL Autonomous 240 www.asms.net

Arkansas School for

Mathematics, Sciences

and the Arts

1993 Hot Springs, AR Autonomous 230 www.asmsa.org

Craft Academy for

Excellence in Science

and Mathematics

2015

Morehead State

University, Morehead,

Kentucky

University

60 in 2015 and

120 in 2016

www.moreheadstate.edu/

craft-academy

The Gatton Academy

of Mathematics and

Science in Kentucky

2007

Western Kentucky

University, Bowling

Green, KY

University 126* www.wku.edu/academy

Georgia Academy of

Aviation, Mathematics,

Engineering and

Science

1997

Middle Georgia State

College, Cochran, GA

Autonomous 83 www.mga.edu/games

Illinois Mathematics

and Science Academy

1986 Aurora, IL Autonomous 649 www.imsa.edu

The Indiana Academy

for Science,

Mathematics, and

Humanities

1990

Ball State University,

Muncie, IN

Autonomous 307 www.bsu.edu/academy

Kansas Academy of

Mathematics and

Science

2009

Fort Hays State

University, Hays, KS

University 49 www.fhsu.edu/kams

Louisiana School for

Math, Science and

the Arts

1983

Northwestern

State University,

Natchitoches, LA

Autonomous 320 www.lsmsa.edu

Maine School

of Science and

Mathematics

1995 Limestone, ME Autonomous 130 www.mssm.org

Mississippi School

for Mathematics and

Science

1987

Mississippi University

for Women, Columbus,

Autonomous 231 www.themsms.org

Missouri Academy of

Science, Mathematics

and Computing

2000

Northwest Missouri

State University,

Maryville, MO

University 140 www.nwmissouri.edu/masmc/

North Carolina School

of Science and

Mathematics

1980 Durham, NC Autonomous 680 www.ncssm.edu

Oklahoma School

of Science and

Mathematics

1990 Oklahoma City, OK Autonomous 144 www.ossm.edu

South Carolina

Governor’s School

for Science and

Mathematics

1988 Hartsville, SC Autonomous 220 www.scgssm.org

Texas Academy of

Mathematics and

Science

1988

University of North

Texas, Denton, TX

University 374 tams.unt.edu

Table 1: Basic Information About State Residential STEM Schools

* 160 students are scheduled to be enrolled in 2016 and 200 students in 2017.

140 A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2

State Residential STEM Schools : Roberts & Alderdice

Models for the Schools

Two dierent models are represented among the residential

schools with a focus on mathematics and science. The ﬁrst

model is that of a free-standing school that oers a variety

of advanced courses that may be high school or college level.

The second model is a school that is located on a universi-

ty campus, and students take only university courses. Both

types of experiences oer ongoing opportunities to learn at

more advanced levels than would available at most sending

schools. A variation of the free-standing school is one that is

located on or near a college or university campus.

Autonomous School Model

Most of the state residential schools with a STEM focus are

schools with separate campuses. They oer a variety of accel-

erated coursework, including honors courses, Advanced Place-

ment courses, college classes, and other specialized learning

opportunities. These schools have their own faculties, who

are content specialists, as well as their own campuses. Most of

these schools oer their students opportunities to engage in

extracurricular activities, research, and service learning.

University Model

State residential schools that are located on a university

campus utilize the services and the facilities that are already

available to university students. University faculty members

teach the college classes in which students enroll, and stu-

dents graduate from high school with a minimum of 60 hours

of college credit. The only limits to learning are the range of

courses at the university, a range that is usually quite broad.

Students also have opportunities to participate in extracur-

ricular activities, conduct research in laboratories with facul-

ty members, and engage in service learning both on campus

and beyond. Julian Stanley, an early and leading advocate for

the creation of the residential STEM schools, extolled this

alternative model ﬁrst developed at the Texas Academy of

Mathematics and Science on the campus of the University of

North Texas as, “academically sounder, less politically vulner-

able, and more cost-eective” (1991, p. 471).

A blend of these two models is the free-standing school lo-

cated on or adjacent to a college or university. The program

maintains its identity as a free-standing school, yet shares the

advantages of having college classes readily available. Anoth-

er advantage is that resources such as speakers, musical and

educational events, as well as specialized facilities are readily

available throughout a partnership with the STEM school

and the university.

Facilities are varied across program type and location. During

the initial period of program creation in the early 1980s and

1990s, states and host communities often made location

decisions based on available facilities. The university mod-

el employed by six of the institutions reduces the need for

constructing auxiliary services such as cafeterias, athletic fa-

cilities, and even operations plants. To that end, the shared

resources between program and university create a more

cost-eective model for deployment. Several independent

institutions are located adjacent to university campuses and

have varying degrees of connectivity, including Indiana (Ball

State University), Mississippi (Mississippi Women’s Univer-

sity), and Louisiana (Northwestern State University). This

approach provides a greater level of autonomy to the school

while still making some academic and cultural resources be-

yond the norm available. Truly independent campuses must

shoulder the cost of all facilities.

Identification and

Student Selection

A common observation of residential STEM schools is that

they are primarily concentrated in the Midwestern and South-

eastern regions of the United States. With fewer urban centers

and considerable numbers of rural school districts and stu-

dents, these academies present an opportunity to consolidate

resources into a single venture to address the academic needs

of highly motivated and gifted young people. To reach these

populations, institutions employ a variety of professional re-

cruiters, admissions counselors, and senior administrators to

guide the admissions and enrollment management compo-

nents of the programs. The overall success of the school relies

on identifying, marketing, recruiting, selecting, and encourag-

ing matriculation of talented and motivated students.

Students selected for the state schools have a high interest in

engaging in the study of STEM subjects, and they have the

opportunity to do so with age-mates who are also idea-mates.

They are future professionals in STEM careers and oer great

capacity for leadership in both the state and nation. These

schools are open to students across the state. Some legislation

speciﬁes that a certain number of students must be selected

annually from each region of the state, while others have no

such restrictions yet strive for statewide representation.

Admissions and Recruitment

Though these schools are selective in nature, it is important

to ﬁrst note that a student must elect to participate in the

selection process. While few barriers exist to applying for the

A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2 141

State Residential STEM Schools : Roberts & Alderdice

residential program, it is critical to recognize that the resi-

dential program may not be the right opportunity for every

gifted student. Jones (2009) categorizes this process as an

imaginary admissions funnel of factors that steadily trim the

potential pool of applicants from thousands of high school

students each year. These factors include students’ interest in

having a “regular” or “normal” high school experience, com-

fort with their current academic trajectory, substantial oppor-

tunities at their local school, a fear of failure, limited athletic

opportunities, and a host of other factors. Each applicant’s

family must consider how the oerings of the residential pro-

gram contribute to the overall academic, social, emotional,

and wellness needs of the student (Jones et al., 2002). The stu-

dents who persist through the application process have not

only articulated an interest but also demonstrated that they

possess a combination of aptitude and potential for both aca-

demic and social success in these academies.

Finn and Hockett (2012) identify a constellation of both

quantitative and qualitative methods that selective admis-

sions public high schools use to generate the most appropri-

ate pool of students for matriculation each year. The most

strongly emphasized components of the application process

include students’ prior academic record, application essay

responses, and teacher recommendations. The residential

STEM academies universally required applicants to demon-

strate academic and social maturity through analysis of

transcripts, essay responses, and teacher recommendations

(Jones, 2009, p. 483).

Compared to other selective programs, the residential

schools greatly value national college entrance exams such as

the ACT and SAT. The appropriateness of this requirement

is twofold: ﬁrst, students will be expected to excel academi-

cally in college-level or even collegiate environments in the

case of the university-model programs; second, when select-

ing students from a wide array of schools, districts and geo-

graphic regions throughout the state, standard exams help to

provide a comparative analysis of students’ areas of strength

and deﬁciency compared to their peers. Jarwan and Feldhu-

sen (1993) found the SAT and ACT as well as the grade point

average in high school courses taken prior to admission and

selection to be the best indicators of a student’s potential for

success in a residential STEM school.

Educator Involvement in

Identification and Selection

Jarwan and Feldhusen (1993) underscore the importance of

involving teachers in the selection process. Their articulation

of value focuses on involving residential faculty in order to

leverage their experiences and expertise. This involvement

can be a factor in reducing attrition and developing support

plans for students. These faculty members are highly familiar

with the ongoing expectations and needs of students once

they enroll in the specialized schools.

Though dual enrollment between the sending school and the

residential program is the less-often-seen approach, even the

residential academies for which no relationship exists be-

tween present and former school note that their work serves

as an extension of the students’ previous schools. Admissions

and enrollment management ocers at the schools beneﬁt

greatly from active participation by local teachers, counsel-

ors, gifted and talented coordinators, and other sta in the

identiﬁcation and selection process.

Transitional students. The residential programs rely on lo-

cal educators to provide challenging learning opportunities

that prepare students for higher-level learning. In addition,

academies leverage these local advocates as “talent scouts”

who are acutely aware of students’ academic and other needs,

to promote specialized, residential schools. Local teachers

can be thought of as “talent scouts” who are more attuned to a

young person’s potential for acceleration. These high-achiev-

ers can be categorized as transitional students. The transi-

tional student is one who has already been exposed to ad-

vanced learning. This student has engaged in learning about

STEM, and family members have been both ﬁnancially and

personally able to cultivate a passion for science. As a result

of this environment, they have taken Advanced Placement or

other honors classes as freshmen and sophomores; achieved

exemplary ACT, SAT, and PSAT scores; and possess high lev-

els of conﬁdence in their abilities. Residential academies, in

turn, create a learning environment that moves beyond the

limited ﬁnancial, sta, and content resources that prevent lo-

cal schools from meeting their needs through a specialized,

advanced curriculum and other co-curricular programs. By

removing the learning ceiling, these schools create a transi-

tional pathway to college-level learning and research expe-

riences while providing students with a variety of supports

for success. Pfeier et al. (2010) summarize the role of public

state-supported residential academies as providing “a small

and select group of America’s ‘best and brightest’ high-school

students with extensive and in-depth exposure to STEM con-

tent and learning and research opportunities” (p. 29).

Transformational students. While the transitional student

population most closely aligns with the public conception

of residential STEM schools, it is critical that school leader-

ship, faculty, and admission ocers cast a wider net in their

pursuit of talent development. Though the student popu-

142 A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2

State Residential STEM Schools : Roberts & Alderdice

lation shares many commonalities, they need not be homo-

geneous. Diversity in enrollment encompasses a variety of

student populations, including low-income, ethnic, racial,

and twice-exceptional students, as well as those from homes

where English is not the primary language (Roberts, 2010).

These students often experience an “opportunity gap” be-

tween resources that are readily available to them and the

potential they possess to embrace vigorous learning. These

young people are categorized as transformational students.

Clearly, they pose both the most challenging yet intrinsically

rewarding component of the schools’ work. Bright and eager

students who seek out or are directed toward these institu-

tions from under-performing schools, low-income families,

or ethnicities underrepresented in STEM may have lower

ACT scores and limited prior coursework in STEM sub-

jects, yet they possess both a passion and tenacity that makes

school leadership believe they can achieve great things when

given appropriate support. For these students, the goal of

continual progress throughout formal education on the path

toward professional careers in STEM has the potential to be

life altering. However, these students require online summer

learning and other orientation experiences that scaold new

information around their previous academic experiences,

additional social-emotional support as they transition to a

radically dierent learning space, and classroom support as

they often face their ﬁrst true academic challenges, as well

as self-comparison to a new group of peers whom they may

consider to be more talented or able.

Both the transitional and transformational students can be

identiﬁed through the admissions process, which are similar

for the 16 institutions. Most admissions procedures mirror

that of undergraduate admissions. Emphasis is placed on

ACT or SAT scores, grades in middle and early high school,

responses to essay questions, letters of recommendation

from teachers, as well as assessments of activities and lead-

ership. Few institutions conduct formal interviews of candi-

dates, though most programs host a series of open house or

on-campus visits that allow potential students and their fam-

ilies to interact with current faculty, students, sta, parents,

and alumni.

Why Apply and Why Not to Do So

Students elect to pursue admission to a residential school for

mathematics, science, and technology for a variety of rea-

sons. While advanced courses, research experiences, global

travel, potential for college scholarships, and other factors

may be of interest to both students and parents, one of the

greatest draws for these precocious young adults is often the

opportunity to both live and learn alongside peers who are

not only age-mates but also idea-mates.

Leaving family members as well as established social net-

works that have been built over elementary, middle, and

early high school is a point of concern for many prospective

students (Jones, Fleming, Henderson, & Henderson, 2002).

Desiring to participate in a prestigious program, experienc-

ing unhappiness at home, and seeking academic rigor in any

subject are other common traits among students enrolled at

residential STEM schools. For students enrolling in the early

college model, leaving behind the traditional concept of high

school to study on a university campus can be daunting.

Dorsel and Wages (1993) assessed the impacts that enroll-

ment in this boarding school environment has on gifted and

talented children, their families, and students’ educational

advancement. Of particular note were feelings about miss-

ing important events in their home communities, chanc-

es of gaining acceptance to top colleges, and the students’

overall development as both student and scholar. Parents,

however, tend to remain positive. Cross and Frazier (2009)

observed that students often categorize their decision as one

of sacriﬁce. Students identiﬁed loss of a connection to fam-

ily, connection to friends at home, driving privileges, part-

time jobs, social status, church community, stability, awards,

leisure time, non-academic pursuits, and even their youth as

poignant factors in hesitancy to apply. To some extent, a stu-

dent’s decision is not so much a loss but a blending of one set

of opportunities with another.

Students from rural schools with few other students ready for

acceleration or students whose academic interests might be

considered more niche, such as video games like Minecraft

and League of Legends, comic books, or dierential equa-

tions and quantum mechanics often ﬁnd—in many cases for

the ﬁrst time—peers who share the same enthusiasm about

learning, a love of a particular video game, interest in a spe-

ciﬁc genre of media, or any other pursuit. For parents, these

connections made during campus visits are often a moment

of relief where they begin to move from simply envisioning

their child being away from home to picturing growing young

adults ﬁnding themselves in a connected community. Rela-

tionships built by students with their peers are critical during

the emotional peaks and valleys that accompany both adoles-

cence and this academic experience:

In the authors’ experience, during serious events at

residential academies, it became apparent that stu-

dents were the most powerful group of counselors

the school had. On most topics, the students seek

out other students for advice and comfort. The

A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2 143

State Residential STEM Schools : Roberts & Alderdice

interdependence initiated as a defense mechanism

against the strain the academic rigor establishes a

foundation for student acceptance, role modeling,

and peer stewardship. (Cross & Frazier, 2009, p. 37)

Falls (2009) observed that learning communities in STEM

must foster co-curricular activities to cultivate a sense of

community among the participants. While the research is in

the context of undergraduate students in a university envi-

ronment, Falls noted that academic support and residential

experiences are the underpinnings of community. Perhaps

the most compelling trait of community is open acceptance.

Students enrolled in a residential STEM school will encoun-

ter a variety of family structures, religious backgrounds, and

cultural beliefs. Finding a group of peers who challenge each

other to grow, champion their successes, celebrate their dif-

ferences, and console each other in times of diculty are not

only important facets of the residential academies but also

some of the non-academic traits that present the greatest

draw to these programs.

Especially in the case of young women, dynamic and sup-

portive relationships facilitated through intentional envi-

ronments carry the potential to increase girls’ persistence

in studying STEM majors at the university level (Lee, 2002).

With enrollment at most residential STEM schools, the fo-

cus is relatively balanced between male and female students

(Jones, 2009); the choice to matriculate at such a school

means inclusion into a sizable network of other young wom-

en who are equally interested and committed to further ex-

ploration of math and science. Having this support group

of both peer and adult mentors can be a critical inﬂuence in

overcoming stereotypes of women in STEM (Sayman, 2013).

Underrepresented Populations

and Access to STEM

Beyond improving quality of learning and acceleration op-

portunities for students, residential schools of mathematics,

science, and technology play active roles in the national dis-

cussion on increasing the number of young people from un-

derrepresented populations who choose to pursue a STEM

degree. President Obama’s Council of Advisors on Science

and Technology (PCAST, 2010) observed in a report:

The underrepresentation of minority groups

and women in STEM denies the Nation the full

beneﬁt of their talents and denies science and

engineering the rich diversity of perspectives

and inspiration that drive those ﬁelds. Diversity

is essential to producing scientiﬁc innovation,

and we cannot solve the STEM crisis the coun-

try faces without improving STEM achievement

across gender and ethnic groups. Moreover, all

students deserve the opportunity to experience

the exciting and inspiring aspects of STEM. (p. 3)

A recent study from the U.S. Department of Education as-

sessed the number of STEM degrees awarded at the under-

graduate level between 2001 and 2009. In that period, only

seven and a half percent of degrees granted were to Black stu-

dents and seven percent to Hispanic undergraduates—a ﬁg-

ure substantially lower than the groups’ respective percent-

ages of the U.S. population at 12.6 and 16.3 percent (National

Center for Education Statistics, 2011).

While residential schools of mathematics, science, and tech-

nology cannot alone address these gaps, Almarode, Crowe,

Subotnik, and Tai (2013) researched the impact of partici-

pation in a selective STEM school on students completing

undergraduate degrees in a STEM major or concentration.

Speciﬁc analysis of graduates of residential schools between

2004 and 2007 found that 51.7% of these alumni went on to

earn an undergraduate degree in a STEM subject—a substan-

tial increase over the 22.6% of the general U.S. undergradu-

ate population earning the same type of degree. The ﬁndings

also highlight that participation in a research experience, a

hallmark of the residential school experience, nearly doubled

the likelihood of female students continuing onward to earn

a STEM degree.

Increasing access for students in underrepresented popula-

tions has the potential to create additional points of entry

for students in STEM careers that often go unrealized. The

American Psychological Association (2013) commissioned a

study exploring the motivation of students attending such

schools. The researchers found that respondents who report-

ed a growth in interest in a STEM discipline during their high

school experience—often a combination of research, peers,

academic support, unique courses, and other traits unique to

STEM-emphasis schools—were over ﬁve times more likely to

earn an undergraduate degree in a STEM discipline.

Jones (2010) provides insight into the recent diversity of stu-

dents enrolled in residential STEM schools and notes that

the programs still have room for improvement in reaching

these critical populations of talented and motivated stu-

dents. While diversity is predominantly deﬁned by ethnicity,

institutions experience varying expectations regarding rep-

resentation of gender, state geography, and socio-economic

status of applicants.

144 A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2

State Residential STEM Schools : Roberts & Alderdice

While all statewide programs strive to achieve an accept-

able level of geographic representation, the North Carolina

School for Science and Mathematics is the only program held

to a rigid geographic mandate of equal representation among

the state’s federal legislative districts. Cross and Dixon (1998)

noted that services to talented students in rural areas of-

ten prove challenging due to proximity to programs, lack of

choices, and school structures. Consolidating resources to

provide accelerated experiences to a geographically diverse

cohort of students is an eective approach to address the

needs of students capable of achieving at the highest levels.

Enrollment among male and female students is generally

balanced at the institutions. Much attention has been given

to the lack of representation of women, minorities, and per-

sons with disabilities serving as professionals in the STEM

disciplines (NSF, 2013). Jones (2010) noted that enrollment

gaps clearly exist for African-American and Hispanic stu-

dents similar to national trends on interest in STEM sub-

jects. Among African-American students, only the Alabama

School of Mathematics and Science and Maine School of

Science and Mathematics admitted a percentage of students

on par with or greater than statewide representation. Many

states experienced gaps in representation of greater than 20

percent. Programs fared better with representation of His-

panic students, though admitted Asian students at dispro-

portionally higher levels.

Acceleration Options

Numerous acceleration options are available in the state res-

idential schools. Stanley (1987) summarizes the need for ad-

vanced academic opportunities fueled by a cohort of peers

equally positioned and enthusiastic about acceleration:

Few mathematically and scientiﬁcally talented

high school students are so fortunate. Most need

an enhanced educational framework in which to

learn mathematics and science far better than they

could in nearly any high school. In addition, they

need systematic, prolonged interaction with large

numbers of their true intellectual peers. (p. 770)

Placement based on prior learning and advanced coursework

allow for accelerated learning. Research, mentorships, and

global experiences are other acceleration options often avail-

able at these residential STEM schools.

Placement Based on Prior Learning

One acceleration option involves placement in classes ac-

cording to demonstrated knowledge and skills. For example,

students are placed in trigonometry, precalculus, Calculus 1,

Calculus 2, or discrete mathematics as their beginning mathe-

matics class at the school, based on their prior coursework as

well as performance on a placement test. Often the student’s

placement is a function of mathematics courses available at

the sending high schools or access to summer programs or

independent study.

Advanced Courses

The curriculum at these specialized high schools includes ac-

celerated coursework, classes that are taken at a younger age

than most students, and courses that would not be available

at many high schools. Dierent schools oer various classes

that may include College Board Advanced Placement, hon-

ors, or university courses. Dual credit courses provide credit

that students may take with them as they enroll in a college

or university as they complete their experience at the two- or

three-year STEM school.

Research Opportunities

Engaging in research is one of the outstanding opportuni-

ties available to students at the specialized STEM schools.

In most instances, the research projects represent an accel-

erative opportunity to work on advanced topics, well be-

yond those studied in the regular school program. In some

schools, conducting research is required while in others it is

an elective option. However, due to high interest in learning

in STEM areas, a large percentage of students opt to engage

in research.

Research skills may be built into the coursework, or research

opportunities may be extracurricular. Faculty research grants

may include students in the residential school in the project,

like the Genome Project at The Gatton Academy. Research

also may be supported during the summer between the stu-

dents’ junior and senior years.

Whether during the academic year or beyond, faculty who

serve in the capacity of mentors become valuable teachers

for students, and that role is often informal. The mentorship

may be created around research, but it certainly is not limited

in that way. Faculty may become mentors for students who

are planning to pursue their area(s) of interest. Mentors also

provide advice about career opportunities and college choic-

es. Their guidance can be very inﬂuential.

As an accelerative option, students see ﬁrst-hand the roles

and expectations of a professional researcher. In addition to

experiences in the lab, the support and guidance of a men-

A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2 145

State Residential STEM Schools : Roberts & Alderdice

tor is critical in gaining access to opportunities to present

ﬁndings at national conference and symposia. Beyond ac-

knowledgment of students’ work, the portfolio of research

opportunities bridges acceleration for both academic and

professional roles.

Often, students at the STEM residential schools enter their

research results in the Siemens Competition in Math, Sci-

ence and Technology or the Intel Science Talent Search, the

two premier STEM competitions for high school students.

Others have opportunities to publish their research results,

and some present at state, regional, and national conferences.

Learning Communities:

Support for Higher-level Learn-

ing and Personal Development

The residential nature of these schools means that institu-

tions take on a considerable number of obstacles and op-

portunities when engaging the whole student beyond the

classroom. Programs must construct robust support stas

of administrators, residence hall supervisors, activities co-

ordinators, leadership development sta, social-emotional

counselors, and residential mentors who shepherd the liv-

ing-and-learning component of the experience.

Because parents’ consent for students to enroll in institu-

tions that are often hours away from their local community,

there are rightful expectations that students will be guided

and supported by a caring and attentive sta with special-

ized training in the needs of accelerated students. A consid-

erable component of public investment in residential STEM

schools is directed to the housing, board, experiential learn-

ing, activities, and sta associated with the on-campus expe-

rience. The high expectations and expenditures underscore

the critical role of the residential component for student de-

velopment and success.

Service Learning

Programs also seek to foster a relationship between their in-

stitutions and their local communities. In developing lead-

ership skills and empathy in students, most schools encour-

age and many require students to complete certain service

requirements. In some cases, these experiences are focused

inward through work-service in campus oces, the cafeteria,

or with the janitorial sta. In other instances, community

service programs focus on tutoring younger students, com-

munity engagement, or broader platform organizations such

as Habitat for Humanity, the American Cancer Society, and

United Way.

Cofer (1996) observed that service learning with speciﬁc

connections to the study of science among high school stu-

dents resulted in increased enjoyment of science classes.

Wyss and Tai (2012) explored the role of service learning in

inspiring students to pursue STEM degrees. While their

ﬁndings were inconclusive, the researchers do note that ser-

vice learning is an important resource in exploring potential

career options. Wagner and Compton, in their book Creating

Innovators (2012), explore a selection of students who bridge

problem-solving, intrinsic motivation, and interdisciplinary

learning with STEM in pursuit of social entrepreneurship.

Though Wagner does not reference STEM schools, many of

the most cogent narratives the book explores reﬂect students

who utilize STEM to address global issues. The innate desire

to cure disease, design solutions, and apply technologies for

the greater good are common goals of residential STEM stu-

dents and connect academic, research, and service learning

within the programs.

Trade-Offs

Leaders of the residential STEM schools are aware that stu-

dents contemplate a series of trade-os in accepting oers

of admission. Sta members responsible for student engage-

ment develop a variety of academic, social, emotional, and

leadership development programs that are meant to cultivate

well-rounded students. Traditional clubs and organizations

like Beta Club, Key Club, National Honor Society, Future

Business Leaders of America, and the National Speech and

Debate Association are common activities that are co-curric-

ular or complementary to school values. Though not univer-

sal, the majority of the schools ﬁeld athletic teams in a variety

of seasons as part of the traditional high school experience,

while also recognizing the importance of sports to wellness,

physical ﬁtness, teamwork, and leadership development.

Academic competitions such as Science Olympiad, FIRST

Robotics, and the National Science Bowl are built on core

learning while serving many of the same aims as sports. It is

not uncommon for these pursuits to rival or exceed the enthu-

siasm by the student body, with spirit weeks, pep rallies, rec-

ognition banners, or other totems reserved for state football

and basketball championships in traditional public schools.

Guest lectures and site visits to centers of business and in-

dustry also create tethers to future professions as well as

internship opportunities. In recent years, “Tech Treks” that

take students to Silicon Valley provide a chance to see the

applications of mathematics, computer programming, and

other forms of cutting-edge science in the real world while

connecting current students at residential STEM schools

146 A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2

State Residential STEM Schools : Roberts & Alderdice

to alumni working in these ﬁelds who are now emerging and

even leading professionals.

Both within the residence hall and beyond, sta at residen-

tial academies understand that a successful experience is tied

to more than just the quality of the academic and classroom

oerings. A successful two- or three-year experience at a resi-

dential, state, STEM academy rests on a robust academic ex-

perience as well as a safe living and learning environment with

idea-mates and appropriately challenging academic opportu-

nities threaded throughout students’ time at the school.

Research and Collaborations

While research and inquiry are important academic pur-

suits for students enrolled at residential schools of science

and mathematics, collaborations with other groups and agen-

cies beyond university campuses and researchers promote

real-world learning.

The Gatton Academy of Mathematics and Science in Ken-

tucky has worked to establish connections between STEM

and global critical languages. The STEM+Mandarin program

was developed in partnership with The Chinese Flagship

program, Confucius Institute, and Department of Modern

Languages at Western Kentucky University. What began as

students completing high school graduation requirements in

a foreign language not commonly available to Kentucky stu-

dents quickly grew to become a unique opportunity for Gat-

ton Academy’s students.

Illustrating the program’s most accelerated approach, stu-

dents pursue study of Mandarin Chinese at double the pace of

a traditional university semester. A combination of additional

recitation sections, specialized support, and cultural discus-

sions help place students on a path to high proﬁciency in the

language by the time they complete an undergraduate degree.

Because of the substantial academic commitment involved in

the courses, students are able to substitute the courses for up

to two of the STEM electives required in the core curricu-

lum. While not a route for the majority of students, young

people with an interest in international research projects,

global research and development, or social entrepreneurship

have found the opportunity to be a meaningful extension of

their core interest in science.

The preparation students receive has also created opportuni-

ties for study abroad, internships, and other language immer-

sion programs. Several Gatton Academy students have been

invited to participate in the National Security Language Ini-

tiative for Youth (NSLI-Y) program. This six-week summer

immersion program combines language learning with cultur-

al exchanges to introduce students to a new language or ac-

celerate students with prior experience in strategic needs lan-

guages. The success of the Mandarin program at the Gatton

Academy has led to the creation of a STEM+Arabic cognate

for students interested in that language.

Leveraging community partnerships

The Arkansas School for Mathematics, Sciences and the Arts

(ASMSA) leverages an uncommon resource that is literally in

the program’s backyard to promote partnership with govern-

ment programs. As an urban park, Hot Springs National Park

envelops the downtown Hot Springs community where the

school is located. A formal cooperative agreement between

ASMSA and the United States Department of the Interior

was signed in 2013 that allows the program to share resources,

technology, and data.

The agreement is to facilitate the involvement of ASMSA

students in activities and research related to the natural and

cultural resources of Hot Springs National Park. ASMSA, as

a statewide residential school, plans to use the program to

increase engagement of its faculty and students in park-spon-

sored research, educational, and outdoor recreational activi-

ties. For the National Park Service, involving more youth and

young adults in the care and enhancement of public resourc-

es serves to stimulate the Park’s public purpose of education,

job training, development of responsible citizenship, and

productive community involvement.

The National Park Service and ASMSA work in collaboration

to provide interpretation and educational programs for stu-

dents, faculty, and sta through the “Healthy Parks, Healthy

People” initiative. The NPS also works with geoscience facul-

ty to identify and co-advise research projects for students on

Park lands. Finally, the collaboration creates opportunities

for environmental and cultural stewardship of this natural re-

source that is central to the community’s history and identity.

The partnership is a point of pride for the school and leverag-

es a resource not immediately available to peer institutions.

As part of eorts to promote entrepreneurial thought and

activity among its students, the Illinois Mathematics and Sci-

ence Academy (IMSA) has worked with 1871, a Chicago-based

digital startup hub and co-working space, to create a space

for IMSA students to develop the next generation of innova-

tions. IMSA has a rich history of alumni pursuing entrepre-

neurial endeavors, with graduates involved in the founding of

YouTube, PayPal, Yelp, SparkNotes, and OKCupid.

A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2 147

State Residential STEM Schools : Roberts & Alderdice

IMSA’s Talent program focuses on student entrepreneurship in

a context of STEM. TALENT 2.0 provides experiences to stu-

dents in a combination of on-campus, o-campus, and digital

learning to promote entrepreneurial experiences by IMSA and

other students. The program seeks to take students through

the process of idea generation to startup company. TALENT

2.0 students participate in pitch events, startup weekends

and other activities alongside other teens and adults. Summer

programs for students have focused on condensing the ﬁrst

year experience of a startup into a single week.

The goal of these partnerships is to assist these young adults

in beginning to see themselves not just as students but also

as emerging participants in global dialogues, public agencies,

and the business community. Accelerated learning in applied

contexts presents an opportunity for students to collaborate

with adults, produce meaningful outcomes, and contribute

as full participants in real-world learning. Partnering organi-

zations and agencies view collaboration with residential aca-

demics, students, and sta as access points to pools for talent

development and community engagement. Both groups see

substantial beneﬁts to providing spaces and opportunities for

these young people to excel.

Statewide Impact

While the term “residential STEM schools” acknowledges

that the primary mission of the 16 peer institutions is to pro-

vide experiences within a physical community of peers, the

majority of institutions have taken active steps to develop

a wide portfolio of outreach programs that are intended to

promote best practices developed by faculty and sta, engage

younger populations of students, and develop a stronger and

more diverse admissions pipeline while beneﬁtting popula-

tions across the entirety of their state.

Marshall (2011) reﬂected on the work of the National Con-

sortium of Secondary STEM Schools, formerly the National

Consortium of Specialized Secondary Schools of Mathemat-

ics, Science, and Technology. Marshall, who served as the

founding president of the Illinois Mathematics and Science

Academy, noted the work of NCSSS and its member schools,

of which the majority of the residential academies are active-

ly involved, is to play a critical role in the transformation of

STEM education through sharing new designs for teaching

and learning.

Among these goals are personalized and experiential learn-

ing; concept-centered and integrative curriculum; inqui-

ry-based and problem-centered instruction; and generative,

multidimensional, authentic, and performance-based as-

sess

ments (pp. 2-3). While it is essential for the residential

STEM schools to demonstrate these traits in their practice,

providing experiences for students, educators, administra-

tors, and parents are also worthwhile tools toward ensuring

the widest possible variety of student populations have ac-

cess to appropriate opportunities for acceleration beyond

the residential experiences.

Speciﬁcally, the Illinois Mathematics and Science Academy

maintains three ﬁeld oces that oer a novel example of ef-

forts to improve the quality of learning beyond the residen-

tial students served by the institution. In addition to a port-

folio of professional development programs for educators at

their Aurora campus, IMSA facilitates ﬁeld oces in other

areas of the state: Chicago, Metro East in Belleville, and the

Rock Island Region. With residential enrollment primarily

consisting of students from the central and northern regions

of Illinois, the ﬁeld oces ensure the academy is achieving

its mission to improve education throughout the state. Sta

members within the ﬁeld oces deliver enrichment pro-

grams for students as well as additional professional develop-

ment experiences for interested teachers and administrators.

A goal of the oces is to promote collaboration with local

organizations to oer joint mathematics and science pro-

grams. Whereas the residential program at IMSA provides

an immediate impact to students enrolled, the beneﬁt to the

state through hundreds of teachers and classrooms carries

value-added beneﬁts.

IMSA’s online description of the role of its ﬁeld oces is a

cogent distillation of the guiding principles and rationale for

outreach programs at residential STEM schools.

• Deliver professional development in mathe-

matics and science instruction that focuses on

inquiry and discovery

• Provide out-of-school STEM programs

for students

• Build sustaining relationships with community

constituents and stakeholders

• Work to coordinate mathematics and science

programs with local organizations (IMSA Field

Oces section, par. 2)

While the majority of the residential STEM schools have

developed outreach programs throughout their histories,

the Gatton Academy of Mathematics and Science in Ken-

tucky represents a novel inversion of the trend. The Center

for Gifted Studies at Western Kentucky University has pro-

vided programs for gifted and talented students, parents, and

148 A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2

State Residential STEM Schools : Roberts & Alderdice

educators for more than three decades. Beginning in the late

1990s and culminating in the Gatton Academy’s ﬁrst cohort

of students in 2007, leadership of The Center alongside pub-

lic supporters and members of the WKU community were

the primary advocates for the creation of a school in that

state. The ongoing work of The Center for Gifted Studies,

an engaged pool of prospective students who had participat-

ed in enrichment and summer programs, and a campus com-

munity where interest in gifted and talented education was

well known helped to build legislative support and a create

a critical mass toward the state’s investment in an academy.

As the program developed over the last decade, The Center

continues to function in a complementary role by sharing

leadership, oce space, and other resources to promote op-

portunities on both a statewide and national scale.

The Maine School for Science and Mathematics sponsors a

one-week professional development experience for teachers

in their state called the S.T.E.M. Educators’ Camp. The core

philosophy of the low-cost event is sharing talents, perspec-

tives, and best practices with peers—an ideal that mirrors

the way the program engages students in the residential ex-

perience. The program serves a dual purpose of building a

network of advocacy for the importance of STEM as both a

discipline and priority for the state.

Each of these examples notes that teacher training, profes-

sional development, and peer engagement oer the most di-

rect route to increasing interest and achievement in a greater

population of students. The residential schools expend ex-

ceptional eort to recruit highly qualiﬁed and dynamic facul-

ty. Leveraging these sta members as public and professional

ambassadors for the program helps to ensure that appropriate

practices in STEM education and accelerated learning can be

mapped to other traditional gifted student populations.

Distance and Digital Learning

A commonality among the residential STEM schools is their

geographic concentration in the southern and midwestern

regions of the U.S. With high percentages of students living

in rural areas, the states that are home to such schools have

often leveraged the resources and talents of these campuses

to further partner with local districts throughout their states

to provide supplemental accelerated opportunities for moti-

vated students.

The decision to oer distance and digital learning courses

is not only a matter of service but also a practical realiza-

tion regarding the residential experience at the core of these

schools. The number of applications each year for residen-

tial programs from eager students tends to outstrip available

spaces for matriculation. To bridge interest with available op-

portunities, several schools have turned to distance and digi-

tal learning as a means of providing challenging opportunities

to students not admitted, who are ready for acceleration but

are not yet at the grade or age to apply, or for whom the resi-

dential experience is not appropriate for their needs or those

of their families.

Cross and Burney (2005) observed that school counselors are

often mindful of students’ readiness and needs for accelera-

tion and understanding that the residential STEM schools

oer a “life-changing opportunity for high-ability students

from isolated areas, limited circumstances, or both” (p. 153).

However, Wallace (2005) noted that distance education ef-

forts share many of the traits for accelerated learning for

highly able students in the residential experiences. Beyond

advanced coursework in a wide array of topics and content

areas, distance education oers ﬂexibility of study, instruc-

tion and guidance from geographically diverse faculty, and

peer interactions with students from across both their state

and the broader world. Wallace further asserted that these

programs can better align with gifted students’ desire to pur-

sue academic challenges and rigor when they are not forced

to move at a singular or predetermined pace.

When the residential program’s full array of expectations

and requirements may not be appropriate, online learning

can provide a similar “learning community” in which the stu-

dents, connected through technology, embrace their role as a

learner alongside other motivated peers while also enjoying

connections to a variety of adults as “signiﬁcant others” who

contribute to learning as facilitator, critical friend, mentor,

interpreter, and discussant (McKinnon & Nolan, 1999).

As opportunities for acceleration, which are frequently cours-

es on-par with the advanced coursework oered to residen-

tial students, instructors maintain high expectations for their

digital learners. Wilson, Litle, Coleman and Gallagher (1997),

who were instrumental in early programs at the North Caro-

lina School for Science and Mathematics, observed four char-

acteristics common among students who sought opportuni-

ties for acceleration through distance learning: appropriate

prior study; a desire to learn in a digital format; the skills to

work independently; and a willingness to persist when either

the content, delivery format, or other factors proved dicult.

In 2008, the North Carolina School for Science and Mathe-

matics established NCSSM Online as a means of expanding

access to the opportunities of the residential program in a hy-

brid-learning environment. NCSSM categorizes the experi-

ence as “A learning community of highly talented students in

A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2 149

State Residential STEM Schools : Roberts & Alderdice

North Carolina that enriches their experience while attend-

ing their local high school.” This large-scale eort was preced-

ed by nearly two decades of experience in oering accelerated

coursework through distance education. Students generally

take between one and two courses each semester taught by

NCSSM faculty through a blended learning environment.

In addition to classroom assignments, students must attend

an evening web-based videoconference to interact with the

teacher and peers. Many courses also have a required week-

end component where students visit the NCSSM campus for

combined instruction and socialization with peers.

Beyond the core academic experience, many of NCSSM’s

signature experiences that tie advanced STEM studies to

real-world research experiences are also available to students

in the online cohort. Students may apply for consideration

to the Summer Research and Leadership Program, Summer

Accelerator Program, or Summer Research and Internship

Programs. Combined with unique electives that go beyond

the core curriculum, NCSSM Online students enjoy many

of the beneﬁts of their residential peers while maintaining

their enrollment in community schools in 75 of 100 counties

throughout North Carolina. Because the residential commit-

ment is a considerable challenge for some students—as well

as their parents who play a key role in the decision to matric-

ulate—the online program serves as an acceptable bridge for

acceleration that prevents families from making an all-or-

nothing decision to address students’ academic, social, and

emotional needs.

The Louisiana School for Math, Science, and the Arts (LSM-

SA) plays a comprehensive role in bridging opportunity gaps

in its host state. The school now serves as one of several pro-

viders through the “Course Choice” program. A variety of

groups serve as educational providers under the program,

which was envisioned by Gov. Bobby Jindal and the Louisiana

Department of Education as a component of a reform pack-

age under Act 2. Though the list of providers includes nation-

al providers, Louisiana universities, and other trade-based

entities, LSMSA is leveraging its historic identity in the state

and experience in extended programs to address students’

needs beyond the residential school.

LSMSA has a rich history of contributions to distance learn-

ing over the last three decades. The school began oering

tele-learning coursework in the 1980s and later provided

opportunities in collaboration with the Department of Ed-

ucation’s Louisiana Virtual School. This updated approach

seeks to blend greater access to students in underperforming

districts as well as building on local curricula with expanded

oerings or unavailable and advanced electives.

Though the platform is asynchronous, with a goal of allow-

ing students access to coursework anywhere at any time of

the day, the program encourages students to commit speciﬁc

periods of study to the class, which includes prepared les-

sons, assignments, group discussions, and other components

to demonstrate sucient mastery of content. The LSMSA

Virtual School oers a broader portfolio of courses than

other STEM school peers. In addition to core courses and

Advanced Placement classes, the school leverages its Arts

mission with topical classes such as Introduction to Social

Media, Social Problems, Introduction to Culinary Arts, and

Digital Photography.

For the Arkansas School for Mathematics, Sciences, and the

Arts, a central tenet of the institution’s goals in digital learn-

ing focuses on developing content knowledge and rigorous

preparation for the school’s residential experience while

also providing supplemental experiences to students for

whom the residential experience is not the right ﬁt. ASMSA’s

STEM Pathways program, oered through a collaborative

grant from the Arkansas Department of Education, provides

Advanced Placement and pre-AP coursework in biology,

chemistry, physics, mathematics, and computer science. By

oering courses targeted to high school freshmen and soph-

omores, ASMSA seeks to establish a tangible connection to

students interested in advanced or dierentiated opportuni-

ties while setting the stage for later interest and success in

the residential program. To achieve this end, the Pathways

program oers residential lab weekends once per month, on-

line peer mentoring in the evenings guided by top-perform-

ing residential students, and site visits from ASMSA faculty

in partnering districts.

ASMSA’s expanded Arts mission also has supported the Glob-

al Languages and Shared Societies (GLASS) Initiative, which

was created to address the ongoing shortage of language

learning opportunities in the wake of the state’s divestment

in foreign language study over the past decade. This decline in

students’ study of languages is attributed to the removal of the

state’s lottery-funded scholarship program which no longer

requires two credits of language learning. When faced with

an ongoing shortage of available teachers in foreign languag-

es, many districts chose to pursue distance learning through

ASMSA and other partnering organizations in the state’s Dis-

tance Learning Consortium. The program now oers course-

work in Spanish, French, and Mandarin Chinese and hopes to

expand to include Arabic, Russian, and Japanese, which are

not oered locally by any Arkansas district.

The South Carolina Governor’s School for Science and

Mathematics launched a virtual engineering program in 2009

150 A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2

State Residential STEM Schools : Roberts & Alderdice

called Accelerate. SCSSM partnered with a cohort of sopho-

mores in a variety of districts with a goal of engaging highly

motivated and high-achieving students through a three-year

program that mirrors the curriculum that leads to the accel-

erated completion of ﬁrst-year university coursework in engi-

neering. Students who successfully complete the experience

earn up to 32 college credit hours. Classes include mathemat-

ics courses culminating in Multivariate Calculus, chemistry,

computer science, engineering, composition, and an hon-

ors-level senior project with the goals of interdisciplinary and

real-world learning.

The program, a collaborative eort between SCGSSM and

the state’s four engineering colleges, seeks to address a crit-

ical shortage of engineers in the state. This goal largely mir-

rors the intent of the school’s peer institutions to address

skill gaps in the workforce. The curriculum is oered through

synchronous virtual instruction throughout the school year

as well as weekend projects and summer research experienc-

es. The Accelerate program also builds on a core ethos of the

school’s mission, which includes active collaboration with

business and industry. Initial partners in the project such

as The Boeing Company, Duke Energy Corporation, Nucor

Steel, IEEE Foundation General Fund, and Westinghouse

Electric Company have oered corporate support to launch

the initiative.

The glimpses into these four institution’s eorts underscore

two consistent principles of how digital learning and distance

education complement the residential schools’ legislative

mission while providing opportunities to other students in-

terested in accelerated learning.

Even with a focused potential audience, limited seats for

admission and highly competitive pools of applicants often

mean that students who would beneﬁt from these programs

are passed over. With admissions cohorts ranging from 60 to

nearly 300 students for the residential experience, residential

STEM schools seek to ﬁnd additional ways to justify public

investment in the programs while ensuring greater access

to dynamic and engaging learning opportunities. With dis-

tance learning opportunities that serve thousands instead of

hundreds of students, schools have the ability to eectively

scale their practices. Because students enrolled in the digital

learning experiences do not always have the same overall ac-

ademic proﬁle as their residential counterparts, institutions

have the opportunity to reﬂect on how their experiences can

be mapped to diverse audiences and learning environments.

Finally, these programs allow STEM schools to pioneer new

and innovative methods of student engagement beyond

traditional physical classrooms. Programs like the ASM-

SA GLASS Initiative and SCGSSM Accelerate do not have

direct counterparts in the residential program and demon-

strate that populations beyond the residential students are of

considerable value and interest to faculty, administrators, and

public stakeholders of the program. These digital learning

initiatives also underscore the growing importance of blend-

ing learning environments that reﬂect an ever-evolving land-

scape of how best to reach students and promote learning.

Concluding Remarks

State STEM schools provide opportunities for advanced

students with talent and interest in science, technology, en-

gineering, and mathematics to thrive as learning ceilings are

removed. These residential schools oer opportunities for

students to accelerate in their academics and to enjoy a liv-

ing-learning community that encourages students to learn

at advanced levels that are atypical for their age-mates. They

participate in mentoring, research, service learning, and glob-

al experiences that are more usual for college students than

for high school students. They learn at these high levels with

others who are also talented and interested in STEM studies.

References

Almarode, J. T., Crowe, E., Subotnik, R. F., & Tai, R. H. (2013). Future of

education for STEM talented adolescents. Paper presented at the meet-

ing of the American Psychological Association Education Directorate,

Washington, DC. Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/ed/schools/

cpse/overall-study-outcomes.pdf

Almarode, J. T., Subotnik, R. F., Crowe, E., Tai, R. H., Lee, G. M., & Nowl-

in, F. (2014). Specialized high schools and talent search programs: In-

cubators for adolescents with high ability in STEM disciplines. Journal

of Advanced Academics, 25(3), 307-331.

American Psychological Association. (2013). Multi-level outcomes of a spe-

cialized science high school study: Overview of study goals, ﬁndings, next

steps. Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/ed/schools/cpse/confer-

ence-study-summary.pdf

Cofer, J. (1996). Service-learning: Does it aﬀect attitudes, grades and atten-

dance of students who participate? (Report No. SO 030 860). Frank-

fort, KY: Franklin County Schools. (ERIC Document Reproduction

Service No. ED431687)

Coleman, L. J. (2001). A “rag quilt”: Social relationships among students in

a special high school. Gifted Child Quarterly, 4(3), pp. 164-173.

Cross, T. L., & Burney, V. H. (2005). High ability, rural, and poor: Lesson

from Project Aspire and implications for school counselors. e Journal

of Secondary Gifted Education, 26(4), 148-156.

Cross, T. L., & Dixon, F. A. (1998). On gifted students in rural schools.

National Association of Secondary School Principals Bulletin, 82, 119-124.

Cross, T. L., & Frazier, A. D. (2009). Guiding the psychosocial development

of gifted students attending specialized residential STEM schools.

Roeper Review, 32(1), 32-41. doi:10.1080/02783190903386868

A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2 151

State Residential STEM Schools : Roberts & Alderdice

Cross, T. L., & Miller, K.A. (2007). Residential academies for gifted ado-

lescents. In J. VanTassel-Baska (Ed.), Serving gifted learners beyond the

traditional classroom: A guide to alternative programs and services (pp.

81-104). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press Inc.

Dorsel, T. N., & Wages, C. (1993). Gifted residential education: Outcomes

are largely favorable, but there are some cautions. Roeper Review, 15(4),

239-242.

Falls, M. D. (2009). Psychological sense of community and retention: Re-

thinking ﬁrst-year experience of students in STEM (Doctoral disserta-

tion). Retrieved from http://purl.fcla.edu/fcla/etd/CFE0002841

Finn, C. E., Jr., & Hockett, J. A. (2012). Exam schools: Inside America’s most

selective public high schools. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Higher Education Research Institute at UCLA. (2010). Degrees of suc-

cess: Bachelor’s degree completion rates among initial STEM majors. Los

Angeles: CA: Author. Retrieved from http://www.heri.ucla.edu/nih/

downloads/2010%20-%20Hurtado,%20Eagan,%20Chang%20-%20

Degrees%20of%20Success.pdf

Illinois Mathematics and Science Academy. (n.d.) IMSA ﬁeld oﬃces. Re-

trieved from https://www.imsa.edu/extensionprograms/pfs/ﬁeldoﬃce

Jarwan, F. A. & Feldhusen, J. F. (1993). Residential schools of mathematics

and science for academically talented youth: An analysis of admission pro-

grams (CRS93304). Storrs, CT: e National Research Center on the

Gifted and Talented, University of Connecticut.

Jones, B. M., Fleming, D. L., Henderson, J., & Henderson, C. E. (2002).

Common denominators: Assessing hesitancy to apply to a selective

residential math and science academy. e Journal of Secondary Gifted

Education, 8(4), 164-172.

Jones, B. M. (2009). Proﬁles of state-supported residential math and sci-

ence schools. Journal of Advanced Academics, 20(3), 472-501.

Jones, B. M. (2010). Pursuing diversity at state-supported residential

STEM schools. NCSSSMST Journal, 16(1), 30-37.

Lee, J. D. (2002). More than ability: Gender and personal relationships

inﬂuence science and technology involvement. Sociology of Education,

75, 349-373.

Marshall, S. P. (2011). Introduction. In Lundgren, D. D., Laugen, R. C.,

Lindeman, C. A., Shapiro, M. J., & omas, J. (Ed.), Schools like ours:

Realizing our STEM future (pp. 1-4). Lynchburg, VA: NCSSSMST.

McBee, M. T., & Fields, S. (2014). Special schools for the gifted. In J. A.

Plucker & C. M. Callahan (Eds.), Critical issues and practices in gifted

education (pp. 623-633). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press Inc.

McKinnon, D. H., & Patrick Nolan, C. J. (1999). Distance education for

the gifted and talented: An interactive model design. Roeper Review,

21(4), 320-325.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2011). Postsecondary awards in

science, technology, engineering, and mathematics by state: 2011 and 2009.

Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2011/2011226.pdf

National Science Board (2012). Science and engineering indicators 2012

(NSB 12-01). Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.

National Science Foundation. (2013). Women, minorities, and persons

with disabilities in science and engineering: 2013. Retrieved from

http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/wmpd/2013/pdf/nsf13304_digest.pdf

Olszewski-Kubilius, P. (2009). Special schools and other op-

tions for gifted STEM students. Roeper Review, 32(1), 61-70.

doi:10.1080/02783190903386892

Pfeiﬀer, S. I., Overstreet, M., & Park A. (2010). e state of science and

mathematics education in state-supported residential academies: A na-

tionwide survey. Roeper Review, 32, 25-31.

President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. (2010). Prepare

and inspire: K-12 education in science, technology, engineering, and math

(STEM) for America’s future. Retrieved from http://www.whitehouse.

gov/sites/default/ﬁles/microsites/ostp/pcast-stemed-report.pdf

Roberts, J. L (2007). Policies related to state residential schools of math-

ematics and science: Schools of choice for gifted young people. School

Choice: Research, eory and Practice. 1(4), 13-23.

Roberts, J. L. (2010). Talent development in STEM disciplines: Diversity

 Cast a wide net. NCSSSMST Journal, 16(1), 10-12. Retrieved from

ERIC database. (EJ930651).

Rollins, M. R., & Cross, T. L. (2014). Assessing the psychological changes

of gifted students attending a residential high school with an outcome

measurement. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 37(5), 337-354.

Sayman, D. M. (2013). Quinceañeras and quadratics: Experiences of Lati-

nas in state-supported residential schools of science and math. Journal

of Latinos & Education, 12(3), 215-230.

Stanley, J. C. (1991). A better model for residential high school for talented

youths. e Phi Delta Kappan, 72(6), 471-473.

Stanley, J. C. (1987). State residential high schools for mathematically tal-

ented youth. e Phi Delta Kappan, 68(10), 770-773.

Wagner, T., & Compton, R. A. (2012). Creating innovators: e making of

young people who will change the world. New York: Scribner.

Wai, J., Lubinski, D., Benbow, C. P., & Steiger, J. H. (2010). Accomplish-

ment in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM)

and its relation to STEM educational dose: A 25-year longitudinal

study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(4), 860-871.

Wallace, P. (2005). Distance education for gifted students: leveraging tech-

nology to expand academic options. High Ability Studies, 16(1), 77-86.

Wilson, V., Litle, J., Coleman, M. R., & Gallagher, J. (1997). Distance

learning. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 9(2), 89-100.

Wyss, V. L., & Tai, R. H. (2012). Service learning in high school biology

and college major choice. College Student Journal, 46(2), 459-464.

152 A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2

State Residential STEM Schools : Roberts & Alderdice

A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2 153

Early Entrance to College : Brody & Muratori

Introduction

Students who are eager for greater academic challenge than

their high schools provide may consider early college entrance

as a way to access the advanced courses and stimulating aca-

demic environment that a college or university can provide.

For many, the image of an early college entrant may be of a

very young-looking student with no prior college experience

heading to college with other students who are considerably

older and more knowledgeable, an image that provokes much

concern about the student’s academic, social, and emotional

readiness to handle the college environment. While this sce-

nario may have been the case for many early college entrants

in the past, it is much less true today.

Due to the widespread availability of other accelerative op-

tions for high school students, such as AP (Advanced Place-

ment) and IB (International Baccalaureate) courses, aca-

demic summer programs, and online options, many students

who enter college at younger-than-typical ages are likely to

have already completed considerable advanced coursework

and may have been in classes with older students while still

in high school. Furthermore, those who accelerated in grade

placement earlier in their educational careers may naturally

be graduating from high school at young ages so that college

is the next obvious step for them, while those leaving high

school without graduating may be enrolling in one of the spe-

cial early college entrance programs that have been speciﬁ-

cally developed to meet the academic, social, and emotional

needs of young college students. Other students, perhaps not

ready to enroll full-time in college, may be dually enrolling in

high school and college, thus continuing to have the support

of their family and school community while also gaining ac-

cess to greater academic challenge at a local college or univer-

sity. The availability of such diverse options allows students

to consider early college entrance in a way that meets their

individual needs and makes it a much less radical choice today

than perhaps it was in the past.

Historical Overview of

Early College Entrance

in the United States

Early in America’s history, many students were educated at

home by tutors or in other settings (e.g., one-room schools)

that allowed them to learn at their own pace. Those fortunate

to attend college were often able to enter when they were ac-

ademically ready to pass any required entrance examinations,

with the most precocious of them enrolling at young ages. As

schools were created that grouped students together on the

basis of chronological age, such individualized progress was

Abstract

As one of many accelerative options available today, early college entrance provides some young students who are ready for the demands of

college early with the unique opportunity to move forward in their educational trajectories one, two, or even more years sooner than most of

their age peers. Early college entrance has increased in popularity among high school students in search of greater challenge, as evidenced

by the upsurge in early college entrance programs in the United States. This chapter provides an historical overview of early college entrance

and describes the widely varying program models being implemented today. Research ﬁndings highlighting both academic and social/

emotional outcomes of early entrants and the implications of this research for educators are presented.

Early Entrance to College:

Academic, Social, and

Emotional Considerations

Linda E. Brody and Michelle C. Muratori

Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland

Chapter 12

154 A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2

Early Entrance to College : Brody & Muratori

less common, though whole-grade acceleration was some-

times recommended for advanced students, leading them to

enter college sooner than they might have without skipping

grades. Studies such as those by Gray (1930), Keys (1938),

Terman and Oden (1947), and Cronbach (1996) all attest to

the presence of relatively young students attending Ameri-

ca’s colleges in the past. As enrichment programs were grad-

ually established to serve gifted students, however, acceler-

ation was less favored, resulting in fewer students entering

college at younger-than-typical ages (Brody & Stanley, 1991;

Daurio, 1979).

Exceptions occurred during times in our history when young

college entrants were recruited to meet particular societal

needs. For example, universities were encouraged to accept

younger students during World War II so that they could

earn degrees before being drafted for military service. Sim-

ilarly, around the time of the Korean War, the Ford Foun-

dation provided scholarship support for students under age

to enroll full-time at any of 12 colleges or universities

for two years before entering the military (Fund for the Ad-

vancement of Education, 1953). After its ﬁnancial support

for the university-based early entrance programs ended,

the Ford Foundation turned its eorts to helping establish

the College Board AP program, and also funded a study of

the newly developing IB program. Today, the widespread

availability of AP and IB coursework oers students access

to college-level coursework within their high schools. For

some students, these courses serve as a viable alternative to

entering college early, while those who decide to enter col-

lege early may still beneﬁt from having had prior exposure

to content at the AP and/or IB level (Brody, Assouline, &

Stanley, 1990; Curry, MacDonald, & Morgan, 1999).

The Study of Mathematically

Precocious Youth (SMPY)

In 1969, when Johns Hopkins Professor Julian Stanley met

13-year-old Joe Bates, the AP and IB programs were still not

readily available, nor were other accelerative options typical-

ly oered to students with advanced academic abilities and

needs. Although Joe had scored above the mean of graduating

high school seniors on the SAT and other college entrance

exams, the high school he was scheduled to attend, as well

as other public and private schools in the Baltimore area,

proved unable and/or unwilling to accommodate his need

for accelerated content. Consequently, Stanley intervened

to help him enroll full-time at Johns Hopkins University,

a very radical move at the time. After Joe and several other

students who followed in his footsteps experienced extraor-

dinary success as young college students, Stanley wondered if

there were other brilliant students whose potential might be

limited by unchallenging instructional programs during their

middle and high school years. He established SMPY at Johns

Hopkins to ﬁnd such students and develop ways to help them

achieve their full potential. Soon, large numbers of students

with advanced mathematical reasoning abilities were being

identiﬁed through SMPY’s talent searches (Stanley, 1996;

Stanley, 2005).

With the support of SMPY, quite a few students opted for

early college entrance as a strategy to serve their need for ad-

vanced coursework, and considerable research was done to

evaluate their performance (e.g., Stanley & Benbow, 1983). Al-

though the experiences of these students tended to be quite

positive, the SMPY sta knew that radical acceleration into

college would not be optimal, or even possible, for most of

the students that were being identiﬁed. Consequently, they

experimented with other strategies to serve mathematically

talented students, such as fast-paced accelerated math and

science classes, and established residential academic summer

programs to bring students together on college campuses.

The value and importance of placing advanced students in en-

vironments where they could interact with intellectual peers

was deﬁnitely emphasized as a critical component in SMPY’s

recommendations, and continues to be a focus of the talent

search programs today (Brody & Stanley, 2005; Stanley, 2005).

Early Entrance Programs

While there was evidence that most of the SMPY students

who entered college early as individual students excelled

(e.g., Brody, Lupkowski, & Stanley, 1988), concerns persisted

among the sta about those who were less prepared for col-

lege and who encountered academic, social, and/or emotional

diculties. Thus, Stanley became intrigued with the concept

of early college entrance programs, an option that could pro-

vide able students with access to age peers who are also intel-

lectual peers, as well as to advanced courses. He encouraged

the creation of such programs (Stanley, 1991), and assisted

in the development of the Texas Academy of Mathematics

and Science at the University of North Texas, the Advanced

Academy of Georgia at the University of West Georgia, and

the National Academy of Arts, Sciences, and Engineering at

the University of Iowa.

Early college entrance programs actually have a fairly long

history, with the ﬁrst systematic early entrance program be-

ing established at the University of Chicago in 1937. In the

1950s, as noted previously, the Ford Foundation provided ﬁ-

nancial support to establish early college entrance programs

A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2 155

Early Entrance to College : Brody & Muratori

at 12 colleges and universities, and the one at Shimer College

continues today. In 1966, Simon’s Rock College was founded,

initially as a women’s college that combined the last two years

of high school with the ﬁrst two years of college. Over time, it

became co-ed, eliminated its high school component so that

students remaining for four years could earn a bachelor’s de-

gree, and aliated with Bard College, a structure it retains

today. It remains the only four-year residential early college

program housed on its own campus.

In 1977, the Early Entrance Program at the University of

Washington was established, a fairly radical program that

admits students prior to age 15 and that continues today. Its

creation was inﬂuenced by news about the success of radical

accelerants at Johns Hopkins (Robinson & Robinson, 1982),

but it was designed to include many safeguards and supports

to help ensure the early entrants’ success. The program ad-

ministrators have since also established the UW Academy, a

residential program for students enrolling at the University

of Washington after 10th grade, thus creating an opportu-

nity for students opting to enter the university early but a

bit later in their high school career than the Early Entrance

Program requires.

Spurred by increased interest among educators to oer more

opportunities for academically advanced students, ongoing

concerns that young college students might need more ac-

ademic, social, and emotional support than other students

as they transition to college, and positive reports about the

success of students enrolled in some of the early programs,

the 1980s and 1990s brought renewed interest in establishing

additional early college programs (Boothe, Sethna, Stanley, &

Colgate, 1999). Typically designed for students leaving high

school prior to graduation, students enroll in these programs

in cohorts, thus gaining a peer group as well as considerable

programmatic support to help them succeed. Today, early

college entrance programs can be found at a variety of col-

leges and universities around the country.

Though they share similar goals related to enhancing the ac-

ademic performance and social and emotional adjustment

of early college entrants, the nature of early college entrance

programs can vary signiﬁcantly. For example, some are in-

tended for commuting students (e.g., the Early Entrance

Program at California State University, Los Angeles), while

others are residential (e.g., the Missouri Academy of Sci-

ence, Mathematics and Computing at Northwest Missouri

State University, where the living arrangements enhance the

sense of a community of peers). Some accept students at a

much younger age (e.g., the Early Entrance Program at the

University of Washington) than others (e.g., the Resident

Honors Program at the University of Southern California).

They vary in cost (e.g., a private institution such as Simon’s

Rock College can be expensive unless the student is award-

ed a scholarship, while a state-funded program such as the

Advanced Academy of Georgia is less costly, especially for

those who qualify for in-state tuition, and the Bard High

School Early College programs, which are partnerships be-

tween Bard College and public school systems in several

U.S. cities, are free of charge to local residents). The size of

student enrollment in the early college programs also diers

(e.g., the Texas Academy of Mathematics and Science en-

rolls about 200 rising high school juniors per year, while the

National Academy of Arts, Sciences, and Engineering only

accepts about 10-12 students in a typical class), as well as the

campus environment (e.g., Simon’s Rock College utilizes

a whole campus, while most residential early college pro-

grams oer separate housing but are located on the campus

of a larger college or university). Some programs are open to

any qualiﬁed applicant, while others have restrictions (e.g.,

the Program for the Exceptionally Gifted and the Early Col-

lege Academy at Mary Baldwin College are for females only;

the Texas Academy of Mathematics and Science is restrict-

ed to Texas residents).

Programmatic components can vary in important ways as

well. Whereas certain programs are noted for their strengths

in mathematics and science (e.g., the Massachusetts Acad-

emy of Mathematics and Science, which is aliated with

Worcester Polytechnic Institute), others emphasize the hu-

manities (e.g., the Texas Academy of Leadership in the Hu-

manities at Lamar University) or have a broad liberal arts fo-

cus (e.g., the Resident Honors Program at the University of

Southern California). Some programs include special classes

for their early entrants (e.g., the Early Entrance Program at

the University of Washington’s one-year Transition School)

or oer one or more years of high school coursework as part

of their program before having students enroll directly in uni-

versity courses (e.g., Boston University Academy), while oth-

ers are designed for students to take courses with other uni-

versity students from the start (e.g., the National Academy

of Arts, Sciences, and Engineering). Some programs have the

authority to grant high school diplomas (e.g., Texas Academy

of Mathematics and Science), while other programs suggest

that students encourage their high schools to accept the col-

lege credits and issue high school diplomas (e.g., The Clark-

son School at Clarkson University) or take the position that a

high school diploma is unnecessary (e.g., the Early Entrance

Program at the University of Washington). Table 1 provides a

list of selected early college programs and highlights some of

their unique characteristics. See also Muratori (2007).

156 A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2

Early Entrance to College : Brody & Muratori

State-Supported Residential

High Schools

State-supported residential high schools oer an alternate

model for serving advanced students. Interestingly, when the

Texas Academy of Mathematics and Science was founded as a

state-supported institution, a decision was made speciﬁcally

to design it as an early entrance program and not a residential

high school (Jones, 2011), and Stanley (1991) applauded this

decision. Since then, however, as more early college programs

and residential high schools have been established, the dis-

tinction between these two models has become a bit blurry.

Both serve academically talented students by providing ac-

cess to advanced (e.g., college-level) coursework and a com-

munity of intellectual peers. Perhaps the major dierence

is that the goal of the high schools is to prepare students to

graduate from high school and subsequently enroll in college

as freshmen, while completion of an early college entrance

program should lead to placement in college as an upper class-

man. However, as noted earlier, some early college programs

grant high school diplomas, while many of the residential

high schools oer considerable credit-bearing college cours-

es, and other dierences between these program models are

inconsistent as well.

For example, early college programs are usually administered

by a college or university and located on that institution’s

campus, in contrast to typical residential high schools, such

as the Illinois Mathematics and Science Academy and the

North Carolina School of Science and Mathematics, which

have their own campuses and are not university aliated.

Nonetheless, the Indiana Academy for Science, Mathemat-

ics, and Humanities, which is considered a high school, is on

the campus of Ball State University, and Simon’s Rock Col-

lege, as mentioned earlier, has its own campus and is about 50

miles away from Bard. Furthermore, the Arkansas School of

Science, Mathematics, and the Arts, though a high school, is

administered by the University of Arkansas system as one of

its campuses.

A relative newcomer to the scene, the Gatton Academy

of Mathematics and Science in Kentucky was honored by

Newsweek as the best high school in the United States. Yet,

we have included this high school on our list of early col

lege entrance programs because it is located on the campus

of Western Kentucky University, and students can gradu-

ate with as many as 60 college credits. Clearly, early college

entrance programs and state-supported residential high

schools are not dichotomous models, but include numerous

individual examples that are hybrids of the two with their

own distinguishing characteristics.

Early College High Schools

Another variation of early college entrance programs is the

early college high school, which enrolls ninth graders and

pairs two years of high school with two years of college for a

four-year early college experience leading to an associates de-

gree. Adopting this framework, the Bard High School Early

College opened in New York City in 2001 as a collaborative

initiative with the New York City public schools. This tui-

tion-free program, supported by public funds and private do-

nations, has since expanded to other sites in New York City,

as well as Newark, NJ, New Orleans, LA, Cleveland, OH, and

Baltimore, MD.

In 2002, the Early College High School Initiative was

launched by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Similar

in format to the Bard High School Early Colleges in coupling

two years of an enriched high school experience with two

years of college, in this case typically at a community col-

lege, this initiative is not primarily intended for exception-

ally advanced students who lack access to advanced courses

in school. Rather, it hopes to propel students who are at risk

of dropping out of high school and/or avoiding college to

earn at least a bachelor’s degree (Kaniuka & Vickers, 2010).

This model, which has grown dramatically in size and scope

with high school and college partnerships being established

throughout the country, has since attracted additional fund-

ing from public and private sources, and studies suggest im-

proved high school and college graduation rates for partici-

pants (American Institutes for Research, 2013).

Part-time College Options

Part-time enrollment in college is an option that has long

been available to qualiﬁed students who have chosen to pur-

sue it. In contrast to enrolling full-time in college as an early

entrant, keeping a foot in the door of the high school allows

students to participate in high school activities (though some

early college programs oer this as well), and to apply to col-

lege as freshmen, with or without advanced standing, which

can greatly enhance their chances of being admitted to those

highly selective universities that accept few transfer stu-

dents. Eager to recruit talented students, many colleges are

very willing to enroll high school students with strong stan-

dardized test scores and/or advanced content knowledge on

a part-time basis.

Dual enrollment in high school and college took a leap for-

ward in the mid-1980s, when states began supporting leg-

islation that provided funding for these programs (e.g.,

Broughton, 1987; McCarthy, 1999). While the parameters

A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2 157

Early Entrance to College : Brody & Muratori

Advanced Academy of Georgia

University of West Georgia

Carrollton, GA

http://www.advancedacademy.org/

1995 • Residential program

• Enter in 11th or 12th grade

• All university programs available to students

• Automatic enrollment in Honors College

• Access to mentor program and to leadership, social, and residence hall activities

Bard College at Simon’s Rock

Bard College

Great Barrington, MA

https://simons-rock.edu/

1966 • Residential program

• Enter in 11th or 12th grade

• Option for accelerated 9th and 10th grades at Bard Academy

• A liberal arts and sciences college afﬁliated with Bard College

• Promotes a holistic, interdisciplinary approach and offers small class sizes

• Activities range from cultural events and lecture series to student-led clubs and

community service

Bard High School Early Colleges

Bard College

New York City, NY; Newark, NJ;

New Orleans, LA; Cleveland, OH; and

Baltimore, MD

http://bhsec.bard.edu/

2001 • Commuter program

• Enter in 9th grade

• Complete high school and the ﬁrst 2 years of college in 4 years

• Many extracurricular activities and support services available

• Only for students from the local public school system where the BHSEC campus is

located

Boston University Academy

Boston University

Boston, MA

http://www.buacademy.org/home

1993 • Commuter program

• Enter in 9th grade, typically

• Access to a classically-based core curriculum that leads into college courses at BU

• Access to many extracurricular activities and college counseling

The Clarkson School

Clarkson University

Potsdam, NY

http://www.clarkson.edu/tcs/

1978 • Residential program

• Enter in 12th grade

• Focus on meeting high school requirements and researching future college options

• Access to Personal and Professional Development Program

• “Family dinners” for students and staff, ﬁeld trips, and special events scheduled

• Option to participate in university activities

The Davidson Academy of Nevada

University of Nevada, Reno

Reno, NV

http://www.davidsonacademy.unr.edu/

2006 • Commuter program

• Free public day school on campus of UNR

• Access to courses at UNR or other colleges

• Serves profoundly gifted middle and high school students

• No grade levels are designated

• Provides a Personalized Learning Plan (PLP)

• Access to many student activities

Table 1: Selected Programs for Early College Entrants

Name of Program

Inception

Date Program Features

158 A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2

Early Entrance to College : Brody & Muratori

Early College Academy

Mary Baldwin College

Staunton, VA

http://www.mbc.edu/early_college/eca/

2011 • Residential program

• Enter in 12th grade, typically

• Only available to females ages 16 and 17

• Most resources of MBC available to ECA students

Early Entrance Program

California State University, Los Angeles

Los Angeles, CA

http://web.calstatela.edu/academic/eep/

index.php

1982 • Commuter program

• Enter in 9th grade, typically (ages 11-16)

• Provisional summer courses

• Access to EEP resources: kitchen, study room, computer room and social areas;

counseling

• Participation in CSULA’s Honors College Program

• Expectation to complete degree at CSULA

Early Entrance Program

Shimer College

Chicago, IL

http://www.shimer.edu/

1950 • Commuter program with residential option available

• Enter in 11th or 12th grade, typically

• Follows the Great Books core curriculum

• Automatically awarded a modest annually renewable merit scholarship

Early Entrance Program

University of Washington

Seattle, WA

https://robinsoncenter.uw.edu/programs/

early-entrance-program/

1977 • Commuter program

• Enter after 8th grade, typically

• TS students must be younger than 15

• 2-step program: 1-year Transition School (TS) followed by early entrance into UW

• Access to special support services, activities, and resources.

Early Honors Program

Alaska Paciﬁc University

Anchorage, AK

http://www.alaskapaciﬁc.edu/academics/

early-honors/

2000 • Commuter program with residential option available

• Enter in 12th grade

• Program follows “Block and Session” format: intensive focus on few subjects

• Can participate in high school or university clubs

• EH travel courses offered

• Complete a year of transferable college credit (1-year program)

The Gary K. Herberger Young Scholars

Academy

Arizona State University

Glendale, AZ

http://herbergeracademy.asu.edu/

2010 • Commuter program

• Serves highly gifted middle and high school students

• University coursework available based upon readiness

• Program includes internships and research experience

The Gatton Academy of Mathematics

and Science in Kentucky

Western Kentucky University

Bowling Green, KY

http://www.wku.edu/academy/

2007 • Residential program

• Enter in 11th grade

• State-supported high school with STEM focus

• Can accrue over 60 hours of college credit

• STEM research opportunities and STEM + Critical Languages track available

• Admits only Kentucky residents

Name of Program

Inception

Date Program Features

Table 1: Selected Programs for Early College Entrants (continued)

A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2 159

Early Entrance to College : Brody & Muratori

Georgia Academy of Aviation,

Mathematics, Engineering & Science

Middle Georgia State College

Macon, GA

http://www.mga.edu/games/

1997 • Residential program

• Enter in 11th or 12th grade

• Emphasizes preparation in STEM ﬁelds

• Access to academic and social resources in Welch Hall

• Option to participate in social committees and youth service projects

• Most graduates transfer to other 4-year institutions

Kansas Academy of Mathematics and

Science

Fort Hays State University

Hays, KS

http://www.fhsu.edu/kams/

2009 • Residential program

• Enter in 11th grade

• Strong emphasis on math and science and research opportunities

• Leadership development and civic engagement emphasized

• Tuition, fees, and books paid for by KAMS

• Designed for Kansas residents, but non-Kansas and international students can apply

Massachusetts Academy of

Mathematics and Science

Worcester Polytechnic Institute

Worcester, MA

http://www.massacademy.org/

1992 • Commuter program

• Enter in 11th grade

• Seniors complete a year of college courses at WPI

• Emphasis on STEM with a rigorous curriculum in the humanities and world languages

• Admits Massachusetts residents only

Missouri Academy of Science,

Mathematics and Computing

Northwest Missouri State University

Maryville, MO

http://www.nwmissouri.edu/masmc/

2000 • Residential program

• Enter in 11th grade

• Focus on STEM subjects

• Program’s philosophy based on Integrity and Quality (IQ)

• Permitted to organize clubs under the guidance of a staff/faculty advisor and

participate in university organizations

• Community service encouraged

National Academy of Arts, Sciences, and

Engineering

The University of Iowa

Iowa City, IA

belinblank.org/academy

1999 • Residential program

• Enter in 12th grade

• Encouraged to earn bachelor’s degree from UI

• Automatic enrollment in UI Honors Program

• Access to resources in Blank Honors Center

• BBC staff facilitate weekly seminars and biweekly meetings with students and

provide advocacy

• Encouraged to participate in clubs and activities sponsored by NAASE, BBC, and UI

Program for the Exceptionally Gifted

Mary Baldwin College

Staunton, VA

http://www.mbc.edu/early_college/peg/

1985 • Residential program

• Enter in grades 9 through 11, typically

• Only open to females 13 and older

• Most resources of MBC available to PEGs

• Social and cultural weekend and evening events planned

• Leadership opportunities available (e.g., committees, peer advising)

Name of Program

Inception

Date Program Features

Table 1: Selected Programs for Early College Entrants (continued)

160 A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2

Early Entrance to College : Brody & Muratori

vary among the states, the intent is to provide access, and

usually funding, for high school students to attend local col-

leges on a part-time basis to take a course their high school

does not oer. The credits typically will transfer to another

public college or university within the state, but most high-

ly selective colleges and universities do not grant credit for

part-time college courses taken by high school students at

local colleges because they cannot assess the level and quality

of instruction. This is in contrast to more generous policies

with regard to granting credit for AP and IB courses based on

examination scores.

Online courses

The emergence and widespread availability of online cours-

es has opened another door for high school students to gain

access to college coursework. Oered by numerous universi-

ties, talent search centers, school systems, and other organi-

zations, online courses are utilized by high school students to

accelerate through more basic coursework in order to enroll

in advanced courses sooner, to study subjects of interest not

available in their schools, and/or to complete college-lev-

el work without having to worry about the logistics of get-

ting to a local college. Although online coursework presents

able students with greater ﬂexibility and, in many cases, the

Resident Honors Program

University of Southern California

Los Angeles, CA

http://dornsife.usc.edu/resident-honors-

program/

1961 • Residential program

• Enter in 12th grade

• Expected to earn bachelor’s degree from USC

• Automatic enrollment in Thematic Option Honors Program

• Incorporated into the larger USC community

• Encouraged to participate in university- and RHP-sponsored activities

• Awarded a renewable merit scholarship

Texas Academy of Leadership in the

Humanities

Lamar University

Beaumont, TX

http://dept.lamar.edu/taolith/

1993 • Residential program

• Enter in 11th grade, typically

• Emphasis on the humanities and on the development of character and leadership

skills through volunteerism and community service

• Field trips to performing arts venues and museums

• High school activities offered (e.g., Prom, yearbook, clubs)

• Admits only residents of Texas

Texas Academy of Mathematics and

Science

University of North Texas

Denton, TX

https://tams.unt.edu/

1988 • Residential program

• Enter in 11th grade

• Strong emphasis on math and science and research opportunities

• Many clubs and service organizations offered

• Tuition, fees, and books paid for by TAMS

• Admits only residents of Texas

UW Academy

University of Washington

Seattle, WA

https://robinsoncenter.uw.edu/programs/

uw-academy/

2001 • Commuter program; Students age 17 and older can apply to reside on campus

• Enter in 11th grade

• Participate in Bridge Program (summer group advising, Academy Camp, and

Academy courses)

• Involvement in UW Honors Program

Name of Program

Inception

Date Program Features

Table 1: Selected Programs for Early College Entrants (continued)

A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2 161

Early Entrance to College : Brody & Muratori

opportunity to move through curricula at an individual-

ized (i.e., faster) pace, schools can beneﬁt from this option

too. For example, a school can provide students with an ad-

vanced course such as linear algebra online without having

to hire a teacher. When credit is not needed, the MOOCs

(Massive Open Online Courses), Khan Academy, and others

oer free non-credit options as a way to facilitate learning

advanced content.

Research on Early College Entrants

With such a wide range of early college options, in conjunc-

tion with the myriad factors that can impact a student’s

experience in college, it is dicult to generalize about the

overall eectiveness of early college entrance as a strategy to

serve gifted students. However, we can gain insight from the

quantitative and qualitative research that has been done, as

well as information drawn from biographical and anecdotal

accounts of students’ experiences as young college entrants.

The summary that follows focuses on full-time early enroll-

ment in college, whether pursued individually or through an

early entrance program.

Academic and Occupational Success of

Early Entrants

Investigations of the academic performance of students

who entered college early, as well as of the long-term impact

on their careers, present a fairly compelling picture of high

achievement and success (Brody & Stanley, 1991; Olszewski-

Kubilius, 2002). Even among students who enrolled in college

with little programmatic support, ﬁndings have been quite

positive. For example, Gray (1930) found that young college

students suered fewer academic failures, were awarded

more honors, and gained more recognition in extra-curricu-

lar activities than did a comparison group of older college stu-

dents. In addition, studies of the Ohio State (Pressey, 1949),

University of Chicago (Bloom & Ward, 1952), and Ford Foun-

dation (Fund for the Advancement of Education, 1953) accel-

erants in the 1940s and 1950s also supported the positive ef-

fects of acceleration on students’ academic performance and

other factors.

The progress of students who entered college early through

the guidance of the Study of Mathematically Precocious

Youth (SMPY) was studied extensively, lending much cre-

dence to early entrance to college as a strategy for meeting

the needs of highly able students. Most impressively, a fol-

low-up investigation of six exceptionally young college grad-

uates found that, at the time the study was conducted, ﬁve of

them had earned Ph.D. degrees and were working in presti-

gious positions, while the sixth was an 18-year-old graduate

student (Stanley, 1985a). In research on larger cohorts of early

entrants, the majority were found to excel throughout the

college years, though there was some variability in their levels

of performance (e.g., Brody & Benbow, 1987; Brody, Lupkow-

ski, & Stanley, 1988; Stanley, 1985a; Stanley, 1985b; Stanley &

Benbow, 1983; Stanley & McGill, 1986). Consequently, Brody,

Assouline, and Stanley (1990) sought to identify factors that

contribute to the highest levels of academic success among

early entrants (e.g., earning concurrent bachelor’s and mas-

ter’s degrees and/or honors at graduation). In their study of

65 young college students who entered a selective universi-

ty, prior experience with AP coursework was found to be the

strongest predictor of academic success, suggesting the im-

portance of mastering a certain level of content knowledge

prior to enrolling in college.

A recent follow-up study of SMPY participants conﬁrms the

long-term high achievement of early college entrants, and

suggests that getting a jumpstart on their professional ca-

reers may have had an impact on their productivity (Park, Lu-

binski, & Benbow, 2013). Cohorts of students who were iden-

tiﬁed as mathematically talented middle school students in

1972-1974, 1976-1979, and 1980-1983, and who skipped grades

during their school years or left high school early to go to

college (presumably grade-skipping also resulted in entering

college younger than is typical), were compared to a matched

control group of individuals who had not accelerated in grade

placement. The accelerated students, as a group, earned their

degrees and published their ﬁrst peer-reviewed papers earlier,

and also had more citations of their work by age 50. How-

ever, this advantage was not evident among the group that

had been identiﬁed the latest, i.e., in 1980-1983, when they

were surveyed at age 42. The researchers suggest that the

non-grade-skipping cohort to whom they were compared

may have beneﬁtted from other accelerative opportunities

that were available by the time they were in high school, just

as grade-skipping had facilitated the needs and fostered the

achievements of the earlier cohorts (Park, et al., 2013). This

later group had been advised by SMPY to take advantage of

such options.

Additional evidence in support of the academic and occupa-

tional success of early college entrants comes from biograph-

ical data and anecdotal accounts that demonstrate the high

levels of achievement among accelerated students, especially

in their chosen career ﬁelds (Daurio, 1979). An often-cited ex-

ample is Norbert Weiner, the father of cybernetics who earned

a Ph.D. from Harvard in 1912 at age 17, and more recent exam-

ples include the distinguished mathematicians and Fields med-

162 A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2

Early Entrance to College : Brody & Muratori

alists Charles Lewis Feerman, who earned his Ph.D. from

Princeton at 20, and Terence Tao, a SMPY protégé who earned

his Ph.D. at 21 from Princeton. While some critics of accelera-

tion still point to the negative experiences of the prodigy Wil-

liam James Sidis, the remarkable accomplishments of so many

others far outweigh his unique story.

Most of the work described above involves assessing the prog-

ress of students who accelerated on their own. Research has

also been done to assess the performance of students enrolled

in some of the early college entrance programs, with arguably

the most extensive work being conducted by researchers at

the University of Washington. An early study of participants

in the Early Entrance Program there identiﬁed a fairly large

number of underachievers among the radical accelerants

(Janos, Sanﬁlippo, & Robinson, 1986), but a later follow-up

study that compared those who entered this program be-

tween 1977 and 1986 with students who qualiﬁed for the pro-

gram but opted to attend high school, and with non-accelerat-

ed National Merit Scholarship ﬁnalists, found most students

in all three groups to be doing well several years later (Noble,

Robinson, & Gunderson, 1993). In a survey by Noble and her

colleagues (2007), graduates of the Early Entrance Program

praised the peer and faculty support as well as the intellec-

tual stimulation that they found there. For more research on

the University of Washington’s Early Entrance Program, see

Janos, Robinson, and Lunneborg (1989), Noble and Childers

(2008), Noble, Childers, and Vaughan (2008), Noble and

Drummond (1992), and Noble and Smyth (1995).

After the UW Academy was established for able, albeit less

accelerated, students to enroll as early entrants at the Uni-

versity of Washington, a comparison study was conducted

between students in this program and the more radical Early

Entrance Program. Surprisingly, the UW Academy students

were less satisﬁed with their transition experience, a ﬁnding

that led to some modiﬁcations to the program. It was hy-

pothesized that some of the students who came to college

later in their high school career may have had more diculty

adjusting to not being at the top of their class in the more

competitive environment, at least until their study skills im-

proved (Noble & Childers, 2008, 2009). A recent follow-up

study of alumni from both University of Washington pro-

grams revealed that the majority of participants achieved

at high levels, earned an above average income, felt satisﬁed

with their decision to go to college early, and were generally

happy (Hertzog & Chung, 2015).

Students at the Texas Academy of Mathematics and Science

have also been studied, with overall positive results (Sayler,

2015). There is considerable evidence of the majority of stu-

dents’ earning excellent grades in rigorous courses, being ac-

cepted as transfer students with scholarships to highly selec-

tive universities, and/or being accepted to prestigious graduate

programs (e.g., see Jones, 2011; Sayler & Lupkowski, 1992). In

support of a theme that others have found, Schumacker, Say-

ler, and Bembry (1995) found the use of appropriate learning

strategies and study skills to be linked to the academic success

of the early entrants, especially time management, being able

to select main ideas in texts, and test/class preparation.

Similarly, a study of the performance of the inaugural class

of the National Academy of Arts, Sciences, and Engineering

at the University of Iowa found that the early entrants felt

challenged by the academic oerings and, as a group, earned a

ﬁrst-semester GPA higher than that of the typical University

of Iowa freshman (Muratori, Colangelo, & Assouline, 2003).

However, within the small class of 10 students in this particu-

lar cohort, two encountered serious academic problems, forc-

ing them to leave the university. After selection procedures

were reﬁned for subsequent classes, the retention rate was

better, but there were still a few incidences of academic pro-

bation. Seeking to understand the factors that contributed to

academic success or the lack thereof, Muratori (2003) found

that those who thrived academically appeared to be more fo-

cused, perseverant, and motivated than those who were less

successful. From her research, she concluded, tentatively, that

personal attributes are important predictors of academic suc-

cess, and that (perhaps unsurprisingly) diculties students

experience prior to enrolling in college are likely to continue

in college if left unaddressed (Muratori, 2003). Again, these

ﬁndings are in line with what researchers have concluded

about students in the other early college entrance programs.

High performance overall was also the norm for early entrants

at the Advanced Academy of Georgia. In a study of the ﬁrst

four cohorts, Sethna, Wickstrom, Boothe, and Stanley (2001)

reported that the early entrants performed above the level of

the typical-age undergraduates attending the State Universi-

ty of West Georgia, which has since been renamed the Uni-

versity of West Georgia. No students withdrew or were asked

to withdraw for academic reasons. Many did transfer to other

institutions to complete their undergraduate studies, but the

list of those is quite impressive and is perceived as a positive

result of the program. There is also evidence to support the

academic and professional success of students who attended

certain programs abroad, for instance, the Special Class for

the Gifted Young (SCGY). This well-established residential

early college entrance program is housed at the University of

Science and Technology of China (USTC), which is aliat-

ed with the Chinese Academy of Sciences (Dai & Steenber-

gen-Hu, 2015).

A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2 163

Early Entrance to College : Brody & Muratori

In an overall summary of the research on early college en-

trance, Olszewski-Kubilius (2002) concluded that the evi-

dence regarding early entrants’ academic success is “over-

whelmingly positive” (p. 154). However, she cautioned that

poor performers may not be included in many of the studies

if they leave the program before completing it. In addition,

the importance of a few students’ encountering academic

diculties may not be stressed enough in studies where the

majority of participants do well. On the other hand, another

study of students who left an early entrance program found

that it was not always for negative reasons; some transferred

to another college or university that was a better ﬁt for their

developing interests (Heilbronner, Connell, Dobyns, &

Reis, 2010).

Social and Emotional Adjustment of

Early College Entrants

Expecting every young college student to be highly success-

ful academically and socially is unrealistic, since many reg-

ular-aged college students experience varying levels of di-

culty adjusting to the college environment. However, with

young college students, in particular, parents and educators

worry about their readiness to be independent, their maturi-

ty to make sound decisions, and their ability to interact with

other college students, even in the early college entrance pro-

grams where they are provided with additional support. Al-

though many researchers investigating the academic success

of young college students have concluded that early entrants,

as a group, are not hampered by social and emotional issues

(Brody & Stanley, 1991; Daurio, 1979), fears about potential

social and emotional diculties for future early college en-

trants seem to persist.

One concern is whether initial adjustment to campus at a

young age may be especially dicult for the young students.

This question was addressed in a study of the Ford Founda-

tion-sponsored early college entrants, and some initial dif-

ﬁculties in adjusting to campus life were revealed. However,

they were considered minor and soon overcome (Fund for

the Advancement of Education, 1953). Adjustment during the

ﬁrst year of college was also the focus of a study of 24 SMPY

participants who entered college at least two years early and

attended any of 17 colleges or universities around the country,

including ﬁve students who were accelerated by ﬁve or more

years. Although no serious emotional issues were reported for

any of the students, and social complaints were minor, pri-

marily coming from commuting students who were too young

to drive, two students residing away from home experienced

some challenges. One of these students was quite homesick

and subsequently transferred to a college nearer to his home

where he was much happier, while the other student, who had

gone to college for academic reasons but had enjoyed the social

aspects of high school, returned to high school after a year of

college (Brody et al., 1988).

Responding to the special concerns about students whose

acceleration is particularly radical, Pollins (1983) studied

the adjustment of 21 male SMPY participants who were at

least three years ahead in grade placement as college stu-

dents. Compared with a group matched on age and ability,

she found no negative social or emotional eects of accel-

eration, even though the accelerants had not received any

special program support other than encouragement from

SMPY. This study has often been cited as evidence that

early college entrants are unlikely to experience social or

emotional diculties.

The more recent research on the social and emotional ad-

justment of early college students has primarily taken place

within the early college entrance programs. Since much of

the force behind the creation of these programs was to en-

hance social and emotional adjustment by allowing students

to be with a compatible group of age peers, validation of

this goal seems necessary to the continued support of these

programs. In general, research and anecdotal reports on the

social adjustment of students from the Texas Academy of

Mathematics and Science (e.g., Lupkowski, Whitmore, &

Ramsay, 1992; Sayler, 1994, 2015; Sayler & Lupkowski, 1992),

the National Academy of Arts, Sciences, and Engineer-

ing (Muratori, 2003; Muratori et al., 2003), the Advanced

Academy of Georgia (e.g. Sethna et al., 2001), and the Uni-

versity of Washington Early Entrance Program (e.g., Janos

& Robinson, 1985; Janos et al., 1988; Janos et al., 1989; No-

ble, Arndt, Nicholson, Sletten, & Zamora, 1999; Noble &

Drummond, 1992; Noble & Smyth, 1995; Robinson & Janos,

1986; Robinson & Noble, 1992) support the notion that

most participants in these programs succeed in developing

satisfying social relationships. In addition, early entrance

was found to facilitate personal well-being overall for stu-

dents who attended the Texas Academy of Mathematics and

Science (Boazman & Sayler, 2011), and to be associated with

lesser anxiety for Advanced Academy of Georgia students

compared to their older college peers (Sethna et al., 2001).

However, in spite of such positive ﬁndings and reports about

groups of early college entrants, there are some examples in

the literature of individuals who did encounter social or emo-

tional diculties for whom early college entrance was not an

optimal choice. Even among students at the Texas Academy

of Mathematics and Science, for example, where reports of

164 A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2

Early Entrance to College : Brody & Muratori

satisfaction with the program are extremely high, some par-

ticipants said they would not repeat their early entrance ex-

perience, citing such factors as leaving their home and school

environments before they were ready, stress, and inadequate

social skills to function independently (Boazman & Sayler,

2011). And, in her study of students enrolled in the ﬁrst co-

hort of the National Academy of Arts, Sciences, and the En-

gineering, Muratori (2003) found that a few of them were

plagued with homesickness or other socio-emotional issues

that contributed to their leaving the program.

A few studies have sought to identify variables that predict

social adjustment among early entrants. For example, Caplan,

Henderson, Henderson, and Fleming (2002) found family en-

vironmental factors (e.g., cohesion, conﬂict, and expressive-

ness) and overall self-concept relevant to college adjustment

among early entrants attending the Texas Academy of Math-

ematics and Science. Parental support and family values were

also found to be important to successful early entrants in the

Program for the Exceptionally Gifted at Mary Baldwin Col-

lege (Solow & Rhodes, 2012). And after studying students’ ad-

justment at the Advanced Academy of Georgia, Sethna and

his colleagues (2001) concluded that social and emotional

preparedness and academic and social maturity play a role in

any early college student’s success. These studies and others

point to the importance of considering social and emotional

factors in the selection process prior to admitting students

to early college entrance programs. In fact, Muratori (2003)

found that the adjustment diculties that certain students

in her study encountered might have been anticipated prior

to enrollment because of challenges they were already expe-

riencing in high school.

Consistent with the ﬁndings summarized above, and with the

caveat that early college entrance programs are not appropri-

ate for all students who might be academically qualiﬁed, re-

searchers evaluating the Advanced Academy of Georgia pro-

gram concluded as follows:

Clearly, early college entrance programs will not suit every

intellectually talented high school student. They are one of

many excellent ways to enable students to move ahead faster

and better. For some mature, brilliant youngsters, however,

they are manna om educational heaven. Being constantly

with one’s intellectual peers who are also one’s age mates, feel-

ing ee to interact and express ideas without fear of ridicule .

. . can be a blessed relief. (Sethna et al., 2001, pp. 19-29)

Discussion

In a pivotal paper that described the rationale for the estab-

lishment of the Early Entrance Program at the University

of Washington, Robinson and Robinson (1982) noted the

diculty of trying to meet the individual needs of advanced

learners in regular classroom settings. They argued for try-

ing to achieve, as much as possible, an “optimal match” be-

tween the learning needs of each student and the intellectu-

al challenge presented, while also paying attention to their

social and emotional development. The Early Entrance

Program was founded as one solution for students whose

academic potential is signiﬁcantly above their classmates.

Julian Stanley, who had experimented even earlier with en-

rolling exceptionally advanced young students in college as

an alternative to age-in-grade instruction, also endorsed

the optimal match concept when he called for providing a

“smorgasbord” of options to serve advanced students, from

which students could choose those that best met their own

unique needs (Stanley, 1979).

Thanks to the groundbreaking work of these researchers and

the contributions of many other researchers and educators

who have followed them, there are now many challenging

curricular and out-of-school opportunities available for aca-

demically talented students. There is still work to be done to

meet individual needs within classrooms, to assure that ac-

celeration is maintained on a continuum, and that equity ex-

ists with regard to access to out-of-school options. The gifted

education ﬁeld has nevertheless made substantial progress

on these fronts; we are rich with well-researched program

models and strategies, some of which are described in this

chapter (i.e., early college options), others elsewhere in this

volume (i.e., other accelerative strategies), and still more that

can be located through online directories and other resourc-

es. Being able to choose from these options lets students fol-

low the path that best meets their own needs, for example,

allowing one exceptional student to pursue early college en-

trance, another to stay in high school and tackle the challenge

of national or international competitions, and a third to take

a reduced high school course load so that she can do indepen-

dent science research with a mentor at a nearby university.

With regard to early college entrance speciﬁcally, the re-

search supports it as a proven and eective strategy to serve

advanced learners who are academically ready to move be-

yond their high school environments at younger-than-typical

ages. The fact that it is now an option that can be pursued

in a variety of ways expands its usefulness and accessibility

to many more students. Counseling is still an essential com-

ponent to ensure that each student’s readiness matches the

program to which he or she is headed and that the student

is going for the right reasons (e.g., to ﬁnd greater challenge

rather than escape an unsatisfying situation). But we must

dispel any lingering notions that early college entrance inev-

A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2 165

Early Entrance to College : Brody & Muratori

itably causes social and emotional diculties. For those who

choose to pursue it, however, we must ensure that they are

ready academically, socially, and emotionally for the challeng-

es it will bring, have realistic expectations about college life

and the early entrance experience, and feel conﬁdent that it

is the optimal choice for them.

Implications for Educators

To be ready to succeed in college, whether they enter early or

at the typical time, enroll in a special early entrance program

or on their own, students need to have a strong background

in content knowledge, good study skills and work habits, and

the conﬁdence to interact socially in a new environment.

Unfortunately, academically talented students can be less

prepared than other students for the transition to college if

they fail to develop adequate study skills or time manage-

ment strategies in high school because their classes are too

easy or fail to develop adequate social skills because they have

little in common with their classmates. Furthermore, those

who enroll in college at younger-than-typical ages may be at

an even greater disadvantage, even in early college entrance

programs, if they lack the prerequisite knowledge and skills

to be able to excel in more advanced courses. With a national

goal of preparing students to be college- or career-ready by

the end of high school, educators need to consider what this

means for their advanced students and ensure that they have

access to appropriately accelerated coursework throughout

their school years.

By the time students are in high school, if they have been ex-

posed to accelerated content all along, college-level course-

work is warranted, supplemented with a broad array of

extracurricular activities that extend learning beyond the

classroom. Educators should also be prepared to recom-

mend the out-of-school summer programs, competitions,

internships, and other opportunities that can be particularly

valuable as venues for learning and that allow participants to

interact with their intellectual peers. With a broad spectrum

of such resources in place, early college entrance should not

have to be the default simply because there are no appropri-

ate courses or activities available as alternatives in the latter

years of high school, but rather, it can be a conscious choice

for some students. When students do inquire about early col-

lege entrance, educators can help them by being supportive,

evaluating their readiness, describing options and alterna-

tives, and helping them make the best decision about how to

proceed in order to achieve their speciﬁc goals.

References

American Institutes for Research (2013). Early college, early success: Early

College High School Initiative impact study. Washington, DC: Author.

Bloom, B. S., & Ward, F. C. (1952). e Chicago Bachelor of Arts degree

after ten years. Journal of Higher Education, 23, 459-467.

Boazman, J., & Sayler, M. (2011). Early college entrance and life satisfac-

tion: Personal well-being of gifted students following participation in

an early college-entrance program. Roeper Review, 33(2), 76-85.

Boothe, D., Sethna, B. N., Stanley, J. C., & Colgate, S. D. (1999). Special

opportunities for exceptionally able high school students: A description

of eight early-college-entrance programs. Journal of Secondary Gifted

Education, 10(4), 195-202.

Brody, L. E., Assouline, S. G., & Stanley, J. C. (1990). Five years of ear-

ly entrants: Predicting successful achievement in college. Gifted Child

Quarterly, 34(4), 138-142.

Brody, L. E., & Benbow, C. P. (1987). Accelerative strategies: How eﬀective

are they for the gifted? Gifted Child Quarterly, 31(3), 105-110.

Brody, L. E., Lupkowski, A. E., & Stanley, J. C. (1988). Early entrance to

college: A study of academic and social adjustment during the freshman

year. College and University, 63(4), 347-359.

Brody, L. E., & Stanley, J. C. (1991). Young college students: Assessing fac-

tors that contribute to their success. In W. T. Southern & E. D. Jones

(Eds.), e academic acceleration of gifted children (pp. 102-132). New

York: Teachers College Press.

Brody, L. E., & Stanley, J. C. (2005). Youths who reason exceptionally well

mathematically and/or verbally. In R. J. Sternberg and J. E. Davidson

(Eds.). Conceptions of giftedness (2nd ed.) (pp. 20-37). New York, NY:

Cambridge University Press.

Broughton, R. W. (1987). e Minnesota 11th and 12th grade post-second-

ary enrollment options program: Is it changing the traditional structure of

secondary and post-secondary schools? (ERIC Document Reproduction

Service No. ED 282 600). Jeﬀerson City, MO: Council of North Cen-

tral Community and Junior Colleges.

Caplan, S. M., Henderson, C. E., Henderson, J., & Fleming, D. L. (2002).

Socioemotional factors contributing to adjustment among early-en-

trance college students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 46(2), 124-134.

Cronbach, L. J. (1996). Acceleration among the Terman males: Correlates

in midlife and after. In C. P. Benbow & D. Lubinski (Eds.), Intellectu-

al talent: Psychometric and social issues (pp. 179-191). Baltimore: Johns

Hopkins University Press.

Curry, W., MacDonald, W., & Morgan, R. (1999). e Advanced Place-

ment Program: Access to excellence. Journal of Secondary Gifted Educa-

tion, 11(1), 17-23.

Dai, D. Y., & Steenbergen-Hu, S. (2015). Special Class for the Gifted

Young: A 34-year experimentation with early college entrance pro-

grams in China. Roeper Review 37(1), 9-18.

Daurio, S. P. (1979). Educational enrichment versus acceleration: A review

of the literature. In W. C. George, S. J. Cohn, & J. C. Stanley (Eds.),

Educating the gifted: Acceleration and enrichment (pp. 13-63). Baltimore:

Johns Hopkins University Press.

Fund for the Advancement of Education. (1953). Bridging the gap between

high school and college. New York: Research Division of the Fund, Ford

Foundation.

Gray, H. A. (1930). Some factors in the undergraduate careers of young

college students. Contributions to Education, No. 437. New York: Teach-

ers College, Columbia University.

166 A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2

Early Entrance to College : Brody & Muratori

Heilbronner, N. N., Connell, E. E., Dobyns, S. M., & Reis, S. M. (2010)

e “stepping stone phenomenon”: Exploring the role of positive attri-

tion at an early college entrance program. Journal of Advanced Academ-

ics, 21(3), p392-425.

Hertzog, N. B., & Chung, R. U. (2015). Outcomes for students on a fast

track to college: Early college entrance programs at the University of

Washi ng ton. Roeper Review, 37(1), 39-49.

Janos, P. M., & Robinson, N. M. (1985). e performance of students in

a program of radical acceleration at the university level. Gifted Child

Quarterly, 29(4), 175-180.

Janos, P.M., Robinson, N.M., Carter, C., Chapel, A., Cuﬂey, R., Curland,

M., Daily, M., Guilland, M., Heinzig, M., Kehl, H., Lu, S., Sherry, D.,

Stoloﬀ, J., & Wise, A. (1988). A cross-sectional developmental study

of the social relations of students who enter college early. Gifted Child

Quarterly, 32(1), 210-215.

Janos, P. M., Robinson, N. M., & Lunneborg, C. E. (1989). Markedly early

entrance to college. Journal of Higher Education, 60(5), 495-518.

Janos, P. M., Sanﬁlippo, S. M., & Robinson, N. M. (1986). “Underachieve-

ment” among markedly accelerated college students. Journal of Youth

and Adolescence, 15, 303-311.

Jones, B. M. (2011). e Texas Academy of Mathematics and Science: A

20-year perspective. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 34(3), 513-

543.

Kaniuka, T. S., & Vickers, M. (2010). Lessons learned: How early college

high schools oﬀer a pathway for high school reform. NASSP Bulletin,

94(3), 165-183.

Keys, N. (1938). e underage student in high school and college. Univer-

sity of California Publications in Education, 7, 145-271.

Lupkowski, A., Whitmore, M., & Ramsay, A. (1992). e impact of ear-

ly entrance to college on self-esteem: A preliminary study. Gifted Child

Quarterly, 36(2), 87-90.

McCarthy, C. R. (1999). Dual-enrollment programs: Legislation helps

high school students enroll in college courses. Journal of Secondary Gift-

ed Education, 11(1), 24-32.

Muratori, M. C. (2003). A multiple case study examining the adjustment of

ten early entrants. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, e University of

Iowa, Iowa City.

Muratori, M. C. (2007). Early entrance to college: A guide to success. Waco,

TX: Prufrock Press.

Muratori, M., Colangelo, N., & Assouline, S. (2003). Early entrance stu-

dents: Impressions of their ﬁrst semester of college. Gifted Child Quar-

terly, 47(3), 219-238.

Noble, K. D., Arndt, T., Nicholson, T., Sletten, T., & Zamora, A. (1999).

Diﬀerent strokes: Perceptions of social and emotional development

among early college entrants. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education,

10(2), 77-84.

Noble, K. D., & Childers, S. A. (2008). A passion for learning: e theory

and practice of optimal match at the University of Washington. Journal

of Advanced Academics, 19(2), 236-270.

Noble, K. D., & Childers, S. A. (2009). Swimming in deep waters: 20 years

of research about early university entrance at the University of Wash-

ington. In In L. V. Shavinina (Ed.), International handbook on giftedness

(pp. 999-1016). New York: Springer.

Noble, K. D., Childers, S. A., & Vaughan, R. C. (2008). A place to be cel-

ebrated and understood: e impact of early university entrance from

parents’ points of view. Gifted Child Quarterly, 52(3), 256-268.

Noble, K. D., & Drummond, J. E. (1992). But what about the prom?

Students’ perceptions of early college entrance. Gifted Child Quarterly,

36(2), 106-111.

Noble, K. D., Robinson, N. M., & Gunderson, S. A. (1993). All rivers lead

to the sea: A follow-up study of gifted young adults. Roeper Review,

15(3), 124-130.

Noble, K. D., & Smyth, R. K. (1995). Keeping their talents alive: Young

women’s assessment of radical, post-secondary acceleration. Roeper Re-

view, 18(1), 49-55.

Noble, K. D., Vaughan, R. C., Chan, C., Childers, S., Chow, B., Federow,

A., & Hughes, S. (2007). Love and work: e legacy of early university

entrance. Gifted Child Quarterly, 51(2), 152-166.

Olszewski-Kubilius, P. (2002). A summary of research regarding early en-

trance to college. Roeper Review, 24(3), 152-157.

Park, G., Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (2013). When less is more: Eﬀects

of grade skipping on adult STEM productivity among mathematically

precocious adolescents. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(1), 176-

198.

Pollins, L. D. (1983). e eﬀects of acceleration on the social and emo-

tional development of gifted students. In C. P. Benbow & J. C. Stanley

(Eds.), Academic precocity: Aspects of its development (pp. 160-178). Bal-

timore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Pressey, S. L. (1949). Educational acceleration: Appraisal and basic problems.

Bureau of Educational Research Monographs, No. 31. Columbus, OH:

Ohio State University Press.

Robinson, N. M., & Janos, P. M. (1986). Psychological adjustment in a

college-level program of marked academic acceleration. Journal of Youth

and Adolescence, 15(1), 51-60.

Robinson, N. M., & Noble, K. D. (1992) Acceleration: Valuable high

school to college options. Gifted Child Today, 15(2), 20-23.

Robinson, N. M., & Robinson, H. B. (1982). e optimal match: Devising

the best compromise for the highly gifted student. In D. Feldman (Ed.),

New Dimensions for Child Development: Developmental Approaches to

Giftedness and Creativity, No. 17, 79-94.

Sayler, M. F. (1994). Early college entrance: A viable option. In J. B. Hansen

& S. M. Hoover (Eds.), Talent development: eories and practice (pp.

67-79). Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Co.

Sayler, M. F. (2015). Texas Academy of Mathematics and Science: 25 years

of early college STEM opportunities. Roeper Review, 37(1), 29-38.

Sayler, M. F., & Lupkowski, A. E. (1992). Early entrance to college: Weigh-

ing the options. Gifted Child Today, 15(2), 24-29.

Schumacker, R. E., Sayler, M., & Bembry, K. L. (1995). Identifying at-risk

gifted students in an early college entrance program. Roeper Review,

18(2), 126-129.

Sethna, B. N., Wickstrom, C. D., Boothe, D., & Stanley, J. C. (2001). e

Advanced Academy of Georgia: Four years as a residential early-col-

lege-entrance program. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 13(1),

11-21.

Solow, R., & Rhodes, C. (2012). College @ 13: Young, gifted, and purposeful.

Scottsdale, AZ: Great Potential Press.

Stanley, J. C. (1979). e study and facilitation of talent in mathematics.

In A. H. Passow (Ed.), e 78th Yearbook of the National Society for the

Study of Education: e gifted and the talented: eir education and devel-

opment (pp. 169-185). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Stanley, J. C. (1985a). How did six highly accelerated gifted students fare in

graduate school? Gifted Child Quarterly, 29(4), 180.

A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2 167

Early Entrance to College : Brody & Muratori

Stanley, J. C. (1985b). Young entrants to college: How did they fare? College

and University, 60, 219-228.

Stanley, J. C. (1991). A better model for residential high schools for talent-

ed youth. Phi Delta Kappan, 72(6), pp. 471-473.

Stanley, J. C. (1996). In the beginning: e Study of Mathematically Pre-

cocious Youth. In C. P. Benbow & D. Lubinski (Eds.), Intellectual talent

(pp. 225-235). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Stanley, J. C. (2005). A quiet revolution: Finding boys and girls who reason

exceptionally well mathematically and/or verbally and helping them

get the supplemental educational opportunities they need. High Ability

Studies, 16(1), 5-14.

Stanley, J. C., & Benbow, C. P. (1983). Extremely young college graduates:

Evidence of their success. College and University, 58(4), 361-371.

Stanley, J. C., & McGill, A. M. (1986). More about “Young entrants to col-

lege: How did they fare?” Gifted Child Quarterly, 30(2), 70-73.

Terman, L. M., & Oden, M. H. (1947). e gifted child grows up: Twen-

ty-ﬁve year follow-up of a superior group. Genetic studies of genius, Vol. 4.

Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

168 A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2

Early Entrance to College : Brody & Muratori

A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2 169

Early Entrance to College : Brody and Muratori

Special Issues in

Acceleration

170 A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2

Early Entrance to College : Brody and Muratori

A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2 171

Introduction

The early bird catches the worm. This common idiom expresses

the idea that the best opportunities are available to those who

seek them first. This philosophy has been used to support

acceleration—allowing gifted and talented students to com-

plete their schooling in fewer years—thereby allowing them

to rapidly enter the workforce and make substantial intel-

lectual contributions (Pressey, 1946; Terman, 1957). Indeed,

accelerated students do enter the workforce and achieve

success earlier than their non-accelerated, same-age and

same-ability peers (Janos, 1987; Park, Lubinski, & Benbow,

2013). These facts are important, but not surprising. It seems

intuitive that accelerated students make earlier and larger

contributions when they are being compared with students

of similar ability who have had less time (because they were

not accelerated) to do big things. In this respect, we know ac-

celerated students have an advantage. What we do not know,

however, is whether accelerated students have an advantage

over older students of the same ability who complete school

at the same time and compete in the same job market.

The second mouse gets the cheese. This idiom strikes a more cau-

tionary tone. Could acceleration mean “too much, too soon,”

and therefore be too risky as an intervention? Might accel-

erated students be disadvantaged because they skipped crit-

ical elements of schooling? That is the focus of this chapter:

evaluating the impact of acceleration on career outcomes by

comparing accelerated students with their same-ability, older

classmates. The following sections will ﬁrst review literature

on gifted and talented career development including the ef-

fects of acceleration on career outcomes, and then present

results of an original research study.

Abstract

Research consistently supports the beneﬁts of acceleration for school-age students including advanced academic achievement and more

frequent graduate degree attainment. This chapter extends the discussions that are typically grounded in academic (K-graduate school)

environments by presenting an analysis of a longitudinal data set that investigates whether the advantages associated with academic

acceleration persist into the workplace (i.e., careers). In other words, do the beneﬁts persist in an environment beyond typical schooling and

degree attainment?

This chapter considers two mechanisms by which acceleration may affect career outcomes: precocity (i.e., early career entrance) and

productivity rates. The data analyses in this chapter speak only to the second mechanism (through comparison with older peers). Support for

the ﬁrst mechanism comes from the prior research (comparison with same-age peers). Prior research shows that accelerated students, who

enter the workforce earlier than same-age, same-ability peers, are more successful. Original data analyses in this chapter demonstrate that,

in their careers, accelerated students also have advantages over older peers – similar-ability, non-accelerated individuals who started their

careers at the same time.

Accelerated students are more successful, have higher productivity rates, more prestigious occupations and they earn more and increase

their income faster compared to older, similar-ability, non-accelerated peers. Therefore, acceleration provides both short-term (within

educational settings) and long-term (workplace settings) beneﬁts. Implications for educators and counselors are discussed including how

acceleration as an intervention may impact initial career decisions as well as subsequent career outcomes.

Early to Rise:

The Eects of Acceleration on Occupational

Prestige, Earnings, and Satisfaction

Katie Larsen McClarty

Center for College & Career Success, Pearson, Austin, Texas

Chapter 13

172 A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2

Career Outcomes for Gifted and

Talented Students

Although much research is devoted to identifying and serv-

ing gifted and talented children with the goal of maximizing

their potential and producing eminent adults (Subotnik,

Olszewski-Kubilius, & Wo r rell, 2011), fewer research studies

focus on the career accomplishments of gifted individuals

and their developmental trajectories. As Jung (2012) notes,

careers are where most gifted children will have “the oppor-

tunity to translate their exceptional abilities into significant

achievements that advance knowledge and/or affect the

lives of others in society” (p. 189). In fact, the advancement

of knowledge and society has been one of the undercurrents

of gifted education programs. For example, after the Soviet

Union launched the satellite Sputnik in 1957, America began

placing great emphasis on cultivating talent, helping gifted

students fulfill their potential, and being globally competi-

tive (Tannenbaum, 1979).

We should take care, however, not to equate exceptional

potential or opportunities with a societal obligation to devel-

op those gifts and talents and apply them directly to a cho-

sen career (Hoyt, 1974). Meeting the expectations of others

is one of the challenges gifted children face in making career

choices (Emmett & Minor, 1993; Wood, 2009). Some re-

search has indicated that gifted individuals feel they need to

enter careers to please others rather than to satisfy their own

interests and values (Hagan, 1982). Other important con-

siderations in gifted students’ career development include

multipotentiality, perfectionism, early career maturity, and

lengthy educational training.

Multipotentiality is defined as the ability to choose between

a number of possible career outcomes due to high general

abilities, interests, motivations, and opportunities (Rysiew,

Shore, & Leeb, 1999). Many gifted children perform at ad-

vanced levels in multiple areas, which can make narrowing

career options difficult. On traditional ability assessments

and career interest inventories, when compared to other

students at their age- or grade-level, they may show a “high-

flat” profile, indicating potential in multiple areas with no

differentiation of strengths and weaknesses (Sanborn, 1979).

However, when above-level tests (see Olszewski-Kubilius,

this volume) are used, many fewer students fit a traditional

multipotential profile. In a study of gifted teenagers, slight-

ly more than half had flat ability profiles using above-level

testing, and fewer than five percent had flat profiles when

also considering interests and values (Achter, Lubinski,

& Benbow, 1996).

Another career challenge for gifted students may lie in a ten-

dency toward perfectionism. This can manifest as an inability

to make the “perfect” career choice, with students wanting a

career that will both provide a sense of accomplishment and

make a difference in society (Emmett & Minor, 1993). The

pressure to find the perfect job may result in delayed career

decisions or frequent college major changes (Greene, 2003).

Despite challenges in selecting the “right” career, or per-

haps because of a desire to select the “right” career, gifted

students start career exploration earlier than other students

(Kelly & Cobb, 1991). They have more career-related infor-

mation and in some instances are more certain of their career

choices than similar-aged peers (Kelly & Colangelo, 1990;

Stewart, 1999). When career choices are made, gifted stu-

dents tend to choose careers requiring ten or more years of

postsecondary training (Stewart, 1999). They obtain more

postsecondary degrees and make significant contributions

as adults (Kell, Lubinski, & Benbow 2013; Subotnik, Karp, &

Morgan, 1989; Terman & Oden, 1959). Gifted students tend

to enter management or professional occupations, hold posi-

tions of leadership, and produce an abundance of creative or

scholarly works.

Although many gifted children are successful, the direct

link between IQ or school achievement and outstanding

career accomplishments is weak (Milgram & Hong, 1999).

Some suggest intelligence is a necessary but not sufficient

condition. Students need to possess a minimum level of gen-

eral aptitude, but beyond that there are many more factors

that influence ultimate adult achievement, including per-

sistence, task commitment, mentors, and educational or

training opportunities (Beck, 1989; Cox, 1926; Perrone, 1997;

Renzulli, 1978; Simonton, 1997; Subotnik et al., 2011). This

chapter is devoted to one particular educational interven-

tion – acceleration – and its effects on career outcomes for

gifted students.

Theoretical Framework

One way acceleration impacts career outcomes is by shorten-

ing time spent in formal education, allowing students to enter

the workforce earlier. Career outcomes are also influenced by

other mechanisms such as retirement age and productivity

rate. The relationship between those factors is represented

by Equation 1 (Simonton, 1988):

O = R(L – P) (1)

where O is lifetime career output, R is average output rate, L

is age at career end (or longevity), and P is age at career start

Early to Rise : McClarty

A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2 173

(or precocity). Career output is a function of rate and time,

where time spent in the workforce is represented by L – P.

Acceleration should reduce P, which, all else equal, will the-

oretically increase O. Equation 1 therefore provides a frame-

work for studying the long-term effects of acceleration on

career outcomes.

Precocity

Long-term acceleration effects are studied infrequently be-

cause longitudinal student tracking is time- and resource-in-

tensive. Nonetheless, three studies following gifted and

talented children for 20 years or more have examined ac-

celeration’s effects on career outcomes. The oldest, Lewis

Terman’s Genetic Studies of Genius, began in 1921 at Stanford

University (Terman, 1925). When Terman’s 19 youngest par-

ticipants (by age at college entry) were compared at age 24

with non-accelerated, similar age and IQ peers, the accelerat-

ed men were more likely to work in professional sectors (e.g.,

professor, physician, engineer), and less likely to hold ser-

vice-sector jobs or still be in school (Janos, 1987).

In addition,

when program administrators identified the 150 most suc-

cessful men, the accelerated students were identified more

often than their IQ-matched, same-age peers. These results

support the notion that acceleration permits early entry into

the workforce and provides opportunities to make an early

impact. Accelerated students could start work earlier because

they were more than three and a half years younger than IQ-

matched peers, on average, at college graduation. Moreover,

accelerated students who earned advanced degrees were,

on average, one and a half years younger than IQ-matched

non-accelerated peers. Therefore, when accomplishments

were evaluated in 1940 (constant L), accelerated students

(reduced P) had spent less time in school and more time in

the workforce than their same-age and ability peers and were

rated as more successful (increased O).

More recent longitudinal analyses yield similar results. The

Study of Mathematically Precocious Youth (SMPY) started in

1971 at Johns Hopkins University under the direction of Ju-

lian C. Stanley (Stanley, 1996). SMPY students were identi-

fied before age 13 via talent searches (see Olszewski-Kubilius,

this volume) based on their top performance on quantitative

or verbal reasoning assessments. Twenty years later, acceler-

ated SMPY students (see Wai, this volume) reflected posi-

tively on their experiences. Skipping ahead, they reported,

benefited both their education and their career planning

(Benbow, Lubinski, Shea, & Eftekhari-Sanjani, 2000). The

students’ outcomes support their self reports; by age 50, ac-

celerated students attained more doctoral degrees than sim-

ilar non-accelerated peers (Park et al., 2013). They also were

more likely to have made significant contributions in science,

technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). Acceler-

ated students authored their first STEM publications earlier

and amassed more highly cited and total publications than

non-accelerated professional peers.

Though accelerated

students began their careers earlier, they were just as satisfied

as non-accelerated students with their career direction at age

50 (Smeets, Lubinski, & Benbow, 2014), a finding that would

suggest no negative consequences to being accelerated.

The results from SMPY reinforce the theory that accelera-

tion propels students more quickly into the workforce and

thereby allows them to accomplish more, faster. For example,

SMPY students who skipped a grade were a year and a half

younger, on average, when they earned their Ph.D.s, which

allowed them to enter the workforce earlier (Park et al., 2013).

Even if the two groups had similar productivity rates (R),

Equation 1 suggests accelerated students would have greater

career output because they had more time in the workforce.

International studies echo these conclusions. Gross’s (2006)

20-year follow-up of 60 Australian students with IQs above

160, found that students who accelerated two or more years

were more likely to earn graduate degrees and enter profes-

sional careers. In sum, accelerated students start their careers

earlier, providing them an advantage in career length that

leads to greater output and achievement.

Productivity Rate

Accelerated students may also benefit from a second mech-

anism – productivity rate. Accelerated and non-accelerated

students may differ in their productivity rate (R) because

productivity rate tends to be correlated with precocity (Dietz

& Bozeman, 2005; Simonton, 1988). To test this hypothesis,

career length must be held constant. One option for holding

career length constant is to collect outcomes from non-accel-

erated students a few years after the accelerated students so

both groups have the same time in the workforce. However,

because career outcomes can be influenced by cohort effects

or competition from contemporaries in the field (Dennis,

1958), the timing of career start and end should also be con-

trolled. A better approach, then, is to compare same-ability,

accelerated and non-accelerated students who complete

their education at the same time, thus holding career start

and career length constant, even though students’ ages differ.

This is the approach presented in this chapter.

Early to Rise : McClarty

There were no career dierences for women.

This pattern was more pronounced for men than women.

174 A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2

The analyses that follow are organized around one central

research question: How do accelerated students’ produc-

tivity rates and career outcomes compare with same-ability,

non-accelerated peers when career length is held constant?

Specifically, students who skipped at least one grade in ele-

mentary or middle school were compared with their older,

similarly achieving, non-accelerated classmates eight years

after high school exit on three outcomes: occupational pres-

tige, earnings, and job satisfaction.

Methods

Data

This research relies on the National Education Longitudi-

nal Study of 1988 (NELS:88; U.S. Department of Education,

2000). NELS:88 provides a longitudinal source for studying

the impact of acceleration on later-life outcomes, and it is dis-

tinct from both Terman’s and SMPY’s longitudinal datasets

because the data are nationally representative and more re-

cent. NELS:88 students graduated high school in 1992, many

of Terman’s students graduated in the 1930s, and most SMPY

students from the Park et al. (2013) SMPY longitudinal study

graduated in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Whereas Ter-

man’s sample was focused on students in California identi-

fied first through teacher nomination and the SMPY sample

draws from students who elected to participate in a national

talent search program, the NELS:88 dataset contains a sam-

ple of U.S. students representative of the full population.

NELS:88 was not designed to focus on advanced learners;

both high- and low-ability students are included. The data

therefore provide a unique opportunity to study the effects

of acceleration within the general population, not just for

students at the top of the ability distribution or those who

benefited by being part of a talent development program (see

Rogers, this volume).

To gather the data, the National Center for Education Statis-

tics (NCES) surveyed a representative sample of U.S. eighth-

grade students in 1988. Follow-up data collection occurred

in 1990 (10

grade), 1992 (12

grade), 1994 (two years post-

high-school), and 2000 (eight years after high school exit).

For each data collection, students, parents, and educators

responded to questionnaires about home, school, and work

experiences. Students completed standardized assessments

in reading, mathematics, science, and social studies. In ad-

dition, transcript data were collected from high schools and

colleges.

Defining Accelerated Students

The complete NELS:88 contains 12,144 student records. From

these, 108 students were identified (by their date of birth) as

having skipped at least one grade prior to eighth grade. A typ-

ical student enrolled in eighth grade in spring 1988 would have

been born by fall 1974 and entered kindergarten, at age five, in

fall 1979. Grade skippers were therefore defined as students

born January 1, 1975 or later, which is consistent with approach-

es used in prior research (McClarty, 2015; Wells, Lohman, &

Marron, 2009). Eighth grade students who were born in 1975 or

later likely enrolled in kindergarten early or skipped at least one

grade along the way.

Defining the Comparison Group

To establish a group of non-accelerated students to which

grade skippers could reasonably be compared, Coarsened

Exact Matching (CEM; Iacus, King, & Porro, 2011) was used.

CEM matches each accelerated student to similar non-accel-

erated students along several important dimensions. Match-

ing variables included gender, race, socioeconomic status

(SES), and eighth-grade achievement.

Eighth-grade achievement measures in reading, mathemat-

ics, science, and social studies were used because NELS:88

does not include measures of general cognitive ability.

Eighth-grade standardized test scores provide the best avail-

able proxy. Principal components extraction (Tabachnick &

Fidell, 2007) was used to create a single achievement com-

posite for each student based on the four standardized test

scores. The first principal component accounted for 78% of

the variance in eighth-grade test scores and forms the basis

of the achievement composite. Given that the four achieve-

ment scores were highly correlated (ranging from 0.69 to

0.72) and they loaded nearly equally on the achievement com-

posite (ranging from 0.498 to 0.503), the composite appears

to be a reasonable ability proxy.

To facilitate matching via CEM, continuous variables were

coarsened into discrete categories. The achievement com-

posite was divided into 48 equal-interval levels (based on 0.1

standard deviation units). SES was categorized into quartiles.

Race was divided into two categories: underrepresented mi-

nority (including African Americans and Hispanics) and oth-

er racial group (e.g., White, Asian).

Each accelerated student was subsequently matched with

non-accelerated students in the same stratum. The strata

were defined by unique combinations of gender, racial group,

SES quartile, and achievement composite level. Three accel-

Early to Rise : McClarty

A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2 175

erated students with missing data on the matching variables

were removed from the analyses. The remaining 105 grade

skippers were matched with 2,329 non-accelerated peers. Not

every accelerated student, however, had an equal number of

non-accelerated matches. In order for the entire non-accel-

erated group to match the demographic and achievement

characteristics of the accelerated group, differential weights

were applied. Accelerated students were weighted by 1, and

non-accelerated students were weighted by W

according

to Equation 2:

(2)

where

is the number of accelerated students in stratum s,

and

is the number of matched non-accelerated students

in stratum s (s = 1, . . ., S). Therefore, the sum of the weights

for the non-accelerated students is equal to the sample size of

accelerated students (105).

Table 1 presents descriptive statistics for the grade-skippers

as well as the full non-accelerated sample and the matched

non-accelerated sample. Accelerated students were more

likely than typical non-accelerated students to be female, af-

fluent, and higher achieving. After matching and weighting,

the accelerated and non-accelerated groups were equivalent.

Outcome Measures

Outcome measures, based on the year 2000 follow-up in-

terviews, included occupational prestige, earnings, and job

satisfaction. Prestige was assessed via participants’ reported

job title, employment type, and job duties for their current

or most recent job. NCES interviewers used that informa-

tion to code responses into 42 job categories. For this study,

the 42 NELS:88 job category codes were converted to occu-

pational prestige scores based on the National Opinion Re-

search Center’s 1989 General Social Survey (NORC/GSS).

The NORC/GSS Occupational Prestige Scale was originally

developed to link to the occupational codes from the 1980

census. The theoretical range of the NORC/GSS prestige

scale is from zero to 100 (Nakao, Hodge, & Treas, 1990). To

create the scale, 1,500 people were asked to rank the social

standing of 740 occupational titles by sorting them onto a

nine-rung ladder. Each person rated 110 of the 740 titles. The

average ranking for each occupational title was translated to

the prestige score scale, where a NORC/GSS prestige score

of zero would equate to an average of rung one, a NORC/GSS

score of 100 is associated with an average of rung nine, and a

NORC/GSS score of 56.25 would represent an average half-

way between rungs five and six (Nakao & Treas, 1990).

For some occupations, a direct correspondence existed be-

tween the NELS:88 category and the NORC/GSS prestige

ratings. For example, the NELS:88 occupation of ‘legal sup-

port’ corresponded to the prestige category of ‘legal assis-

tant.’ For NELS:88 occupation codes without a direct cor-

respondence, prestige scores were created by averaging the

NORC/GSS prestige ratings associated with each occupa-

tion subsumed within the NELS:88 job category (e.g., a pres-

tige score for the NELS:88 “legal professionals” category was

calculated by averaging the NORC/GSS prestige ratings for

“lawyers” and “judges”).

Participants also reported their annual income for 1997, 1998,

1999, and 2000—five, six, seven, and eight years after high

school exit, or the first four years following an undergraduate

degree for many students. In addition, respondents indicated

whether they were satisfied or dissatisfied with their current

Early to Rise : McClarty

Table 1: Accelerated, Non-Accelerated, and Matched Peers in NELS:88

Non-Accelerated Accelerated Matched Peers*

N 12,036 105 105

Age 14.4% 12.7% 14.3%

Male 47.0% 41.0% 41.0%

Minority 21.6% 21.9% 21.9%

Lowest SES Quartile 24.9% 11.4% 11.4%

Second SES Quartile 25.0% 17.1% 17.1%

Third SES Quartile 25.0% 25.7% 25.7%

Highest SES Quartile 25.1% 45.7% 45.7%

Achievement Composite 0.00 0.95 0.96

*Values are reported aer weighting. There were 2,329 students in the matched set without weighting.

176 A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2

Early to Rise : McClarty

job overall and in seven specific areas: pay, fringe benefits,

job security, importance and challenge of the work, oppor-

tunities for promotion and advancement, opportunities to

use past training and education, and opportunities for future

training and education. Responses from these seven items

were summed to create an omnibus job satisfaction measure,

with scores ranging from 0 (dissatisfied in every area) to 7

(satisfied in every area).

Analysis Procedures

To evaluate the impact of grade-skipping on career out-

comes, each outcome (i.e., occupational prestige, income, job

satisfaction) was regressed on the dichotomous grade-skip-

ping variable (0 = did not skip, 1 = skipped), with weights

applied according to Equation 2. Also, because previous

studies found acceleration’s effect on career outcomes was

larger for men than women, additional models included grade-

skipping, gender, and the interaction between the two.

Results

Accelerated students were compared with older, non-accel-

erated, similarly achieving students to determine whether

grade skippers could compete with classmates entering the

job market at the same time. Both accelerated and non-accel-

erated students had 12 years after eighth grade to enter and

progress in the workforce. Would accelerated students still

hold an advantage when career length (L-P) was held con-

stant? Might accelerated students have a higher productivity

rate (R)? These research questions were addressed through

the examination of three career outcomes: occupational

prestige, earnings, and job satisfaction.

Occupational Prestige

Compared with their non-accelerated peers, similarly achiev-

ing accelerated students held more prestigious jobs (B=4.86,

p<.001). Accelerated students’ average prestige score was

53.64, which corresponds to jobs in the executive, adminis-

trative, and managerial category. These were jobs rated in

the top half of the ladder of social standing. Non-accelerated

students, on the other hand, averaged 48.78 on the prestige

scale, corresponding to protective service jobs (e.g., sheriffs)

which were rated below the middle rung of social standing.

Both groups scored above the average occupational prestige

of the full NELS:88 sample (M=46.49, SD=11.87).

One reason for this prestige difference may be that accel-

erated students are more ambitious. Not only do they have

high expectations for their academic performance, but they

also seek high-status jobs. Therefore, a second model was

specified including the occupational prestige of a students’

expected career (as reported in eighth grade) as a covariate.

The groups still differed (B=5.87, p <.001). In fact, even when

bachelor’s degree attainment and undergraduate college

grade point average (GPA) were added as statistical controls

in a third model, accelerated students still enjoyed more pres-

tigious jobs (B=4.10, p <.001).

Earnings

Separate models evaluated earnings dierences between ac-

celerated and similarly achieving non-accelerated students

in each post-college year (assuming four years of high school

and four years of college). In the ﬁrst year (1997), differences

between the two groups were small (M=$920) and not signif-

icant (p=.07). For each of the following years, however, the

differences increased and were statistically significant (1998:

M=$1,612, p=.01; 1999: M=$3,713, p<.001; 2000: M=$5,112,

p<.001). Earnings may also be influenced by bachelor’s de-

gree attainment, college GPA, and students’ earnings ex-

pectations (as measured in eighth grade), so a second model

included these variables as covariates. After these statistical

controls were applied, accelerated students earned more

than non-accelerated students all four years. Moreover,

Figure 1 shows that the income gaps widened over time. Ac-

celerated students not only had initially higher salaries (after

controls were applied), they also saw greater year-to-year in-

creases in earnings. Over the four-year time period, accelerat-

ed students’ salaries increased $2,024 more than non-acceler-

ated students (p=.05).

Job Satisfaction

Though accelerated students earned more and held more

prestigious jobs than their non-accelerated peers, they did

not differ in job satisfaction. This was true for overall satis-

faction (B= -.18, p=.65) and the summed satisfaction measure

(B=.01, p=.19). Accelerated and non-accelerated students also

reported similar levels of satisfaction within work areas (pay:

B= -.29, p=.34; benefits: B= -.21, p=.53; security: B= -.03, p=.95;

importance: B= -.08, p=.83; promotion: B=.46, p=.17; use train-

ing: B=.33, p=.36; future training: B= -.33, p=.33).

Gender Effects

Interaction effects were tested for each career outcome to

determine whether acceleration affected males and females

differently. Interaction effects were not significant for occu-

A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2 177

pational prestige; both men and women who had skipped a

grade held more prestigious jobs than similar peers who had

not. With respect to earnings, accelerated men and women

equally outpaced their non-accelerated peers in the first two

years after college. In the final two years, acceleration ben-

efited men more than women (1999 interaction B=4,851.5,

p<.01; 2000 interaction B=7,130.0, p<.001). In 2000, accel-

erated men earned $9,278 more than similarly achieving

non-accelerated men, but the difference between accelerated

and non-accelerated women was only $2,148. The differential

earnings pattern is illustrated in Figure 2. Finally, job satisfac-

tion analyses yielded no significant main effects or interac-

tions, suggesting that males and females, accelerated and not,

all found their careers equally satisfying.

Conclusions

It is well established (and quite logical) that acceleration al-

lows students to enter the workforce earlier and make earlier

contributions. By gaining an early start, grade skippers can

extend their career length to maximize their productive out-

put and impact. This chapter expands our understanding of

the effects of acceleration as an educational intervention on

career outcomes by holding career length constant and com-

paring accelerated students with older, similarly achieving

peers who are entering and competing in the job market at

the same time.

Collectively, the findings indicate accelerated students still

hold an advantage. Accelerated students acquired more pres-

tigious jobs than non-accelerated students. This held true

even after controlling for career aspirations, degree attain-

ment, and college grades. These results reaffirm and extend

prior research showing accelerated children are more likely

to enter professional fields (Gross, 2006; Janos, 1987).

The occupational differences translated into higher earn-

ings for accelerated students as well as faster rates of sala-

ry increase. These patterns speak to accelerated students’

comparative productivity rates. Although there is no direct

career output measure in NELS:88, there is a general rela-

tionship between wages and output such that wages increase

as output increases (Feldstein, 2008). Using wages as a proxy

for output, we can infer that accelerated students have high-

er productivity rates than similarly achieving non-accelerated

students (because career start and length were held constant).

This implies there are two different mechanisms that help

accelerated students maximize their career output. The first

is their ability to increase their career length by entering the

workforce earlier. The second mechanism is their higher pro-

ductivity rate. The two processes are correlated but distinct.

Why might accelerated students have a higher productivity

rate? There are several plausible answers. First, high-ability

students who are good candidates for acceleration may have

other characteristics associated with high productivity rates

in a work environment. They are typically self-motivated

learners, prefer a challenging, fast-paced environment and

become frustrated by repetition (Assouline, Colangelo, Lup-

kowski-Shoplik, Lipscomb, & Forstadt, 2009). In addition,

acceleration implies rapid and efficient progress. In school,

accelerated students learn more content in less time. Fur-

thermore, they spend less time in an environment that may

not be very intellectually engaging. Although accelerated and

non-accelerated students had similar achievement in eighth

grade, the accelerated students reached that level with at

least one fewer year of schooling. Given that “advanced abil-

ity tends to maintain its rapid pace of development” (Robin-

son, 1993, p. 511), this highly efficient approach to academic

achievement in secondary and postsecondary school may

Early to Rise : McClarty

Figure 1: Income Differences Between Accelerated and Non-Accelerated Students

$4,500

$4,000

$3,500

$3,000

$2,500

$2,000

$1,500

$1,000

$500

1997 1998 1999 2000

Controlling for income expectations, degree attainment, and college GPA.

178 A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2

translate to the workplace as greater productivity rates, re-

sulting in faster salary increases.

Finally, it is important to address a popular argument against

acceleration, one that rests on fears about negative social and

emotional consequences (Hoogeveen, van Hell, & Verhoev-

en, 2005; Southern & Jones, 1992; Southern, Jones, & Fiscus,

1989). Put simply, the research literature does not support

this concern (Robinson, 2004; Cross et al., this volume).

Rather, accelerated students speak favorably about their

experiences and feel that skipping ahead positively impact-

ed their future planning (Benbow et al., 2000). They are just

as satisfied with their careers as their younger, same-ability,

non-accelerated counterparts (Smeets et al., 2014), and the

results of the analyses presented in this chapter suggest ac-

celerated students are also just as satisfied as their older, sim-

ilarly achieving, non-accelerated peers.

Educational Implications

Acceleration positively impacts career outcomes for gifted and

talented students. Not only does it provide long-term benefits

in terms of occupational prestige and earnings, but it may also

mitigate some of the challenges gifted students face in making

their initial career decisions including multipotentiality, per-

fectionism, and extended educational training. Acceleration

could therefore be a useful strategy for school counselors as

well as educators (see Croft & Wood, this volume).

Although grade-level assessments are insufficient for differ-

entiating advanced students’ relative strengths and weak-

nesses, above-level ability assessments do provide value.

Above-level ability and interest assessments taken at age 13

predicted college major ten years later (Achter, Lubinski,

Benbow, & Eftekhari-Sanjani, 1999). Likewise, encouraging

gifted students to skip one or more grades and encounter

more challenging educational content may allow differenti-

Early to Rise : McClarty

Figure 2: Income Differences Between Accelerated and Non-Accelerated Students, by Gender

$45,000

$40,000

$35,000

$30,000

$25,000

$20,000

$15,000

$10,000

$5,000

1997 Income

Female Male

$45,000

$40,000

$35,000

$30,000

$25,000

$20,000

$15,000

$10,000

$5,000

1999 Income

Female Male

$45,000

$40,000

$35,000

$30,000

$25,000

$20,000

$15,000

$10,000

$5,000

1998 Income

Female Male

$45,000

$40,000

$35,000

$30,000

$25,000

$20,000

$15,000

$10,000

$5,000

2000 Income

Female Male

Non-Accelerated

Accelerated

A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2 179

ated ability patterns to emerge and reduce career indecision

that may be associated with multipotentiality.

Acceleration may also help gifted learners address unhealthy

perfectionism or a fear of failure. Gifted students who have

not been challenged and have therefore experienced success

with little effort may be reluctant to try difficult things. They

may doubt their abilities if they are not immediately suc-

cessful (Dweck, 2006). Acceleration, however, can provide a

more challenging educational environment. By working hard

to master difficult concepts, students build confidence and

persistence – two valuable workplace skills that are difficult

to impart if learners rarely face adversity.

Acceleration also directly reduces career training time. By

completing K-12 education in fewer years, students can begin

college, graduate, and complete other training programs ear-

lier. This may be particularly beneficial for women who are

concerned that starting a career may interfere with starting

a family (Hoyt & Hebeler, 1974). Of course, highly able learn-

ers will still benefit from targeted supports. This is true for

gifted students in general who, because of their early career

maturity and selection of careers requiring extensive educa-

tion and training, will need career counseling, education, and

assessment available at earlier ages (Jung, 2012). It is also true

for accelerated students in particular, who will need to make

their first career decisions at younger ages.

Acceleration is one educational opportunity available to gift-

ed students that provides several benefits, not only for career

planning, but also for career outcomes. Even when similarly

achieving accelerated and non-accelerated students enter the

workforce at the same time, those who have skipped ahead

secure higher status jobs where they are more highly com-

pensated, and they are satisfied with their work. Accelerated

students more than keep pace with their non-accelerated,

same-ability classmates throughout schooling, and they com-

pete successfully in the job market, underscoring both the

short- and long-term benefits of rising early.

References

Achter, J. A., Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (1996). Multipotentiality

among the intellectually gifted: It was never there and it’s already van-

ishing. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 43(1), 65-76.

Achter, J. A., Lubinski. D., Benbow, C. P., & Eftekhari-Sanjani, H. (1999).

Assessing vocational preferences among gifted adolescents adds incre-

mental validity to ability: A discriminant analysis of educational out-

comes over a 10-year interval. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(4),

777-786.

Assouline, S. G., Colangelo, N., Lupkowski-Shoplik, A. E., Lipscomb, J.,

& Forstadt, L. (2009). Iowa Acceleration Scale (3rd Edition). Scottsdale,

AZ: Great Potential Press.

Beck, L. (1989). Mentorships: Beneﬁts and eﬀects on career development.

Gifted Child Quarterly, 33(1), 22-28.

Benbow, C. P., Lubinski, D., Shea, D. L., Eftekhari-Sanjani, H. (2000). Sex

diﬀerences in mathematical reasoning ability at age 13: eir status 20

years later. Psychological Science, 11(6), 474-480.

Cox, C. (1926). e early mental traits of three hundred geniuses. Stanford,

CA: Stanford University Press.

Dennis, W. (1958). e age decrement in outstanding scientiﬁc contribu-

tions: Fact or artifact? American Psychologist, 13, 457-460.

Dietz, J. S., & Bozeman, B. (2005). Academic careers, patents, and pro-

ductivity: Industry experience as scientiﬁc and technical human capital.

Research Policy, 34, 349-367.

Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset: e new psychology of success. Ballantine

Books: New York, NY.

Emmett, J. D., & Minor, C. W. (1993). Career decision-making factors in

gifted young adults. e Career Development Quarterly, 41, 350-366.

Feldstein, M. S. (2008, April). Did wages reﬂect growth in productivity?

NBER Working Paper No. w13953 Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.

com/abstract=1121743

Greene, M. J. (2003). Gifted adrift? Career counseling of the gifted and

talented. Roeper Review, 25(2), 66-72.

Gross, M. U. M. (2006). Exceptionally gifted children: Long-term out-

comes of academic acceleration and non-acceleration. Journal for the

Education of the Gifted, 29(4), 404-429.

Hagan, J. (1982). Career education for the gifted and talented: An analysis

of issues and programs. Exceptional Education Quarterly, 3(3), 48-57.

Hoogeveen, L., van Hell, J. G., & Verhoeven, L. (2005). Teacher attitudes

toward academic acceleration and accelerated students in the Nether-

lands. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 29(1), 30-59.

Hoyt, K. B. (1974). Career education for gifted and talented persons. Re-

trieved from ERIC database. (ED127755).

Hoyt, K. B., & Hebeler, J. R. (1974). Career education for gifted and talented

students. Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED052319).

Iacus, S. M., King, G., & Porro, G. (2011). Multivariate matching methods

that are monotonic imbalance bounding. Journal of the American Statis-

tical Association, 106(493), 345-361.

Janos, P. M. (1987). A ﬁfty-year follow-up of Terman’s youngest college

students and IQ-matched agemates. Gifted Child Quarterly, 31(2), 55-

58.

Jung, J. Y. (2012). Giftedness as a developmental construct that leads to

eminence as adults: Ideas and implications from an occupational/career

decision-making perspective. Gifted Child Quarterly, 56(4), 189-193.

Kell, H. J., Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (2013). Who rises to the top?

Early indicators. Psychological Science, 24(5), 648-659.

Kelly, K. R., & Cobb, S. J. (1991). A proﬁle of the career development char-

acteristics of young gifted adolescents: Examining gender and multicul-

tural diﬀerences. Roeper Review, 13(4), 202-206.

Kelly, K. R., & Colangelo, N. (1990). Eﬀects of academic ability and gen-

der on career development. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 13,

168-175.

McClarty, K. L. (2015). Life in the fast lane: Eﬀects of early grade accel-

eration on high school and college outcomes. Gifted Child Quarterly,

59(1), 3-13.

Early to Rise : McClarty

180 A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2

Milgram, R. M., & Hong, E. (1999). Creative out-of-school activities in

intellectually gifted adolescents as predictors of their life accomplish-

ments in young adults: A longitudinal study. Creativity Research Journal,

12(2), 77-87.

Nakao, K., Hodge, R. W., & Treas, J. (1990). On revising prestige scores for

all occupations, GSS Methodological Report No. 69. Chicago: NORC.

Nakao, K., & Treas, J. (1990). Computing 1989 Occupational Prestige Scores,

GSS Methodological Report No. 70. Chicago: NORC.

Park, G., Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (2013). When less is more:

Eﬀects of grade skipping on adult STEM productivity among math-

ematically precocious adolescents. Journal of Educational Psychology,

105(1), 176-198.

Perrone, P. A. (1997). Gifted individuals’ career development. In N. Col-

angelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.). Handbook of gifted education (2nd ed., pp.

398-407). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Pressey, S. L. (1946). Time-saving in professional training. American Psy-

chologist, 1, 324–329.

Renzulli, J. S. (1978). What makes giftedness? Reexamining a deﬁnition.

Phi Delta Kappan, 60, 180-184, 261.

Robinson, N. M. (1993). Identifying and nurturing gifted, very young chil-

dren. In K. A. Heller, F. J. Mönks, & A. H. Passow (Eds.), International

handbook for research on giftedness and talented, pp. 507-524. Oxford,

UK: Pergamon.

Robinson, N. M. (2004). Eﬀects of acceleration on the socio-emotional

status of gifted students. In N. Colangelo, S. G. Assouline, & M. U.

M. Gross (Eds.), A Nation deceived: How schools hold back America’s

brightest students (V.II., pp. 59-67). Iowa City, IA: e Connie Belin

& Jacqueline N. Blank International Center for Gifted Education and

Talent Development.

Rysiew, K. J., Shore, B. M., & Leeb, R. T. (1999). Multipotentiality, gift-

edness, and career choice: A review. Journal of Counseling and Develop-

ment, 77, 423-420.

Sanborn, M. P. (1979). Career development: Problems of gifted and tal-

ented students. In N. Colangelo & R. Zaﬀrann (Eds.). New voices in

counseling the gifted (pp. 186-196). Dubuque, IA: Kendall-Hunt.

Simonton, D. K. (1988). Age and outstanding achievement: What do we

know after a century of research? Psychological Bulletin, 104(2), 251-

267.

Simonton, D. K. (1997). When giftedness becomes genius: How does tal-

ent achieve eminence? In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.). Handbook

of gifted education (2nd ed., pp. 335-349). Needham Heights, MA: Al-

lyn and Bacon.

Smeets, S. J., Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (2014, April). Acceleration and

well-being at age 50 in the top 1% in mathematical ability. Paper presented

at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Associa-

tion, Philadelphia, PA.

Southern, W. T., & Jones, E. D. (1992). e real problems with academic

acceleration. Gifted Child Today, 15(2), 34-38.

Southern, W. T., Jones, E. D., & Fiscus, E. D. (1989). Practitioner objec-

tions to the academic acceleration of gifted children. Gifted Child Quar-

terly, 33(1), 29-35.

Stanley, J. C. (1996). In the beginning: e Study of Mathematically Pre-

cocious Youth. In C. P. Benbow & D. J. Lubinski (Eds.), Intellectual tal-

ent: Psychometric and social issues (pp. 225-235). Baltimore, MD: Johns

Hopkins University Press.

Stewart, J. B. (1999). Career counseling for the academically gifted. Cana-

dian Journal of Counseling, 33(1), 3-12.

Subotnik, R. F., Karp, D. E., & Morgan, E. R. (1989). High IQ children at

midlife: An investigation into the generalizability of Terman’s genetic

studies. Roeper Review, 11(3), 139-144.

Subotnik, R. F. Olszewski-Kubilius, P., & Worrell, F. C. (2011). Rethink-

ing giftedness and gifted education: A proposed direction forward

based on psychological science. Psychological Science in the Public Inter-

est, 12, 3-54.

Tannenbaum, A. J. (1979). Pre-Sputnik to post-Watergate concern about

the gifted. In A. H. Passow (Ed.), e gifted and talented (pp. 5-27).

Chicago: National Society for the Study of Education.

Terman, L. M. (1925). Genetic studies of genius: Mental and physical traits

of a thousand gifted children. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.

Terman, L. M. (1954). e discovery and encouragement of exceptional

talent. American Psychologist, 9, 221–230.

Terman, L. M., & Oden, M. H. (1959). e gifted group at mid-life: 35 years’

follow-up of the superior child. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics

(2000). National Education Longitudinal Survey of 1988 (NELS),

1988/96. Washington, D.C.

Wells, R., Lohman, D., & Marron, M. (2009). What factors are associated

with grade acceleration? An analysis and comparison of two U.S. data-

bases. Journal of Advanced Academics, 20(2), 248-273.

Wood, S. (2009). Counseling concerns of gifted and talented adolescents:

Implications for school counselors. Journal of School Counseling, 7(1).

Retrieved from http://ﬁles.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ886112.pdf

Early to Rise : McClarty

A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2 181

Poverty and Acceleration : Plucker & Harris

Introduction

One of the paradoxes of the United States in the 21st century

is that the country is among the richest in the world yet is also

one of the poorest. Data from the U.S. Census provide evi-

dence that over 45 million Americans live in poverty

, repre-

senting 14.5 percent of the population. Although this poverty

rate is not exceptional (similar rates were experienced in the

early 1980s and 1990s, and rates were historically much high-

er prior to the implementation of Social Security and Great

Society social programs in the 1950s and 1960s), population

growth has led to more Americans living in poverty today

than at least since the 1950s (DeNavas-Walt & Proctor, 2014).

Childhood poverty rates (i.e., for children 18-years-old or

younger) have dropped during the current economic recov-

ery, currently standing at 19.5 percent, down from a peak of

21.3 percent in 2012 (DeNavas-Walt, Proctor, & Smith, 2011;

DeNavas-Walt & Proctor, 2014). However, this rate still rep-

resents over 14 million children (DeNavas-Walt & Proctor,

2014), and the rate itself is one of the highest in the devel-

oped world (UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre, 2012).

Nearly 10% of households (3.8 million households) experi-

ence some degree of food insecurity, deﬁned as “access to ad-

equate food is limited by a lack of money and other resourc-

es” (Coleman-Jensen, Gregory, & Singh, 2014, p. v). The U.S.

Department of Agriculture estimates that these household

data translate to over 8.5 million children experiencing some

degree of food insecurity in 2013 (Coleman-Jensen, Gregory,

& Singh, 2014).

At the same time, the percentage of K-12 students qualifying

for free or reduced-price lunch programs has substantially

increased. For the 2011-2012 school year, 49.6% of students

qualiﬁed for these programs, meaning nearly half of our stu-

dents live in households whose income is 1.85 times the pov-

erty level or less. In 18 states (plus the District of Columbia),

over half of the student population qualiﬁes for lunch assis-

tance, with over 60% qualifying in ﬁve of those states and the

District of Columbia

However, these statistics mask a number of important com-

plexities related to measuring poverty and, as a result, deter-

mining its impact upon children and families. Poverty is not

easy to deﬁne, and measuring it is not without considerable

controversy (see an excellent discussion of these issues in

UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre, 2012). Some U.S. data-

bases rely on whether students are qualiﬁed to participate in

Abstract

A large number of talented students live in poverty, and an even larger number live in families that are economically vulnerable. National

academic achievement data provide evidence that high-ability, economically vulnerable students achieve considerably less academic

success than their more economically secure peers, a trend that has developed over at least the past few decades. In this chapter, we review

research on the effectiveness of various acceleration strategies when used with economically vulnerable students. Our conclusion provides

recommendations on future directions.

Acceleration and

Economically Vulnerable

Children

Jonathan A. Plucker, University of Connecticut, Storrs, Connecticut

Bryn Harris, University of Colorado Denver, Denver, Colorado

Some of the ideas presented in this paper were ﬁrst prepared for a symposium on

developing the talents of low-income students, co-sponsored by the Jack Kent Cooke

Foundation and the National Association for Gied Children, in Washington, DC,

on May 31, 2012.

All data, unless otherwise noted, are drawn om databases representing 2013 data.

See http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d13/tables/dt13_204.10.asp.

Chapter 14

182 A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2

Poverty and Acceleration : Plucker & Harris

free- or reduced-price lunch programs, but the issues of using

this data point as a measure of poverty are well-documented

(Harwell & LeBeau, 2010). Other databases simply do not

include indicators of family economic well-being, which fur-

ther complicates matters.

For example, 25.2 percent of children living in households at

or below the poverty line are estimated to experience food

insecurity. In households with income-to-poverty ratios of

1.85 or lower, food insecurity rates are not terribly dissimilar

at 21.5% (Coleman-Jensen et al., 2014). For these reasons, we

use the term “economically vulnerable”

to describe students

who deal with the myriad issues faced by individuals experi-

encing a lack of socioeconomic security in the United States.

In the data provided below, we use lunch program qualiﬁca-

tion as a proxy for economic vulnerability, as it is the only rel-

evant indicator available in the data sets of interest.

Another complication that is relevant to the current analysis

is that much education policy – and many related policy de-

bates - focuses primarily on race and ethnicity at the expense

of economic vulnerability. This focus is understandable given

the country’s long, troubled history of racial and ethnic dis-

crimination, but we note that, although some racial and eth-

nic groups are more likely to experience poverty than others,

economic vulnerability is experienced by all racial and eth-

nic groups in all communities throughout the United States

(Kneebone, 2014). In other words, socioeconomic insecurity

is often correlated with other demographic characteristics,

but those correlations do not explain all of the variance, and

correlation should not be inferred to represent causation.

Poverty-based Excellence Gaps

Excellence gaps are dierences in educational outcomes for

advanced students based on demographic characteristics

(Plucker, Burroughs, & Song, 2010). These excellence gaps

are an indicator of how communities balance equity and ex-

cellence in education and social services, as they represent

dierences in academic success between privileged and less

privileged groups of students. Plucker, Hardesty, and Bur-

roughs (2013), using data from the 2011 National Assessment

of Educational Progress (NAEP), examined the correla-

tion between minimum competency gaps (the traditional

“achievement gaps” that drive American education policy)

and excellence gaps and found negligible statistical relation-

ships between the size of the two gaps. These results provide

additional evidence that minimum competency gaps and ex-

cellence gaps are largely distinct phenomena, and that rising

tides do not necessarily lift all ships.

Most countries have lower rates of academic excellence

among poorer students than wealthier students, and gaps

can be observed across countries based on immigrant status

(this is the closest proxy possible in some international data

sets; see Rutkowski, Rutkowski, & Plucker, 2012). Plucker et

al. (2010) proposed two ways to assess excellence gaps. One

method is to examine the percentage of students qualifying

During work on another project, Prof. James Moore suggested the use of this term,

and we appreciate this recommendation and use the term throughout this chapter.

However, for stylistic reasons, we do occasionally use poverty and economic vulnera-

bility interchangeably to avoid repetition of the longer term.

Figure 1: Percent Scoring Advanced, NAEP Grade Four Mathematics

2000 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013

Percent Scoring Advanced

0.3

3.8

6.1

No assistanceLunch assistance

7.9

8.7

9.8

11.4

0.8

1.3

1.5 1.5

1.8

A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2 183

Poverty and Acceleration : Plucker & Harris

for free and reduced-price lunch programs that score “ad-

vanced” on NAEP tests compared to their peers who do not

qualify for lunch assistance.

Figure 1 includes data by lunch status on the NAEP Grade 4

math assessment. Although the percentage of students scor-

ing “advanced” on these tests has increased for both groups,

students not qualifying for lunch assistance have seen sharp-

ly increased performance (3.8% scored Advanced in 2000;

the percentage steadily increases and in 2013 the percentage

scoring Advanced was 13). The increases for students who

qualify for lunch assistance and scored Advanced increased

incrementally (0.3% in 2000; 2% in 2013).

However, some researchers have noted that the “percent

scoring advanced” measure may mask progress being made by

the lowering performing groups (i.e., a group may be increas-

ing performance, but the average performance level may not

have reached the cut-o for the advanced achievement level.)

As a result, researchers often use 90th percentile scores for

subgroups. Figure 2 includes the NAEP Grade 4 math data

using 90th percentile scores. From this perspective, the ex-

cellence gaps are at best stagnant. After 13 years of signiﬁcant

improvement in scores, assistance-eligible students’ 90th

percentile scores in 2013 are still signiﬁcantly below those of

non-eligible students in 2000.

These and related data led Plucker et al. (2013) to refer to

the existence of a persistent, talent underclass in the United

States. Available data suggest that poor American students

are not performing at advanced levels and have not done so

for generations.

With increasing attention to income in-

equality in the United States, educators and policymakers

are beginning to examine the underperformance of talented,

economically vulnerable students. What does the research

say about acceleration-based interventions for developing

academic talents with these students?

Research on Acceleration

and Poverty

Although the beneﬁts of acceleration are well-document-

ed (e.g., Colangelo, Assouline, & Gross, 2004; Gross, 2006;

Kulik, 2004), very few studies examine youth from economi-

cally vulnerable backgrounds and acceleration practices. Stu-

dents from economically vulnerable families are more likely

to come from families who have not attended college or high

school; thus these parents might be more likely to encourage

vocational placements after school completion and be less

likely to advocate for rigorous coursework or acceleration

programs in school settings. Furthermore, gifted students

from economically vulnerable households could appear to

be underachieving and may be less likely to be identiﬁed as

Although we restrict our examples to the Grade Four Mathematics test in this

chapter, data trends on other content area tests are similar.

One assumption underlying these excellence gap analyses is that comparable per-

centages of talented students exist across all subgroups of students. This assumption

is historically controversial but is less contentious in current debates. But even if

our assumption is incorrect, certainly we should still be ﬁnding much higher rates of

academic excellence among economically vulnerable students.

Figure 2: 90th Percentile Scores, NAEP Grade Four Mathematics

290

280

270

260

250

240

230

220

2000 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013

90th Percentile Score

245

270

276

No assistanceLunch assistance

279

280

282

284

286

255

259

261

263

265

184 A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2

Poverty and Acceleration : Plucker & Harris

gifted (Harris & Plucker, 2014; McCall, 1999). The following

section provides a review of the research conducted on ac-

celeration models among economically vulnerable students,

using the framework of 18 acceleration types as described in

A Nation Deceived: How Schools Hold Back America’s Brightest

Students (Colangelo et al., 2004).

Advanced Placement Courses

One of the most researched acceleration models is the Ad-

vanced Placement (AP) program. This program includes

more than 700,000 students annually in more than 13,000

schools. Students who complete AP courses are better pre-

pared for college course work and have the opportunity to

earn college credit depending on their scores on AP exams.

However, there are many barriers to success within AP pro-

grams (Hansen, 2005). For example, 43% of American high

schools do not oer AP courses; this is particularly true of

those that enroll a high percentage of economically vulner-

able students (Iatarola, Conger, & Long, 2011). Furthermore,

there continues to be a large discrepancy regarding the pop-

ulations enrolled in AP courses. White and Asian students

are more likely to be overrepresented, while Latino and Af-

rican American students as well as those from urban, rural,

and economically disadvantaged areas are underrepresented

(Hansen, 2005; see also College Board, 2014).

Results from a recent large-scale study looking at gaps among

AP course enrollment in Florida high schools shed additional

light on this topic. The ﬁndings were most discrepant for stu-

dents that were deemed “poor” and “non-poor.” Non-poor

students were three times more likely than poor students to

take AP or IB courses in each high school subject (Conger,

Long, & Iatarola, 2009).

Adelman (2006) found that the greatest predictor of post-

secondary success is the completion of mathematics cours-

es beyond Algebra II as well as participation in rigorous

academic content such as AP courses. Adelman also found

that socioeconomic status (SES) was a less important pre-

dictor than rigorous academic preparation. However, the

author was careful to mention that children from low SES

backgrounds may have less opportunity and family support

to demonstrate the characteristics associated with rigorous

academic preparation (Adelman, 2006). Students from eco-

nomically vulnerable backgrounds may begin high school

less prepared due to neighborhood characteristics, school

resources, and the education received before high school

(Conger et al,, 2009), and they may also encounter lower ed-

ucational expectations or stereotype threat, which can be a

barrier to gifted identiﬁcation and placement.

There have been recent eorts to increase access to AP

courses for economically vulnerable and minority students.

Although the percentage of students taking these courses

has increased over the past decade, other policies impacted

non-poor and non-minority students during this same time

frame spurring faster growth for these populations. Because

of this, there is currently an even wider demographic gap be-

tween students from economically vulnerable backgrounds

and those from higher socioeconomic status backgrounds

than in decades past (Conger et al., 2009).

Grade-skipping

Although the research on grade-skipping among students

from economically vulnerable backgrounds is limited, there

are a couple of studies that should be highlighted. First, Kon-

stantopoulos, Modi, and Hedges’s (2001) study of the Na-

tional Education Longitudinal Study (NELS) data from 1988

demonstrated that students who skipped grades were more

likely to come from higher SES households. Kuo and Lohman

(2011) conducted a similar study with the second follow-up

data set from NELS-1988, and they found that females,

Whites, and students from high SES households were sig-

niﬁcantly more likely to skip grades earlier in their academic

career. The authors concluded that those students who grade

skipped early came from families who ensured that their

children were highly academically prepared when entering

school and may be more likely to advocate for grade-skipping

(Kuo & Lohman, 2011).

Dual Enrollment

Morrison (2008) completed a comprehensive study looking

at dual enrollment students in high school and community

college classes in the state of Iowa. Although the study did

not speciﬁcally evaluate gifted students, his ﬁndings touch

on several relevant issues. First, students enrolled in dual en-

rollment programs have signiﬁcantly higher GPAs, and they

are 1.6 times more likely to graduate from high school. The

ﬁndings are even stronger for female students as their gradua-

tion probability is higher than non-dually enrolled females as

well as non-dually enrolled males and dual enrollment males

(Morrison, 2008). This study is especially relevant to the pop-

ulation at hand as children from low SES backgrounds are

less likely to have parents who attended college and thus may

beneﬁt from early college experiences such as those provided

by dual enrollment (Conger et al., 2009). In addition, ﬁnish-

ing college credits early and having some of them paid for by

their school district may reduce ﬁnancial burden for postsec-

ondary education for these students.

A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2 185

Poverty and Acceleration : Plucker & Harris

Mentorship

Extremely limited research has been conducted regarding

mentorship programs with gifted students from economi-

cally vulnerable backgrounds, and almost none of the lim-

ited research addresses mentorship as used as an accelera-

tion option. In one of the ﬁrst studies of its kind, Torrance

(1974) created a three-week creativity workshop for gifted

youth both in poverty and from auent families. He found

that economically vulnerable children demonstrate as much

gifted behavior as more auent peers after receiving some

supports, especially mentorship. In a more recent qualitative

analysis of three case studies, Hébert (2010) identiﬁed a num-

ber of factors that inﬂuence success for gifted students from

poverty, including receiving mentorship from school sta.

Speciﬁc populations are also more likely to beneﬁt from men-

torship (Burney & Beilke, 2008). For example, Burney and

Cross (2006) found that gifted students in rural areas as well

as those in low-income families beneﬁt from mentorship for

a variety of reasons. First, they state that these populations

are more likely to have inadequate self-ecacy, low self-es-

teem, and low self-concept. The authors created Project As-

pire to improve these constructs with strong results. Part of

the Project Aspire model is providing substantial mentorship

to these students (Burney & Cross, 2006).

On a positive note, Kitano and Lewis (2005) found that

cognitive ability was a supporting factor in developing resil-

iency among students from poverty. This can be a powerful

coping mechanism when faced with adversity. Readers are

encouraged to review the work of Go and Torrance (1999)

who have provided a list of strategies to use when mentoring

gifted students. However, the few available studies address

mentorship of gifted students in general, not mentorship as

an acceleration strategy per Colangelo et al. (2004).

Extracurricular Activities

Only one research study was located that evaluated gifted

students from economically vulnerable backgrounds and

their participation in extracurricular activities. Hébert (2010)

identiﬁed a number of factors that inﬂuence success for gifted

students from poverty, including participation in extracurric

ular activities. Although numerous studies (e.g., Gerber, 1996)

have found the impact of extracurricular activities on aca-

demic performance to be of large magnitude, more research

is needed on gifted students from economically vulnerable

backgrounds. Similar to the research on mentorships, the re-

search on extracurricular activities does not specify how par-

ticipation in extracurricular activities that are accelerative in

nature has an impact on students from poverty.

Early Entrance to Kindergarten

Children from economically vulnerable backgrounds are

more likely to start school with less academic preparation,

leading to excellence gaps before schooling even begins. For

example, Lee and Burkam (2002) found that children from

low SES families begin school with lower mathematics abili-

ties than children of higher SES families.

Regarding early entrance acceleration models, a study by Leu-

ven, Lindahl, Hessel Oosterbeek, & Webbink (2010) points to

the potential importance of early access to schooling. The au-

thors did not focus on high-ability children, focusing instead

on a large group of children from the Netherlands who came

from “non-vulnerable” and “vulnerable” backgrounds. The au-

thors deﬁned “vulnerable” as children from families with low

educational attainment of the mother or father. Increasing

enrollment opportunities by one month earlier was found to

increase language scores and math scores of four year-olds in

the study. In contrast, the non-vulnerable students did not see

any test-score beneﬁt from early enrollment. The ﬁndings in

dicate that some achievement gaps may be closed by almost

10 percent if early and sucient learning opportunities are

provided to vulnerable populations. These ﬁndings are prom-

ising, but we also note that the researchers found the test-

score beneﬁts were not apparent two years later (Leuven et

al., 2010), a common ﬁnding in early childhood research.

Moving Forward: Implications

for Research and Practice

Research Implications

As demonstrated above, little research has been conducted

on economically vulnerable students and the 18 accelera-

tion models described in A Nation Deceived (Colangelo et al.,

2004). What little research exists focuses primarily on eco-

nomically vulnerable students’ lack of access to acceleration

strategies; the literature is almost completely silent on how

these students perform in various acceleration strategies. Ad-

ditionally, studies that conﬂate race and ethnicity with pov-

erty make it dicult to determine the role of each of these

complex constructs in the education of these students.

Some of these under-researched areas should soon produce

helpful data. For example, dual enrollment programs are

proliferating across the country, and increasing amounts of

research should soon be available about the impact of dual

enrollment programs on economically vulnerable students,

and those students’ experiences with those programs.

186 A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2

Poverty and Acceleration : Plucker & Harris

At a 2006 leadership conference on low-income students

sponsored by the National Association for Gifted Children

(NAGC), panels of experts identiﬁed four areas of needed

research: (1) identiﬁcation of speciﬁc characteristics of vari-

ous accelerative interventions that result in enhanced student

success; (2) evaluation of various assessments to determine

which assessments are best for this population; (3) determina-

tion of the trajectory of identiﬁed and unidentiﬁed high-abil-

ity students from economically vulnerable backgrounds; and

(4) determine the “dose” (see Wai, this volume) of enrichment,

both in and out of school, that is needed to eectively impact

student retention in advanced academics (National Associa-

tion for Gifted Children, 2006). With the four areas of needed

research indicated, it is a tremendous understatement to con-

clude that substantially more research is still needed to fully

understand the impact of acceleration (or the lack of it) on

students from economically vulnerable backgrounds.

Implications for Practice

There is a stark discrepancy between the educational prepa-

ration of economically vulnerable children and those from

more economically secure backgrounds. The excellence

gaps among these groups of students begin early and are

not easily remedied. In 2012, the Jack Kent Cooke Foun-

dation and NAGC held a symposium on low-income, high

ability students, accompanied by the publication of the re-

port, Unlocking Emergent Talent: Supporting High Achievement

of Low-Income, High-Ability Students (Olszewski-Kubilius &

Clarenbach, 2012). Among the recommendations was provid-

ing a range of academic and social supports for low-income

students, removing barriers to gifted education services,

and conducting more extensive research on targeted inter-

ventions. A P-20 approach

to service delivery for talented,

economically vulnerable students would appear to be a wise

approach, given the potential for these students to get “lost

in the cracks” during transitions between educational levels

(Chamberlin & Plucker, 2008; Roberts, 2008).

We ﬁnd the removal of barriers to be especially important,

but we also caution that removing barriers to participation

may be more dicult than expected. For example, some ac-

celeration options may involve a need for transportation, yet

economically vulnerable students may not have access to easy

or reliable transportation beyond their neighborhood (An-

dersson, Haltiwanger, Kutzbach, Pollakowski, & Weinberg,

2014; Kain, 1992). An economically secure family may be able

to jump in one of the family cars and make a quick, 15-minute

trip to participate in a special program, but a student living

in poverty may need to make a much longer, potentially un-

supervised trip via public transportation taking an hour or

more each way (if public transportation is even available in

their community; see Kneebone, 2014, on the increasing con-

centration of suburban poverty).

Others have suggested that internet-based programming is

one way to avoid transportation issues, which on its surface

makes sense. But given recent research about economically

vulnerable students often not having the necessary media lit-

eracy skills to complete online instructional activities (e.g.,

Leu et al., 2014), the success of online interventions may also

be limited. As McWilliams and Plucker (2014) noted, if large

excellence gaps exist on skills and competencies addressed in

most formal classroom settings, excellence gaps in areas such

as new media literacy and other 21st century skills could be

expected to be even larger (see also Hardesty, McWilliams,

& Plucker, 2014). Skills necessary for future success could

become the domain of already-privileged groups of students,

exacerbating existing excellence gaps and further solidifying

the persistent talent underclass.

Conclusion

As described above, the United States is, paradoxically, an in-

credibly wealthy and very poor country: by some estimations,

roughly half of American K-12 students are economically vul-

nerable. Many of these students are academically talented,

yet excellence gap data suggest that economically vulnerable

students lag far behind their economically secure peers in ac-

ademic achievement.

On the one hand, interventions based on acceleration may

be eective for promoting advanced achievement among

high-ability, poor students. In particular, acceleration strat-

egies involving distance education technology hold prom-

ise because they do not rely on resources in the students’

schools, which are often poorly resourced and provide little

programming for high-ability students.

On the other hand, there are reasons to question whether

certain acceleration strategies would be eective with this

population of talented students. Recent research provides

evidence that many students attending high poverty schools

do not have many of the technological skills necessary to

The P-16 educational initiative refers to the grades included, om preschool

through the postsecondary undergraduate years. These eorts may be called P-20 to

emphasize the importance of preparing highly skilled workers beyond an under-

graduate education. Activities may include collaborations among state agencies,

state legislatures, and businesses that link preschool, K-12, and higher education

(Chamberlin & Plucker, 2008).

A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2 187

Poverty and Acceleration : Plucker & Harris

beneﬁt from internet-delivered programs. However, much of

this research has been conducted with mixed ability popula-

tions, making it dicult to determine the extent to which the

many debilitating correlates of poverty (e.g., lack of access to

reliable transportation, healthcare, well-resourced schools,

and technology, among many other issues) impact the use of

acceleration with economically vulnerable students.

Further complicating the issues, we ﬁnd little empirical ev-

idence that the ecacy of most acceleration strategies has

been examined when used with poor students. A great deal

of research is needed in this area, and given the number of

economically vulnerable students in the United States, this

may be among the most fruitful and beneﬁcial areas for fu-

ture acceleration research.

References

Adelman, C. (2006). e toolbox revisited: Paths to degree completion from

high school through college. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Ed-

ucation. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/rschstat/research/pubs/

toolboxrevisit/index.html

Andersson, F., Haltiwanger, J. C., Kutzbach, M. J., Pollakowski, H. O., &

Weinberg, D. H. (2014). Job displacement and the duration of joblessness:

e role of spatial mismatch [NBER Working Paper No. 20066]. Cam-

bridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research. Retrieved from

http://www.nber.org/papers/w20066.

Burney, V. H., & Beilke, J. R. (2008). e constraints of poverty on high

achievement. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 31(3), 171-197.

Burney, V. H., & Cross, T. L. (2006). Impoverished students with academic

promise in rural settings: 10 Lessons from Project Aspire. Gifted Child

To d a y , 29(2), 14-21.

Chamberlin, M., & Plucker, J. A. (2008). P-16 education: Where are we

going? Where have we been? Phi Delta Kappan, 89, 472-479.

Colangelo, N., Assouline, S. G., & Gross, M. U. M. (2004). A Nation de-

ceived: How schools hold back America’s students ( V. I., and V.II.). Iowa

City, IA: e Connie Belin & Jacqueline N. Blank International Center

for Gifted Education and Talent Development.

Coleman-Jensen, A., Gregory, C., & Singh, A. (2014). Household food se-

curity in the United States in 2013 [Economic Research Report 173].

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Re-

search Service.

College Board. (2014). e 10th annual AP report to the nation. New York:

College Board. Retrieved from http://apreport.collegeboard.org.

Conger, D., Long, M. & Iatarola, P. (2009). Explaining race, poverty, and

gender disparities in advanced course-taking. Journal of Policy Analysis

and Management, 28(4), 555–576.

DeNavas-Walt, C., Proctor, B. D., & Smith, J. C. (2011). Income, poverty,

and health insurance coverage in the United States: 2010 [U.S. Census

Bureau, Current population reports, P60-239]. Washington, DC: U.S.

Government Printing Oﬃce.

DeNavas-Walt, C., & Proctor, B. D. (2014). Income and Poverty in the Unit-

ed States: 2013 [U.S. Census Bureau, Current population reports, P60-

249]. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Oﬃce.

Gerber, Susan B. (1996). Extracurricular activities and academic achieve-

ment. Journal of Research & Development in Education, 30(1), 42-50.

Goﬀ, K. & Torrance, P. (1999). Discovering and developing giftedness

through mentoring. Gifted Child Today, 22(3), 14-16.

Gross, M. (2006). Exceptionally gifted children: Long-term outcomes of

academic acceleration and nonacceleration. Journal for the Education of

the Gifted, 29(4), 404-429.

Hansen, A. (2005). Success in advanced placement courses. Research Brief.

Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED537916)

Hardesty, J., McWilliams, J., & Plucker, J. (2014). Excellence gaps: What

they are, why they are bad, and how smart contexts can address them

… or make them worse. High Ability Studies, 25, 71-80. Retrieved from

http://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/CxEN4szD3IFXscJ6xbNj/full

Harris, B., & Plucker, J. A. (2014). Achieving equity and excellence: e

role of school mental health providers in shrinking excellence gaps. Gift-

ed Child Today, 37(2), 110-116.

Harwell, M., & LeBeau, B. (2010). Student eligibility for a free lunch as

an SES measure in education research. Educational Researcher, 39(2),

120-131.

Hébert, T. (2010). Educating gifted children from low socioeconomic

backgrounds: Creating visions of a hopeful future. Exceptionality, 10(2),

127-138.

Iatarola, P., Conger, D., & Long, M. (2011). Determinants of high schools’

advanced course oﬀerings. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis.

doi: 10.3102/0162373711398124

Kain, J. F. (1992). e spatial mismatch hypothesis: ree decades later.

Housing Policy Debate, 3(2), 371-460.

Kitano, M. K., & Lewis, R.B. (2005). Resilience and coping: Implications

for gifted children and youth at risk. Roeper Review, 27, 200–205.

Kneebone, E. (2014). e growth and spread of concentrated poverty, 2000

to 2008-2012. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution. Retrieved from

http://www.brookings.edu/research/interactives/2014/concentrat-

ed-poverty#/M10420

Konstantopoulos, S., Modi, M., & Hedges, L.V. (2001). Who are Ameri-

ca’s gifted? American Journal of Education, 109(3), 344-382.

Kulik, J. A. (2004). Meta-analytic studies of acceleration. In N. Colange-

lo, S. G. Assouline, & M. U. M. Gross (Eds.), A Nation deceived: How

schools hold back America’s brightest students (V.II., pp. 13–22). Iowa

City: e Connie Belin & Jacqueline N. Blank International Center for

Gifted Education and Talent Development.

Kuo, Y. & Lohman, D. (2011). e timing of grade skipping. Journal for the

Education of the Gifted, 34(5), 731-741.

Lee, V. E., & Burkam, D. T. (2002). Inequality at the starting gate: Social

socio-demographic diﬀerences in achievement as children begin school. Re-

trieved from ERIC database. (ED470551)

Leu, D. J., Forzani, E., Rhoads, C., Maykel, C., Kennedy, C., & Timbrell,

N. (2014). e new literacies of online research and comprehension:

Rethinking the reading achievement gap. Reading Research Quarterly.

doi:10.1002/rrq.85

Leuven, E., Lindahl, M., Hessel Oosterbeek, H. & Webbink, D. (2010).

Expanding schooling opportunities for 4-year-olds. Economics of Edu-

cation Review, 29, 310-328.

McCall, A.L. (1999). Can feminist voices survive and transform the acade-

my? In S. Steinberg (Ed.), e edge: Critical studies in educational theory

(pp. 83-108). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

McWilliams, J., & Plucker, J. (2014). Brain cancer, meat glue, and shifting

models of outstanding human behavior: Smart contexts for the 21st

century. Talent Development and Excellence, 6(1), 47-55.

188 A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2

Poverty and Acceleration : Plucker & Harris

Morrison, M. (2008). e beneﬁts of acceleration: Graduation advantages.

Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED505283).

National Association for Gifted Children. (2006). National leadership con-

ference on low-income promising learners. Conference Summary. Retrieved

from http://ektron.nagc.org/uploadedFiles/Conventions_and_Semi-

nars/Overlooked%20Gems%20Summary%20(ﬁnal).pdf

Olszewski-Kubilius, P., & Clarenbach, J. (2012). Unlocking emergent talent:

Supporting high achievement of low-income, high-ability students. Wa sh -

ington, DC: NAGC. Retrieved from http://www.jkcf.org/assets/1/7/

Unlocking_Emergent_Talent.pdf.

Plucker, J.A., Burroughs, N., & Song, R. (2010). Mind the (other) gap: e

growing excellence gap in K-I2 education. Bloomington, IN: Center for

Evaluation and Education Policy, Indiana University. Retrieved from

http://cepa.uconn.edu/mindthegap.

Plucker, J. A., Hardesty, J., & Burroughs, N. (2013). Talent on the sidelines:

Excellence gaps and America’s persistent talent underclass. Storrs, CT:

Center for Education Policy Analysis, University of Connecticut. Re-

trieved from http://cepa.uconn.edu/mindthegap.

Roberts, J. L. (2008). Talent development: A “must” for a promising future.

Phi Delta Kappan, 89(7), 501-506.

Rutkowski, D., Rutkowski, L., & Plucker, J. A. (2012). Trends in edu-

cation excellence gaps: A 12-year international perspective via the

multilevel model for change. High Ability Studies, 23, 143-166. doi:

10.1080/13598139.2012.735414.

Torrance, E. F. (1974). Interscholastic brainstorming and creative problem

solving competition for the creatively gifted. Gifted Child Quarterly, 18,

3-7.

UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre. (2012). Measuring child poverty:

New league tables of child poverty in the world’s rich countries [Innocenti

Report Card 10]. Florence, Italy: UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre.

A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2 189

Acceleration with Twice-Exceptional Students : Foley-Nicpon & Cederberg

Introduction

In 2004, Nicholas Colangelo, Susan Assouline, and Miraca

Gross published A Nation Deceived: How Schools Hold Back

America’s Brightest Students. This two-volume report on ac-

celeration opened the eyes of the nation to the beneﬁts and

complexities of acceleration as a curriculum option for high

ability students. The second volume of the report detailed

the research support for various acceleration practices with

dierent populations. Sidney Moon and Sally Reis (2004)

wrote the chapter on acceleration with twice-exceptional

students, a potentially overlooked educational consideration

for gifted students with disabilities. Moon and Reis estab-

lished the foundation for our review of a decade of acceler-

ation research advances in educational practice with this

unique population of learners.

Definition of Twice-Exceptionality

Twice-exceptional students are those who “demonstrate the

potential for high achievement or creative productivity in

one or more domain… and who manifest one or more disabil-

ities as deﬁned by federal or state eligibility criteria” (Reis,

Baum, & Burke, 2014, p. 222). Those with high achievement

or ability are commonly referred to as “gifted,” a socially con-

structed label used to describe a heterogeneous group of in-

dividuals who display talent in one or more domains (Pfeier,

2013). As a ﬁeld, there is increasing knowledge of genetic

and biological markers to diagnose disabilities and psycho-

logical disorders, yet social and environmental inﬂuences

remain important (American Psychiatric Association, 2013).

Given these circumstances, clinicians and educators should

approach working with twice-exceptional students from the

perspective that being “gifted” as well as presenting with an

educational, medical, psychological, or biological condition,

helps describe aspects of identity that inform treatment or

intervention, not one’s identity in its entirety.

In addition to the heterogeneity among students identiﬁed

as “gifted,” so too exists heterogeneity across varying deﬁni-

tions of “giftedness” among scholars. Some educational re-

searchers ascribe to the 1978 federal deﬁnition of giftedness

that includes multiple criteria outside narrow parameters

related to tested intellectual ability: “Youth, who are identiﬁed

at the preschool, elementary, or secondary level as possessing demon-

strated or potential abilities that give evidence of high performance

Abstract

Twice-exceptional students are deﬁned as those who “demonstrate the potential for high achievement or creative productivity in one or

more domains … and who manifest one or more disabilities as deﬁned by federal or state eligibility criteria” (Reis, Baum, & Burke, 2014,

p. 222). Due to co-existing high abilities and disabilities, a challenge is presented for educators to accurately identify and subsequently

provide effective accelerative academic services for twice-exceptional students. Recognition for the importance of investigating and

nurturing the talents of twice-exceptional students has increased within both research and applied educational settings, although empirical

investigation efforts lag behind this recognition (Foley Nicpon, Allmon, Sieck, & Stinson, 2011). Likewise, students who receive Individualized

Education Plans (IEPs) or 504 Plans may be overlooked for accelerated or talent development programming if the focus is solely on the

students’ disabilities. The purpose of this chapter is to investigate the current literature as it pertains to twice-exceptionality and acceleration

opportunities, and provide recommendations for educators to foster students’ talent domain development. As momentum builds among

leaders in the ﬁeld to include acceleration as an educational option for twice-exceptional students (Reis et al., 2014), the authors leverage

this momentum to garner positive change for twice-exceptional students nationwide.

Acceleration Practices

With Twice-Exceptional Students

Megan Foley-Nicpon & Charles Cederberg

The University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa

Chapter 15

190 A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2

Acceleration with Twice-Exceptional Students : Foley-Nicpon & Cederberg

capability in areas such as intellectual, creative, speciﬁc academic,

or leadership ability or in the performing and visual arts who by

reason thereof require services or activities not ordinarily provided

in school” (An Act to Extend and Amend Expiring Elementary

and Secondary Education Programs, and for Other Purposes,

1978). Others argue the giftedness construct requires a more

focused deﬁnition, including a minimum cut-score of 120 on

standardized ability testing (Lovett & Sparks, 2011). Those

who study twice-exceptionality (e.g., Reis et al., 2014) advo-

cate for an inclusive, broad deﬁnition that incorporates both

the federal deﬁnition and more comprehensive deﬁnitions,

such as Renzulli’s 3-Ring Conception of Giftedness (Renzulli,

2005), which considers leadership, task commitment, and cre-

ativity. The diversity among twice-exceptional students and

concurrent deﬁnitions of giftedness complicates educators’

capacity for identifying and subsequently providing eective

accelerative academic services for this group of learners.

Debates abound regarding the prevalence of twice-excep-

tionality because no formal system exists for tracking oc-

currence. Most recent data from the U.S. Department of

Education, National Center for Education Statistics (2013),

indicates that 6,419,000 students were served under the In-

dividuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) during the

2010 – 2011 school year. If one considers that approximately

six percent of this population is also academically gifted, that

equates to 385,140 twice-exceptional children. This number,

however, is likely an underestimate because twice-exception-

al students who are served through 504 plans (methods for

providing accommodations for individuals with disabilities

who are not served under IDEA, granted by the Rehabil-

itation Act, 1973) would not be factored into this total (As-

souline & Whiteman, 2011). Additionally, not considering

individual dierences in performance can be problematic

in both identiﬁcation and intervention (Foley Nicpon et al.,

2011; McCallum, Bell, Coles, & Miller, 2013). That is, failing

to note a student’s individual pattern of score discrepancies

may lead educators to misinterpret the ﬁndings. For instance,

McCallum et al. (2013) found the Response to Intervention

(RtI) model used by the majority of school systems in the

United States for identifying and providing services for stu-

dents with speciﬁc learning disabilities in reading or math to

be potentially inadequate for twice-exceptional students be-

cause they may not score “low enough” on curriculum-based

assessments to be eligible for services. As a result, these stu-

dents may not be considered for acceleration programming

options or for remediation in their areas of growth.

Empirical Investigation of

Acceleration Practices with

Twice-Exceptional Students

In recent years, the number of empirical studies examining

twice-exceptional students has increased, but continues to fall

below the need for such studies (Foley Nicpon, et al., 2011). This

need is grounded in the fact that without empirical evidence

establishing best practices, twice-exceptional students will

be identiﬁed and serviced based on non-empirical methods.

Well-intentioned educators could therefore be implementing

procedures that in actuality are not eective for the twice-ex-

ceptional learner. Furthermore, a focus on acceleration as a

curricular option has not been common (Foley Nicpon et al.,

2011; Moon & Reis, 2004), possibly because some twice-excep-

tional students, especially gifted students with learning disabil-

ities, tend to be retained rather than accelerated (Reis, 1995).

Yet, leaders in the ﬁeld call for including acceleration as an

educational option for twice-exceptional students in order to

foster development of their talent domains (Reis et al., 2014).

Acceleration utilization. Findings from researchers studying

acceleration options among twice-exceptional students oer

insight into how acceleration is implemented in U.S. schools.

Olenchak’s (1995) study examining a special program for gift-

ed students with learning disabilities found approximately

25% of their population participated in advanced educational

opportunities and reported a positive self-concept and atti-

tude toward school. Yet, these types of specialized programs

are not commonly available. For example, Willard-Holt, We-

ber, Morrison, and Horgan (2013) found through structured

interviews that twice-exceptional students perceived their

school’s environment as insucient in terms of providing

them assistance with achieving their learning potential.

One issue that may be critical to receiving services for both

exceptionalities is the order in which the exceptionalities are

identiﬁed. For example, students who receive IEPs or 504

Plans may be overlooked for accelerated or talent develop-

ment programming. Crim, Hawkins, Ruban, and Johnson

(2008) examined the IEPs of over one thousand students

identiﬁed with a speciﬁc learning disability (SLD); of these,

112 obtained an ability score of 116 or above but not one re-

ceived talented and gifted services or a recommendation for

participation in accelerated curriculum. This suggests that

if a student obtains special education services ﬁrst, there is

little to no chance he or she also will be considered for gifted

education services. Lack of teacher awareness that students

with learning disabilities can participate in accelerative edu-

cational opportunities limits twice-exceptional students’ uti-

lization of such services (Schultz, 2012).

A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2 191

Acceleration with Twice-Exceptional Students : Foley-Nicpon & Cederberg

Acceleration with students with speciﬁc types of disabil-

ities. Substantial diversity of diagnostic background exists

among twice-exceptional students. Along with identiﬁed tal-

ents, twice-exceptional students possess any one of a num-

ber of learning, psychiatric, neurodevelopmental, behavior-

al, or physical disabilities. Due to this heterogeneity among

twice-exceptional learners, accelerative curricula should be

thoughtfully tailored to address talent domains as well as the

speciﬁc manifestations of the student’s particular disabili-

ty (Assouline, Foley Nicpon, & Huber, 2006; Assouline &

Whiteman, 2011).

Despite this need for specialized education strategies, few

researchers have investigated issues related to acceleration

among speciﬁc populations of twice-exceptional students.

For verbally gifted learners with dyslexia, Berninger and Ab-

bott (2013) recommend focusing on a combination of build-

ing oral word reading, written spelling, and working memory

skills within intellectually engaging lesson plans to help cul-

tivate a student’s verbal talents and not just their disability.

Fugate, Zentall, and Gentry (2013) discovered gifted students

with ADHD demonstrated higher levels of creativity than

their gifted peers without ADHD, in spite of their working

memory deﬁcits. The authors suggest these students might

beneﬁt from academic programming that focuses on tasks

related to divergent thinking and problem-based learning

rather than long-term memory activities that rely on the rec-

ollection of facts. Harnessing creativity within an education-

al setting for this speciﬁc demographic of twice-exceptional

students might be beneﬁcial as a pathway to accelerated learn-

ing across multiple subject areas. Two additional case study

analyses of gifted boys with ADHD (Zentall, Moon, Hall, &

Grskovic, 2001; Moon, Zentall, Grskovic, Hall & Stormont,

2001) suggest that the participants’ academic needs were

met by access to acceleration opportunities, but at the same

time, their social/emotional and behavioral needs must be ad-

dressed for them to be successful in these advanced academic

environments.

Acceleration models. The speciﬁc diagnosis that has re-

ceived the most attention in the literature is learning disabili-

ties, and Susan Baum and her colleagues have completed most

of the work examining accelerated curricula options (Baum &

Owen, 2004; Baum, Schader, & Hébert, 2014). Their model,

the Multiple Perspectives Process Model (MPPM; Baum et al.,

2014), is a strength-based, talent-focused approach that is

advantageous to twice-exceptional student growth in a num-

ber of key domains related to social, emotional, and cognitive

skills (Baum et al., 2014). Educational strategies are tailored

to align with twice-exceptional students’ unique proﬁles

of intelligence, cognitive style, and learning preferences.

Through emphasizing and developing speciﬁc identiﬁed tal-

ents, twice-exceptional students are provided the means and

encouragement to explore and express their unique abilities

and interests within and outside the curriculum (Baum et al.,

2014). Twice-exceptional students who are exposed to edu-

cational environments where the focus is on talent develop-

ment rather than on disability remediation demonstrate in-

creased engagement and success in school (Baum et al., 2014;

Baum & Owen, 2004).

Positive relationships and mentoring opportunities with

teachers are valuable in building conﬁdence for learners to

seek out and thrive in challenging academic environments

(Schultz, 2012). The MPPM provides a blueprint for this pro-

cess by helping educators conceptualize twice-exceptional

students’ needs to inform curriculum and instruction deci-

sions. The MPPM assesses variables related to the follow-

ing criteria: gifts, talents, and interests; learning dierences;

social and emotional readiness; and family context (Baum

et al., 2014). Schools can also employ systemic supports to

twice-exceptional students through oering enrichment,

acceleration, and talent development services within and

outside the conﬁnes of the academic curriculum. Baum and

colleagues (2014) found the MPPM eective in aligning cur-

riculum through a tiered approach based on twice-excep-

tional student readiness, interests, strengths, talents, and

learning proﬁles. The ﬁrst tier includes activities proposed to

expose and engage students in a particular topic and can in-

clude ﬁeld trips, demonstrations, and ﬁlms. The second tier

includes speciﬁc skill-building instruction essential to learn-

ing, including self-regulation, critical thinking, and commu-

nication skills. The third tier includes a unique approach to

accurately assess the performance of the student. The beneﬁt

of this model is twofold: ﬁrst, the curriculum is presented in a

challenging manner; second, alternative methods for access-

ing advanced content are presented to better allow for choice

and demonstration of learned skills (Baum et al., 2014).

Acceleration in high school settings. For many students,

access to accelerative opportunities increases as they enter

high school due to the proliferation of Advanced Placement

(AP) and International Baccalaureate (IB) programs. For the

twice-exceptional high school student, however, this access

may be questionable. High school is an especially vulnera-

ble time for these students. They may not have developed

the executive functioning skills necessary for increased

educational independence or the self-concept it takes to

enroll in advanced coursework. They may not have the pre

requisite coursework necessary for AP consideration. In

her 2012 study, Schultz identiﬁed several issues pertinent to

providing successful AP programming for twice-exceptional

192 A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2

Acceleration with Twice-Exceptional Students : Foley-Nicpon & Cederberg

students. First, school culture was a critical factor in deter-

mining whether a twice-exceptional student was considered

appropriate to enroll in an AP course. For example, many

participants did not meet a particular school’s selection cri-

teria (often an inﬂexible, minimum GPA). This parallels the

typical elementary school “one-size-ﬁts-all” programming

for the generally gifted child and oers an inappropriate, yet

commonly used rationale for excluding twice-exceptional

students. Second, school size was important. Smaller schools

were more likely to enroll twice-exceptional students in AP

courses than were larger schools. It was believed that, in

smaller settings, educators were better able to identify talent

domains in students who may not meet a speciﬁc cut-score

requirement. Third, even if a twice-exceptional student was

enrolled in an AP course, he or she did not always receive

identiﬁed accommodations, despite the presence of an IEP

or 504 Plan. Fourth, twice-exceptional students beneﬁted

from taking college-level courses within more structured en-

vironments, which are often provided in high school, to ease

the transition to greater independence in college and univer-

sity settings. In summary, Schultz (2012) described the many

beneﬁts of allowing twice-exceptional high school students

to participate in advanced curricular opportunities, but high-

lighted the need to provide an accommodated environment

to help them be successful. For example, if a student’s 504

Plan states he or she should have time and a half on tests and

quizzes, this should also apply in his or her AP class.

Willard-Holt and her colleagues (2013) oered additional sug-

gestions to help high school twice-exceptional students to be

successful in advanced academic settings. Speciﬁcally, these

adolescents may assume greater ownership over their learn-

ing if oered more choice and ﬂexibility in selecting topics,

methods of learning, expectations for assessment, pace, and

implementation of group collaboration. Another helpful ac-

commodation to an accelerative strategy might be to allow

twice-exceptional students the option to suggest projects

congruent with their individual learning styles and interests

while still meeting competency standards and curriculum ex-

pectations. Assisted use of technology that addresses weak-

nesses and promotes higher-level learning might also enable

them to ﬂourish.

Research Findings from the

Belin-Blank Center’s Assessment

and Counseling Clinic

Starting in 2004, the Belin-Blank Center’s H.B. and Jocelyn

Wallace Assessment and Counseling Clinic (ACC), a compre-

hensive assessment, therapy, and consultation service, began

specializing in twice-exceptionality. The ACC team realized

a large percentage of clients represented a unique group of

gifted learners who were sorely underserved in research and

clinical arenas. Since that time, the ACC has incorporated

research into its overarching mission of providing compre-

hensive services to twice-exceptional students, their families,

and their educators. While acceleration has not been a cen-

tral focus of this research to date, demographic data acquired

from various samples provides information that can guide

educational intervention.

One key ﬁnding from the ACC research is that access to ac-

celerative options for twice-exceptional students may depend

on a student’s speciﬁc disability. For example, according to

data from a 2005 – 2008 Javits funded project where 76 gift-

ed students obtained comprehensive evaluations to deter-

mine whether they had a speciﬁc learning disability (SLD)

or an autism spectrum disorder (ASD), participation in ac-

celeration and/or gifted and talented programming varied

(Assouline, Foley Nicpon, & Dockery, 2012; Foley Nicpon,

Assouline, Amend, & Schuler, 2010; Foley Nicpon, Assouline,

& Fosenburg, 2014). Of the 76 participants (grades kindergar-

ten through 12), 41 had a primary diagnosis of ASD, 24 had a

primary diagnosis of SLD, ﬁve were diagnosed with ADHD

and/or Obsessive Compulsive Disorder, and the rest (six) had

symptoms of ASD, but not to a level that was deemed diag-

nostic. As is reported in Table 1, most of the twice-exceptional

students who were accelerated had a diagnosis of ASD. It is

notable that close to half (42%) of this group had some form

of acceleration in their academic programming, which is far

greater than expected for more typical high ability students

(Colangelo et al., 2004; Wells, Lohman & Marron, 2009). Ad-

ditionally, the timing of the whole-grade acceleration varied.

Two students moved mid-year from second to third grade, one

skipped fourth grade, and one skipped sixth grade. Subject ac-

celeration was in all areas: math, reading, English, and science,

with generally equal representation across subject domains.

Participants also self-reported involvement in talented and

gifted and special-education programming. Close to 60% of

students referred (N = 45) participated in enrichment program-

ming, but enrichment participation rates varied somewhat

across diagnostic categories. Involvement in special education

services was far less; only 15 students (20%) self-reported some

type of special education or accommodation plan.

In a separate study that examined the psychosocial function-

ing of gifted students with ADHD (Foley Nicpon, Rickels,

Richards, & Assouline, 2012), investigators gathered simi-

lar data on school services. Table 2 reveals that participants

consisted of 112 gifted students, 54 of whom had co-existing

A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2 193

Acceleration with Twice-Exceptional Students : Foley-Nicpon & Cederberg

Table 1: Acceleration, Gifted and Talented, and Special Education Participation Rates in

Belin-Blank Center Javits Project Participants

Diagnosis Total Number Whole-Grade

Accelerated

Single-Subject

Accelerated

Gifted/Talented

Participation

Special Education

Services

ASD 41 4 (10%) 16 (39%) 25 (61%) 9 (22%)

SLD 24 0 3 (13%) 12 (50%) 4 (17%)

ADHD/OCD 5 0 1 (20%) 3 (60%) 1 (20%)

Sub-diagnostic ASD 6 0 2 (33%) 5 (83%) 1 (17%)

TOTAL 76 4 (5%) 22 (29%) 45 (60%) 15 (20%)

ADHD. Of this group of students, 63% of parents reported

their child as receiving one or more forms of acceleration and

72% of parents sought talented and gifted programming for

their children. Conversely, only two parents (four percent)

reported their children received special education services

or accommodation plans, and these two children also partic-

ipated in talented and gifted programming. Of the 58 gifted

students without a diagnosis, 62% of parents reported their

children received one or more forms of acceleration, which is

almost identical to what was reported by the parents of gifted

children with ADHD. A slightly smaller number of parents of

gifted children reported participating in talented and gifted

programming than the parents of gifted children with ADHD.

Examining the acceleration patterns of twice-exceptional

students referred to the Belin-Blank Center’s ACC produces

interesting ﬁndings. First, in general, the sample of twice-ex-

ceptional children had far greater access to accelerated op-

portunities than what is observed in the general population

(Colangelo et al, 2004; Wells, Lohman & Marron, 2009) and

appeared to take advantage of it. In fact, Wells and colleagues

(2009) found less than one percent of students from the Na-

tional Educational Longitudinal Study (NELS) and less than

0.01% of students from the Educational Longitudinal Study

(ELS) datasets were whole-grade accelerated. The ACC’s per-

centages were signiﬁcantly higher, which may be due to se-

lection bias. That is, the ACC is housed in a comprehensive

center for gifted students, known to most regional educators

with a gifted specialty. It may be that this sample was more

likely to be referred by those who are more familiar with

twice-exceptionality and acceleration as a curriculum option.

The students may participate in the Center’s programs and

also may be in gifted education settings where teachers recog-

nize they are talented, but also have undiagnosed educational,

behavioral, or developmental diculties. In fact, the majority

of gifted educators who participated in Foley Nicpon, Assou-

line, and Colangelo’s (2013)

national twice-exceptional needs

assessment felt “somewhat conﬁdent” or “very conﬁdent”

about making an appropriate referral to rule-out a potential

disability in the current educational climate, gifted educators

could hold the key to twice-exceptional students’ access to ac-

celerative opportunities.

A second important ﬁnding was that the majority of the par-

ticipants in the ACC’s samples were not receiving IEP or 504

Accommodation plans. This, again, may be due to selection

bias, or because of limited awareness about twice-excep-

tionality outside of gifted education domains (Foley Nicpon

et al., 2013). Gifted identiﬁcation takes place in the schools,

whereas disability identiﬁcation takes place both in schools

and mental health clinics (Assouline & Whiteman, 2011).

Therefore, special education teachers may be less likely to

refer a student with ADHD, for example, to a clinic special-

izing in gifted and talented evaluations because they presume

the identiﬁcation will take place at the child’s school. Further

research is required to tease out these nuances and determine

how to increase access to accelerative educational opportu-

nities for twice-exceptional students who are ready for addi-

tional challenge in their talent domains.

Researchers examining acceleration options for twice-excep-

tional students have demonstrated it is an eective means of

challenging this group of learners, but must be accompanied

by relevant accommodations related to the student’s identi-

ﬁed disability. Additionally, students may be more likely to

receive services for both their talents and their disabilities

if they are ﬁrst identiﬁed as “gifted.” Educators of the gifted

are astute authorities when it comes to identifying and serv-

ing twice-exceptional learners, but educational professionals

outside the ﬁeld have less exposure to and experience with

this population. Finally, it seems evident that accelerated

programs, schools, and classes are better able to identify and

serve twice-exceptional students if they maintain a support-

ive, ﬂexible, and holistic approach to all students’ learning.

194 A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2

Acceleration with Twice-Exceptional Students : Foley-Nicpon & Cederberg

Table 2: Acceleration, Gifted and Talented, and Special Education Participation Rates in

Belin-Blank Center Javits Project Participants

Group Total Number Whole-Grade

Accelerated

Single-Subject

Accelerated

Gifted/Talented

Participation

Special Education

Services

Gifted with ADHD 54 6 (11%) 28 (52%) 39 (72%) 2 (4%)

Gifted with no

diagnosis

58 6 (10%) 30 (52%) 35 (60%) 0

TOTAL 112 12 (11%) 58 (52%) 74 (66%) 2 (2%)

Recommendations

What follows are practical, research-based strategies for im-

plementing acceleration options with twice-exceptional stu-

dents. Attending to individual dierences based on students’

talent domains and areas of diculty is crucial; a “one size-

ﬁts all” approach is not recommended, given the extraordi-

nary variability in how twice-exceptionality manifests. These

considerations are places to start as educators and parents

develop individual education plans to meet students’ needs.

Offer Professional Development

Opportunities Outside of

Gifted Education

Outside of gifted education, twice-exceptionality is not a

known concept (Foley Nicpon et al., 2013), which may ex-

plain why not many students who ﬁrst enter the special ed-

ucation domain are referred for gifted education (Crim et

al., 2008). Knowledge and awareness of a phenomenon is

necessary before adequate services can be recommended.

In professional development trainings, considering acceler-

ation in its numerous forms as a curriculum option is crucial

toward creating a culture where diverse learners are given

opportunities for advanced learning (Schultz, 2012). Raising

awareness about the unique needs of twice-exceptional stu-

dents in accelerated learning environments is a fundamental

ﬁrst step for providing necessary support. It also decreases

the potential for teachers to explicitly or implicitly “shame”

and/or exclude twice-exceptional students, and helps build a

welcoming environment where they can gain conﬁdence in

their abilities and performance.

Professional training for educators can also increase their

sensitivity for recognizing the gifts, talents, and interests; the

speciﬁc learning dierences; and the social and emotional

readiness of twice-exceptional students (Baum et al., 2014). In

developing this sensitivity, teachers will subsequently foster

equity among students and provide the necessary accommo-

dations all may need to succeed (Schultz, 2012). Building pro-

fessional capacity to identify and meet the unique academic

needs of twice-exceptional learners requires what Baum et

al. (2014) describe as a tolerance for asynchrony, or helping

teachers develop patience and acceptance for dierent stu-

dent needs. Greater educator awareness for the unique needs

of this population also improves capacity for cross-collabora-

tion among gifted, general education, and special education

teachers (Schultz, 2012).

Recognize Individual Differences

As already emphasized, decisions regarding acceleration op-

tions for all students should be individualized. Tools exist to

aid in this process, such as the Iowa Acceleration Scale (IAS;

Assouline, Colangelo, Lupkowski-Shoplik, Lipscomb, &

Forstadt, 2009). The IAS is a comprehensive decision-mak-

ing instrument that is ideal for educators considering accel-

eration for all high-ability students. What makes it applica-

ble to the twice-exceptional population is that it aords an

objective, documented analysis of the student’s strengths

and weakness. The IAS also provides a structure for record-

ing data to review in the decision-making process, including

guidelines for considering the relative importance of the

data. It oers a numerical range of appropriateness for var-

ious models of acceleration and gives examples of students

who have been successfully accelerated.

Students’ psychosocial presentations are relevant to the ac-

celeration decision-making process, independent of their

“gifted” and disability designations. For example, mindset, a

term coined by Carol Dweck (2006), helps explain a person’s

perceptions of their abilities. Students with “ﬁxed mindsets”

perceive their talents and deﬁcits as static, whereas students

with “growth mindsets” perceive their talents and deﬁcits as

malleable. A twice-exceptional student with a ﬁxed mindset

who believes she is gifted but poor at math (despite evidence

to the contrary) may be reluctant to try advanced math cur-

A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2 195

Acceleration with Twice-Exceptional Students : Foley-Nicpon & Cederberg

riculum (Pfeier, 2003). Alternatively, a twice-exceptional

student with a growth mindset may be up for the academic

challenge and acknowledge that hard work and perseverance

can help her succeed in accelerated arenas. Some have ar-

gued that Dweck’s theory should be modiﬁed for gifted chil-

dren such that a ﬁxed approach to one’s abilities is adaptive

as long as one assumes a growth approach to one’s deﬁcits

(Ziegler & Stoeger, 2010). The same may be true for twice-

exceptional students.

The mindset phenomenon, however, has limited empirical

support among gifted students. One study with gifted stu-

dents in Hong Kong (Chan, 2012) found that students with

unhealthy perfectionistic styles were more likely to have

ﬁxed mindsets than those with healthy or non-perfectionistic

styles. Assouline, Colangelo, Ihrig and Forstadt (2006) looked

at patterns of success and failure among gifted students, and

determined that successes were more likely to be attribut-

ed to eort and ability, and failures were attributed to eort

and task diculty. While not yet empirically examined with

twice-exceptional students, it may be important for a clini-

cian or educator advising a student about acceleration options

to consider the student’s mindset. Even though mindsets are

typically stable, they can be changed through speciﬁc inter-

vention, and assuming a growth mindset can positively in-

ﬂuence academic eort in at-risk students (Sriram, 2013) and

may do the same for the twice-exceptional learners.

Once accelerated, it is important to remember that learning

pace and style will be as individualized as twice-exceptional

students themselves. Findings from a qualitative examina-

tion of successful matriculation among students attending

a specialized, private school, twice-exceptional students’

learning trajectories were variable, depending on the stu-

dent’s strengths and areas of growth (Baum et al., 2014).

While possessing advanced reasoning skills, many gifted

students are slower processors, which may aect their rate

of knowledge acquisition (Assouline et al., 2012). Slower pro-

cessing is not reason enough to avoid exposure to accelerated

environments, but it is necessary to accommodate. Several

other twice-exceptional students may struggle with execu-

tive functioning, or planning, time-management, organiza-

tion, and self-regulation skills. As noted by Russel Barkley, an

internationally known authority on ADHD in children, ado-

lescents, and adults, executive functioning is delayed in many

neurodevelopmental disorders, including ADHD and ASD

(Barkley, 2005, 2012). Therefore, measuring performance, or

success, on factors impaired by executive functioning (e.g.,

not labeling a math problem, not completing all the items)

does not portray an accurate picture of the student’s abilities.

Recognizing and planning for these individual dierences is

crucial to creating a welcoming classroom where challenge is

oered regardless of learning style or pace.

Accelerate and Remediate from a

Strengths-Based Perspective

As multiple scholars have noted (McCoach, Kehle, Bray, &

Siegle, 2001; Olenchak & Reis, 2001; Reis, Burns, & Renzu-

lli, 1992), it is preferable to provide accelerated curriculum

options (including curriculum compacting; see Southern and

Jones, this volume) in a twice-exceptional student’s talent do-

main, while at the same time providing accommodations and/

or remediation in their areas of growth. Accommodations can,

and should be, addressed from a strengths-based perspective.

Ample evidence points to the beneﬁts of addressing students’

talent domains primarily and the students’ areas for growth

secondarily (Baum et al., 2014; Baum, Owen & Dixon, 1991;

Olenchak, 1995; Neihart, 2008; Reis, Neu, & McGuire, 1995.

As Baum and colleagues noted (2014), this stance, based in

positive psychology (Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000; Se-

ligman, Ernst, Gillham, Reivich, & Linkins, 2009), is advan-

tageous to the psychological and academic development of

all children, including the twice-exceptional. In comparison

to a deﬁcit or medical model, where disability is the primary

concern (Hughes, 2009; Olkin, 2004), the talent develop-

ment approach helps children focus more on what they can

do well, rather than the area in which they struggle.

A speciﬁc example is Baum et al.’s (2014) MMPM model,

which identiﬁes needs and builds student growth along ﬁve

factors of psychological safety, tolerance for asynchrony,

time, positive relationships, and consistency of curriculum

implementation. Cultivating an academic environment

that discouraged “shaming” and “exclusion” helped increase

twice-exceptional learners’ feelings of psychological safety.

Providing students the necessary time to grow talents and

skills related to deﬁcits helped decrease student anxieties

about their struggles to perform at grade level. Baum et al.

(2014) also found teachers who prioritized developing rela-

tionships with twice-exceptional students and provided con-

sistent implementation of the strength-based model helped

facilitate positive outcomes for twice-exceptional student

acceleration. These outcomes included developing positive

social skills with peers and teachers; overcoming some social,

emotional, and cognitive challenges; and building expertise

in areas of talent.

196 A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2

Acceleration with Twice-Exceptional Students : Foley-Nicpon & Cederberg

Provide Accommodations in

Accelerated Settings

Crucial to the successful acceleration of twice-exceptional

students is the aordance of accommodations in the chal-

lenging educational environment. That is, IEP or 504 Accom-

modation plans are legally bound in all classrooms, including

accelerated ones. It is very likely that a twice-exceptional stu-

dent who enters an accelerated math class may still require,

for example, assistance with executive functioning skills.

Even though the student understands and can successfully

complete advanced algebraic equations, he still may forget

to turn in work by the deadline, complete all the problems

assigned, or ﬁnish all the test questions in the time allotted.

Therefore, accommodations likely will still be needed, espe-

cially to foster self-ecacy and avoid embarrassment, criti-

cism, or lowered self-esteem (Baum, Rizza, & Renzulli, 2006;

Schultz, 2012). The primary goal should be to establish ac-

commodations that allow the evaluation to be based on con-

tent acquisition and knowledge rather than on deﬁcits relat-

ed to one’s disability status (e.g., not completing all items, not

turning in work on time, etc.). These life skills are necessary

to learn but should be independent of a grade in Advanced

Placement Psychology or Honors Chemistry.

Build Parental and Educator

Awareness of Public Policy

School districts may inadvertently possess educational cul-

tures that limit the accessibility of accelerated environments

for twice-exceptional students. These might be due to rigid,

“one-size ﬁts all” entrance policies, inconsistent adherence

to accommodation plans, or misinterpretation of policies by

relevant school professionals. Consistent across the litera-

ture, scholars recommend professional development for ed-

ucators, including those of accelerated programs, to be ade-

quately informed about the required implementation of IEP

and 504 Plans. All educators must acknowledge and accept

the legal obligation for special accommodations aorded to

qualiﬁed students through these plans (Schultz, 2012).

Knowing relevant policy and law is imperative for parents as

they advocate for their twice-exceptional child. Historically,

parents have played a pivotal role in building public aware-

ness and advocating for reform and special education legisla-

tion (Schultz, 2012; Speirs Neumeister, Yssel, & Burney, 2013;

Soodak, 2004). Advocating for acceleration opportunities

early aects later chances to attend Advanced Placement

and for-college-credit classes (Shultz, 2012). Unfortunately,

these advocacy eorts are commonly paired with signiﬁcant

ﬁnancial burden (Speirs Neumeister et al., 2013), which may

be another way twice-exceptional students are unintention-

ally excluded. Parents are better able to successfully advocate

for their children’s needs when provided with informational

guides that outline their rights, relevant laws, and strategies

for working with school professionals.

Conclusion

Since the review by Moon and Reis (2004) of the state of

twice-exceptionality and acceleration, positive strides have

been made in both research and applied educational settings.

Nevertheless, a signiﬁcant need persists in eectively iden-

tifying and nurturing the unique talents of the twice-excep-

tional. Educators possess signiﬁcant potential for eectively

serving these students through the curricular and instruc-

tional approaches they employ. Calling for school districts

and educators to fulﬁll the obligations of existing laws in

accelerated environments, such as providing necessary ac-

commodations for gifted learners with disabilities, is a cru-

cially overlooked need. Additionally, empowering parents to

advocate for new public policy initiatives that usher positive

outcomes for twice-exceptional learners in acceleration set-

tings is imperative. Finally, additional empirical evidence that

identiﬁes best practice in terms of acceleration options that

are most eective relative to the exceptionality is necessary.

Through prioritizing services for students to concentrate

more on their apparent strengths rather than weaknesses, we

might better empower and promote the unique talents of this

exceptional group of learners.

References

American Psychiatric Association (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual

of mental disorders (5th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.

An Act to Extend and Amend Expiring Elementary and Secondary Ed-

ucation Programs, and for Other Purposes, Pub. L. No. 95-561, § 92

Stat. 2143 (1978).

Assouline, S., Colangelo, N., Lupkowski-Shoplik, A., Lipscomb, J., &

Forstadt, L. (2009). Iowa Acceleration Scale, 3rd edition. Tucson, AZ:

Great Potential Press.

Assouline, S. G., Colangelo, N., Ihrig, D., & Forstadt, L. (2006). Attribu-

tional choices for academic success and failure by intellectually gifted

students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 50(4), 283-294.

Assouline, S. G., Foley Nicpon, M., & Dockery, L. (2012). Predicting the

academic achievement of gifted students with autism spectrum disor-

der. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 42(2), 1781-1789.

doi: 10.1007/s10803-011-1403-x

Assouline, S. G., Foley Nicpon, M., & Huber, D. H. (2006). e impact of

vulnerabilities and strengths on the academic experiences of twice-ex-

ceptional students: A message to school counselors. Professional School

Counseling, 10(1), 14-25.

A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2 197

Acceleration with Twice-Exceptional Students : Foley-Nicpon & Cederberg

Assouline, S. G., & Whiteman, C. (2011). Twice-exceptionality:

Implications

for school psychologists in the Post-IDEA 2004 era. Journal of Applied

School Psychology, 27,380-402. doi: 10.1080/15377903.2011.616576

Barkley, R. (2005). Attention-deﬁcit hyperactivity disorder: A handbook for

diagnosis and treatment, third edition. New York, NY: Guilford.

Barkley, R. (2012). Executive functions: What they are, how they work, and

why they work. New York, NY: Guilford.

Baum, S. M., & Owen, S. V. (2004). To be gifted and learning disabled: Meet-

ing the needs of gifted students with LD, ADHD, and more. Mansﬁeld

Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.

Baum, S. M., Owen, S. V., & Dixon, J. (1991). To be gifted and learning

disabled: From identiﬁcation to practical intervention strategies. Mansﬁeld

Center: CT: Creative Learning Press.

Baum, S. M., Rizza, M., & Renzulli, S. (2006). Twice exceptional ado-

lescents: Who are they? What do they need? In F. A. Dixon, & S. M.

Moon (Eds.), e handbook of secondary gifted education (pp. 137-164).

Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

Baum, S. M., Schader, R. M., & Hébert, T. P. (2014). rough a diﬀer-

ent lens: Reﬂecting on a strengths-based, talent-focused approach for

twice-exceptional learners. Gifted Child Quarterly, 58(4), 311-327. doi:

10.1177/0016986214547632

Berninger, V.W. & Abbott, R.D. (2013). Diﬀerences between children with

dyslexia who are and are not gifted in verbal reasoning. Gifted Child

Quarterly, 57(4), 223-233.

Chan, D. W. (2012). Life satisfaction, happiness, and the growth mindset

of healthy and unhealthy perfectionists among Hong Kong Chinese

gifted students. Roeper Review, 34(4), 224-233.

Colangelo, N., Assouline, S. G., & Gross, M. U. M. (2004). A Nation de-

ceived: How schools hold back America’s brightest students. (V.II.) Iowa

City, IA: e Connie Belin & Jacqueline N. Blank International Center

for Gifted Education and Talent Development.

Crim, C., Hawkins, J., Ruban, L., & Johnson, S. (2008). Curricular modi-

ﬁcations for elementary students with learning disabilities in high-, av-

erage-, and low-IQ groups. Journal of Research in Childhood Education,

22, 233-245.

Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset: e new psychology of success. New Yo rk ,

Ballantine Books.

Foley Nicpon, M., Allmon, A., Sieck, R., & Stinson, R. D. (2011). Em-

pirical investigation of twice-exceptionality: Where have we been

and where are we going? Gifted Child Quarterly, 55(1), 3-17. doi:

10.1177/0016986210382575

Foley Nicpon, M., Assouline, S. G., & Colangelo, N. (2013). Twice-ex-

ceptional learners: Who needs to know what? Gifted Child Quarterly,

57(3), 169-180. doi: 10.1177/0016986213490021

Foley Nicpon, M., Assouline, S. G., & Fosenburg, S. (2014). Self-Concept,

Ability, and Academic Programming among Twice-Exceptional Youth.

Manuscript under review.

Foley Nicpon, M., Assouline, S. G., Amend, E. R., & Schuler, P. (2010).

Gifted and talented students on the autism spectrum: Best practices for

fostering talent and accommodating concerns. In J. A. Castellano & A.

D. Frazier (Eds.), Special populations in gifted education: Understanding

our most able students from diverse backgrounds. (pp. 227 – 248). Waco,

TX: Prufrock Press.

Foley Nicpon, M., Rickels, H., Richards, A., & Assouline, S. G. (2012).

Self-esteem and self-concept examination among gifted students with

ADHD. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 35(3), 220-240. doi:

10.1177/0162353212451735

Fugate, C.M., Zentall, S.S., & Gentry, M. (2013). Creativity and working

memory in gifted students with and without characteristics of attention

deﬁcit hyperactive disorder: Lifting the mask. Gifted Child Quarterly,

57(4), 234-246.

Hughes, B. (2009). Disability activisms: Social model stalwarts and biolog-

ical citizens. Disability and Society, 24(6), 677-688.

Lovett, B.J., & Sparks, R.L. (2010). Exploring the diagnosis of “gifted/LD”:

Characterizing post-secondary students with learning disability diag-

noses at diﬀerent levels of IQ. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment,

28, 91-101.

McCallum, R. S., Bell, S. M., Coles, J. T., & Miller, K. (2013). A model

for screening twice-exceptional students (gifted with learning disabili-

ties) within a response to intervention paradigm. Gifted Child Quarterly,

57(4), 209-222. doi: 10.1177/00169862135010070

McCoach, D. B., Kehle, T. J., Bray, M. A., & Siegle, D. (2001). Best prac-

tices in the identiﬁcation of gifted students with learning disabilities.

Psychology in the Schools, 38(5), 403-411.

Moon, S. M., & Reis, S. M. (2004). Acceleration and twice-exceptional stu-

dents. In N. Colangelo, S. G. Assouline, and M. U. M. Gross (Eds.), A

Nation deceived: How schools hold back America’s brightest students (V.II.,

pp. 109 – 120). Iowa City, IA: e Connie Belin & Jacqueline N. Blank

International Center for Gifted Education and Talent Development.

Moon, S. M., Zentall, S. S., Grskovic, J. A., Hall A., & Stormont, M.

(2001). Emotional and social characteristics of boys with ADHD and/

or giftedness: A comparative case study. Journal of the Education of the

Gifted, 24(3), 207-247.

Neihart, M. (2008). Identifying and providing services to twice exceptional

children. In S. I. Pfeiﬀer (Ed.), Handbook of giftedness in children: Psy-

choeducational theory, research, and best practices (pp. 115-137). New

York, NY: Springer.

Olenchak, F. R. (1995). Eﬀects of enrichment on gifted/learning disabled

students. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 18, 385-399.

Olenchak, F. R., & Reis, S. M. (2001). Gifted students with learning dis-

abilities: In M. Neihart, S. M. Reis, N. M. Robinson, & S. M. Moon

(Eds.), e social and emotional development of gifted children (pp. 267-

289). Waco, TS: Prufrock Press.

Olkin, R. (2004). Making research accessible to participants with disabil-

ities. Journal of Multicultural Counseling & Development, 32, 332-343.

Pfeiﬀer, S. I. (2013). Serving the gifted: Evidence-based clinical and psychoedu-

cational practice. New York, NY: Taylor and Francis Group.

Rehabilitation Act of 1973 § 504, 29 U.S.C. § 701 (1973).

Reis, S. M. (1995). Providing equity for all: Meeting the needs of high abil-

ity students. In H. Pool & J. A. Page (Eds.), Beyond tracking: Finding

success in inclusive schools (pp. 119-131). Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta

Kappa.

Reis, S. M., Baum, S. M., & Burke, E. (2014). An operational deﬁnition of

twice-exceptional learners: Implications and applications. Gifted Child

Quarterly, 58(3), 217-230. doi: 10.1177/0016986214534976

Reis, S. M., Burns, D. E., & Renzulli, J. S. (1992). Curriculum compacting:

e complete guide to modifying the regular curriculum for high ability stu-

dents. Mansﬁeld Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.

Reis, S. M., Neu, T. W., & McGuire, J. M. (1995). Talent in two places: Case

studies of high ability students with learning disabilities who have achieved.

Storrs, CT: National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.

Reis, S. M., Neu, T. W., & McGuire, J. M. (1997). Case studies of high abil-

ity students with learning disabilities who have achieved. Exceptional

Children, 63(4), 463-479.

198 A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2

Acceleration with Twice-Exceptional Students : Foley-Nicpon & Cederberg

Renzulli, J. S. (2005). e three ring conception of giftedness: A develop-

mental model for creative productivity. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. David-

son (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (2nd ed., pp. 246-280). New York,

NY: Cambridge University Press.

Schultz, S.M. (2012). Twice-exceptional students enrolled in advanced

placement classes. Gifted Child Quarterly, 56(3), 119-133.

Seligman, M., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive psychology: An

introduction. American Psychologist, 55, 5-14. doi:10.1037/0003-

066X.56.1.89

Seligman, M., Ernst, R. M., Gillham, J., Reivich, K., & Linkins,

M. (2009). Positive education: Positive psychology and class-

room interventions. Oxford Review of Education, 35, 293-311.

doi:10.1080/03054980902934563

Soodak, L.C. (2004). Parents and inclusive schooling: Advocating for and

participating in the reform of special education. In S. Danforth, & S.D.

Taﬀ (Eds.), Crucial reading in special education (pp. 260-273). Upper

Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.

Speirs Neumeister, K., Yssel, N., & Burney, V.H. (2013). e inﬂuence

of primary caregivers in fostering success in twice-exceptional children.

Gifted Child Quarterly, 57(4), 263-274.

Sriram, R. (2013). Rethinking intelligence: e role of mindset in promot-

ing success for academically high-risk students. Journal of College Stu-

dent Retention: Research, eory and Practice, 15(4), 515-536.

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.

(2013). Digest of Education Statistics, 2012 (NCES 2014-015), Re-

trieved from http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d12/ch_2.asp

Wells, R., Lohman, D., & Marron, M. (2009). What factors are associated

with grade acceleration? Journal of Advanced Academics, 20, 248-273.

Willard-Holt, C., Weber, J., Morrison, K.L., & Horgan, J. (2013).

Twice-exceptional learners’ perspectives on eﬀective learning strategies.

Gifted Child Quarterly, 57(4), 246-262.

Zentall, S. S., Moon, S. M., Hall. A. M., & Grskovic, J. A. (2001). Learning

and motivational characteristics of boys with ADHD and/or gifted-

ness: A multiple case study. Exceptional Children, 67, 499-519.

Ziegler, A., & Stoeger, H. (2010). Research on a modiﬁed framework of

implicit personality theories. Learning and Individual Diﬀerences, 20,

318-326. doi: 10.1016/j.lindif.2010.01.007

A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2 199

Radical Acceleration : Jung & Gross

Introduction

Radical acceleration may be deﬁned as any combination of

procedures that results in a student graduating from high

school three or more years earlier than is customary (Stan-

ley, 1978). Generally, radical acceleration does not arise from

a single three-year grade skip, but through the cumulative ef-

fect of a variety of acceleration options including early school

entry, subject matter acceleration, grade-skipping, dual en-

rollment, special courses, mentors, Advanced Placement, ex-

ams for college credit, and early college entry, over a period of

time. When thoughtfully planned and carefully monitored, it

is a very useful educational intervention for the most highly

gifted students who also are socially and emotionally mature

(Gross & van Vliet, 2005). Educational interventions that are

limited to enrichment or moderate degrees of acceleration,

such as a single grade skip, may be inappropriate and unsuc-

cessful for many highly able students, as they are unlikely to

meet the needs of these students.

Research Background

There have been only a limited number of scholarly inves-

tigations on radical acceleration to date, reﬂecting the gen-

erally restricted use of the practice in schools and the small

numbers of radical accelerands

who may be accessible to re-

searchers (Gross & van Vliet, 2005; Janos, Robinson, & Lun-

neborg, 1989). Nevertheless, the emerging body of research

on the topic, from diverse sources, has produced some useful

ﬁndings. Apart from a few studies and reviews that focus spe-

ciﬁcally on radical acceleration (Charlton, Marolf, & Stanley,

1994; Gross, 1992; Gross & van Vliet, 2005), radical accelera-

tion is addressed, to varying degrees, in the body of research

on highly gifted students (Gross, 1993, 2004; Muratori, Stan-

ley, Ng, Ng, Gross, Tao et al., 2006) and research on various

early college entrance programs around the world (Hertzog

& Chung, 2015; Janos & Robinson, 1985; Janos et al., 1989;

Noble, Arndt, Nicholson, Sletten, & Zamora, 1999; Noble,

Robinson, & Gunderson, 1993; Noble & Smyth, 1995; Noble,

Vaughan, Chan, Childers, Chow, Federow et al., 2007; Robin-

son & Janos, 1986).

A number of research designs have been utilized in the re-

search on radical acceleration. Many studies have adopted

case study or related designs. For example, Charlton et al.

(1994), detail the experiences of 14 radical accelerands and

their long-term academic and social outcomes using a case

study approach. Gross (1993, 2004) also adopted a case study

design in her 20-year longitudinal study of 60 profoundly

gifted children (of which 17 were radically accelerated), as did

Galton (1869) and Cox (1926) in their retrospective studies of

Abstract

Radical acceleration, which refers to any combination of procedures that results in a student graduating from high school three or more years

earlier than is usual, is an intervention that meets the educational needs of the most highly gifted students. The emerging research in the

area suggests that a program of radical acceleration usually involves multiple acceleration options, and typically results in positive academic,

socio-emotional, career, and life outcomes for radically accelerated students. Nevertheless, some disadvantages of radical acceleration

have also been identiﬁed, and a small number of radical accelerands appear to drop out of their studies. A number of suggestions are made

for possible ways to increase access to radical acceleration interventions for highly able students, improve selection criteria, minimize the

number of unsuccessful radical accelerands, and optimize the practice of radical acceleration.

Radical Acceleration

Jae Yup Jung and Miraca U.M. Gross

Gied Education Research, Resource, and Information Centre (GERRIC)

The University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia

The term accelerant is oen used to describe a student who has been accelerated.

However, correctly used, accelerant denotes an agent that instigates acceleration.

The authors believe that accelerand is a more appropriate term to denote students

who have been accelerated.

Chapter 16

200 A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2

Radical Acceleration : Jung & Gross

highly accomplished adults. Similarly, Young (2010) adopted

a case study design in her investigation of 12 Australian early

college entrants, ﬁve of whom were accelerated by three or

more grades, or accelerated by at least three years in at least

one subject area.

The bulk of the research on radically accelerated early college

entrants, undertaken by Janos and Robinson in the 1980s, and

Noble and her colleagues from the 1990s (Hertzog & Chung,

2015), were participants of a cohort acceleration program at

The University of Washington, where approximately 16 stu-

dents are accelerated as a group every year. These cohort stud-

ies have tended to investigate the academic, socio-aective,

and life outcomes of up to approximately 100 radical acceler-

ands using surveys and interviews, occasionally in comparison

to groups of equally able high school students, top performing

college students, and regular college students. As most other

early college entrance programs in the United States do not

allow entry to students who are younger than the regular co-

hort by three or more years, the participants of such programs

usually do not qualify as radical accelerands, unless they have

also experienced other acceleration options during their ele-

mentary or secondary schooling (Noble et al., 2007).

By far the majority of the published studies on radical ac-

celeration relate to students who were able to accelerate us-

ing educational interventions that are available within the

United States education system. Nevertheless, there have

also been studies relating to radical accelerands in China

(Dai & Steenbergen-Hu, 2015; Robinson, 1992), Australia

(Gross, 1992, 2004; Jung, Young, & Gross, 2015; Young, 2010),

Taiwan, and Poland (Gross & van Vliet, 2005). Most of the

studies on Chinese radical accelerands have focused on the

cohort radical acceleration program at The University of

Science and Technology of China (USTC), which enrolls 40

to 50 students each year. Some of the unique features of this

program include an emphasis on solid disciplinary founda-

tions, a strong research component, mentorship, and partic-

ipation in extracurricular activities (Dai & Steenbergen-Hu,

2015). In contrast, the Australian studies have tended to focus

on in-depth case studies of individual radical accelerands who

have been accelerated using multiple combinations of accel-

eration options at a range of educational institutions (Gross,

1992, 2004; Young, 2010). While the primary outlets for the

publication of studies on radical acceleration have generally

been within the ﬁeld of gifted education, outlets in higher ed-

ucation and youth studies have also been utilized, particular-

ly with respect to studies of the radical acceleration program

at The University of Washington (Janos et al., 1989; Robinson

& Janos, 1986).

Who Radically Accelerates?

Although many highly able students may potentially be suc-

cessful as radical accelerands, a number of reasons appear to

exist for why they are not given this opportunity. Janos et al.

(1989) suggest that one possible reason may be the limited

general availability of acceleration options in schools, access

into which may depend upon a student’s performance on one

or more measures of ability and achievement. Alternatively,

the reason may lie in widespread concerns about the possible

negative consequences of radical acceleration, such as being

deprived of critical social experiences that may be needed for

the creation of healthy, well-functioning, and successful lives

(Brody & Stanley, 1991; Noble et al., 1993). Indeed, anecdotal

accounts of the less than ideal outcomes of radical acceler-

ation, such as the case of William James Sidis, who entered

Harvard University at an early age but lived a life of seclusion

as an adult, appear to have dominated public thinking on the

practice (Muratori et al., 2006).

An examination of the commonly identiﬁed characteristics of

students who have been radically accelerated reveals an inter-

esting picture. First, it appears that radical accelerands may

generally have highly educated parents who hold professional

careers, are supportive of the practice, and are knowledgeable

of its beneﬁts (Noble & Smyth, 1995; Olszewski-Kubilius,

2002; Robinson, 1992; Young, 2010). The common personal

traits of radical accelerands appear to include a high level of

independence, a low level of conventionalism, and minimal

tendencies for conformity when compared to equally bright

high school students or top performing college students

(Charlton et al., 1994; Olszewski-Kubilius, 2002; Robinson

& Janos, 1986; Young, 2010). Furthermore, they generally

appear to be more verbally able than regular-age college stu-

dents (Janos & Robinson, 1985), highly competitive (Charlton

et al., 1994; Noble et al., 1999), but also more restrained, cau-

tious, and introverted than equally able high school students

(Noble et al., 1993, Young, 2010). Some studies also suggest

that radical accelerands may be well-rounded individuals who

possess a wide range of social interests, and do not ﬁt the ste-

reotype of socially incompetent “nerds” (Gross, 2004, 2006;

Noble et al., 2007). Interestingly, gender did not appear to

be a factor with the radical accelerands at The University of

Washington (Noble & Smyth, 1995), although male students

were much more likely than female students to be radical-

ly accelerated in the Chinese radical acceleration programs

(Dai & Steenbergen-Hu, 2015; Robinson, 1992).

A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2 201

Radical Acceleration : Jung & Gross

How Highly Gifted Students Are

Radically Accelerated

Evidence (Cox, 1926; Galton, 1969) exists that radical acceler-

ation was utilized as an educational intervention prior to the

20th century. Retrospective studies of highly accomplished

adults suggest that in many cases, radical acceleration was

possible for gifted individuals over the course of history due

to homeschooling, which allowed for an expedited progres-

sion through the curriculum, and the early introduction to an

advanced and extended curriculum (Cox, 1926; Galton, 1969;

Gross & van Vliet, 2005). In more recent times, the litera-

ture suggests that radical acceleration has been undertaken

through a variety of pathways that involve one or more ac-

celeration options including early entry to formal schooling,

early entry into secondary school, dual enrollment, subject

matter acceleration, grade-skipping, early college entry, and

Individualized Education Programs (IEP; Gross, 1992, 2004;

Gross & van Vliet, 2005; Muratori et al., 2006; Noble et al.,

1993). For example, a radically accelerated participant in a

study conducted by Young (2010) experienced a combina-

tion of homeschooling, attendance at a school with no clear

demarcation of grades, subject matter acceleration, grade-

skipping, and an IEP during his elementary schooling, as well

as subject matter acceleration, grade-skipping, and part-time

enrollment in college during his secondary schooling.

To gain access to the individual acceleration options that

ultimately lead to radical acceleration, there appears to be a

need to demonstrate a student’s eligibility using a wide range

of ability and achievement measures. The precise criteria

used to evaluate a student’s readiness for acceleration appear

to vary substantially by acceleration option and institution.

Moreover, as radical acceleration comprises the combined ef-

fect of a number of dierent acceleration options, it is likely

that the range of selection criteria used with each individual

radical accelerand will be dierent. Nevertheless, the com-

monly used criteria appear to include one or a more of the

following options: (a) past and/or present ability measures,

(b) past and/or present achievement measures, (c) interview

responses, (d) essays, (e) samples of original work, (f) observa-

tions, and (g) recommendations from others.

At least for early college entry, a commonly used acceleration

option among radical accelerands, Olszewski-Kubilius (2002)

suggests that the selection criteria appear to undergo contin-

uous reﬁnement to reﬂect emerging research ﬁndings. Future

reﬁnements to the selection criteria for radical acceleration

generally may nevertheless beneﬁt from investigations of

how to optimally combine the scores of multiple criteria for

each individual acceleration option, and across the dierent

acceleration options that lead to radical acceleration. McBee,

Peters, and Waterman (2014) suggest that in situations where

there are severe consequences of misidentiﬁcation and small

student numbers (as in radical acceleration), it may be opti-

mal to require pre-set standards on all selection criteria to be

met simultaneously, possibly using the means of multiple mea-

sures of ability and/or achievement. Nevertheless, there is no

speciﬁc evidence to suggest that such an approach has been

successful as a discriminating process for radical acceleration.

In large part, obtaining access to acceleration options ap-

pears to be facilitated by the pro-active eorts of parents to

become familiar with the gifted education literature, and to

advocate on behalf of their highly able children (Gross, 1992,

2004; Jung et al., 2015; Muratori et al., 2006). For example,

Bloom (1985) noted the pivotal role of parents in seeking ap-

propriate teachers and educational opportunities, including

summer programs and early admission into college, for their

gifted children. Moreover, Colin Camerer, a radically acceler-

ated participant of the Study of Mathematically Precocious

Youth (SMPY) and a professor of behavioral ﬁnance and eco-

nomics at the California Institute of Technology, attributed

the success of his radical acceleration program, which incor-

porated a number of acceleration options, to the “ongoing

support and encouragement from his parents” (Gross & van

Vliet, 2005, p. 158; also see Holmes, Rin, Tremblay, & Zeldin,

1984). Nevertheless, the process may be more easily navigat-

ed by the parents of gifted students if the senior administra-

tion of schools, and/or their personnel, are trained in gifted

education or are at least sympathetic to the practice. As an

illustration, the decision to accelerate Christopher Otway by

his high school principal (Gross, 1993, 2004) was attributed

to the principal’s acquaintance with experts in gifted educa-

tion, including Professor Julian Stanley and his colleagues at

Johns Hopkins University (Gross, 1992, 2004; Gross & van

Vliet, 2005). For their part, experts in gifted education ap-

pear to have a major role in the development, planning, and

monitoring of appropriate programs of radical acceleration

(Brody & Stanley, 1991; Charlton et al., 1994; Dai & Steenber-

gen-Hu, 2015; Gross & van Vliet, 2005; Muratori et al., 2006).

It is possible that the acceleration options that need to be

accessed for radical acceleration may be more readily avail-

able if there is a formal acknowledgment of the practice, or

of gifted education itself, by relevant government education

departments. For example, it is probably not coincidental

that the federal or state government education bodies in

those countries that are the source of most research on rad-

ical acceleration (i.e., the United States, Australia, China) all

endorse a formal gifted education or educational acceleration

policy (Clinkenbeard, Kollo, & Lord, 2007; Dai & Steenber-

gen-Hu, 2015; Jung, 2014).

202 A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2

Radical Acceleration : Jung & Gross

Cohort Radical Acceleration vs.

Individual Radical Acceleration

In broad terms, the body of research on radical acceleration

may be divided into studies relating to cohort acceleration

(mostly of early college entrants at The University of Wash-

ington or the USTC) and studies of highly gifted students

(mostly case studies) who have been individually radically

accelerated. The two contrasting radical acceleration ap-

proaches appear to simultaneously have strengths and weak-

nesses. For example, the cohort acceleration approach oers

a ready group of age and intellectual peers with whom to es-

tablish strong relationships, even if the cohort may become

too “insular” (Hertzog, 2015) or the level of support is some-

what “excessive” (Muratori, Colangelo, & Assouline, 2003).

In comparison, research on the non-cohort radical acceler-

ands suggests that strong relationships with older peers are

possible and likely, even if the large age gap may hinder the

creation of a “true” social niche for some radical accelerands

(Gross, 1992, 2004; Young, 2010; Jung et al., 2015). Ideally, it

may be desirable for potential radical accelerands to be of-

fered a choice between the two approaches. Alternatively, a

combined approach that separates the members of a cohort

of radical accelerands for extended periods of time, may allow

radical accelerands the simultaneous experience of the bene-

ﬁts of both cohort and non-cohort radical acceleration.

Academic Outcomes

The research appears to be consistently and overwhelming-

ly supportive of the positive academic outcomes of radical

acceleration, whether undertaken individually or as part of

a cohort. Generally, the radical accelerands who have been

studied to date appear to perform substantially above the

average for older students at the level of their new academ-

ic placement. For example, Gross (2006) noted that “despite

being some years younger than their classmates, the majority

[of the radical accelerands in her study] topped their state in

speciﬁc subjects, won prestigious academic prizes, or repre-

sented their country or state in Math, Physics or Chemistry

Olympiads ...[and] all have graduated with extremely high

grades and, in most cases, university prizes for exemplary

achievement” (p. 415-416). Similarly, of the graduates of the

Early Entrance Program at The University of Washington,

Noble et al. (2007) noted that seven have been either Rhodes

Scholars or Goldwater Scholars (annually, 32 Rhodes Schol-

arships and approximately 300 Goldwater Scholarships are

awarded to students in the United States; Scholarship Ameri-

ca, Inc., 2014; The Rhodes Trust, 2014). In the early entrance

program at The University of New South Wales, two out of

the ten radical accelerands received the university medal,

which is awarded to the student with the highest scholastic

standing in a specialization at graduation (Jung et al., 2015;

The University of New South Wales, 2014).

In connection to the learning environment, some radical

accelerands noted the pro-academic experience of being

surrounded by intellectual peers who applauded intellectu-

al ambition and drive (Noble et al., 1999; Noble & Smyth,

1995), while others were appreciative of the removal of the

pressure to underachieve for peer acceptance which they had

experienced when placed with age peers (Gross, 2004, 2006).

Relatedly, many radical accelerands noted enhanced motiva-

tion in terms of an increased zest for learning (Charlton et

al., 1994; Gross & van Vliet, 2005) and genuine opportunities

for intellectual challenge (Noble & Smyth, 1995; Noble et al.,

2007). In addition, more than one study noted the intellectu-

al maturation that was possible for the gifted young people

in their new learning environments (Noble & Drummond,

1992; Noble et al., 2007; Olszewski-Kubilius, 2002).

Socio-Affective Outcomes

As is the case for academic outcomes, the general socio-aec-

tive outcomes of radical acceleration appear to be consistent-

ly positive and, at the very least, not characterized by nega-

tive outcomes (Gross, 1992, 2004; Gross & van Vliet, 2005;

Janos et al., 1989; Jung et al., 2015; Noble et al.,1993, 2007;

Pollins, 1983; Rogers, this volume). In studies relating to the

cohort program of radical early college entry at The Universi-

ty of Washington, participants experienced and commented

appreciatively on a social environment that was accepting of

individual dierences, and one in which conformity to others

no longer dominated peer relationships (Noble et al., 1999,

2007; Robinson, 2004). Such an environment was condu-

cive to the development of strong friendships with both age

peers and older students, often experienced for the ﬁrst time

in the lives of many radical accelerands (Hertzog & Chung,

2015; Noble & Drummond, 1992; Noble et al., 2007; Rob-

inson, 2004). As an illustration, participants in Noble et al.

(2007) noted that the beneﬁts of early college entry included

“a newfound sense of social acceptance and no longer feel-

ing ostracized” (p. 157). Of note, the socio-emotional adjust-

ment of the radical accelerands appeared to be similar to that

of equally able age peers who did not accelerate and highly

achieving college students who were older (Robinson, 2004).

Outside of the United States, the Chinese radical accelerands

at the USTC noted the positive socio-emotional outcome of

lasting friendships with their peers in the radical acceleration

program (Dai & Steenbergen-Hu, 2015).

A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2 203

Radical Acceleration : Jung & Gross

Similar general ﬁndings relating to peer relationships were

noted for radical accelerands who were not part of a cohort

acceleration program. Most studies that investigated non-co-

hort radical accelerands have noted the satisfying relation-

ships that were possible with older and more mature class-

mates (Charlton et al., 1994; Gross & van Vliet, 2005; Jung et

al., 2015; Young, 2010), which may be attributed to the similar

stages of the intellectual and socio-emotional development

of the radical accelerands and their classmates (Gross, 1992,

2004). Nevertheless, for some radical accelerands, it is pos-

sible that the large age dierence may have acted as a barrier

to the formation of rich and close friendships among equals

(Jung et al., 2015). For example, Terence Tao, a former radi-

cal accelerand who was a Fields medalist in 2006, noted that,

“I only really started ﬁnding my peer group during and after

graduate school” (Muratori et al., 2006, p. 311).

Radical acceleration also appears to have positive conse-

quences in terms of the development of important social

skills and conﬁdence. For example, a number of studies

(Gross, 2004; Noble et al., 1999; Noble & Drummond, 1992;

Olszewski-Kubilius, 2002) have suggested that radical accel-

eration may have allowed highly gifted students to become

more independent, assertive, and socially mature. Relatedly,

Noble and Smyth (1995) noted that many students who were

radically accelerated believed that they had higher levels of

self-esteem and self-conﬁdence as a result of their acceler-

ation experiences. Gross (2004, 2006) quantiﬁed the social

self-esteem of the radical accelerands in her longitudinal

study to be more than one standard deviation above the mean

for their age and comparatively higher than equally able stu-

dents who were either accelerated by one year or not acceler-

ated at all.

Long-Term Outcomes

The research identiﬁes a number of positive long-term ed-

ucational, career, and life outcomes for radical accelerands.

A consistent ﬁnding is that radical accelerands appear very

likely to pursue graduate level study (Charlton et al., 1994;

Dai & Steenbergen-Hu, 2015; Gross, 2004, 2006; Gross &

van Vliet, 2005; Hertzog & Chung, 2015; Noble et al., 1993,

2007; Young, 2010). For example, Noble et al. (2007) noted

that 53% of the participants (n = 51) in their follow-up study of

radical accelerands earned graduate or professional degrees,

while 32% (n = 30) were enrolled in graduate or professional

training. Similarly, 54% of the participants (n = 103) in Hert-

zog & Chung (2015), the majority of whom were radical acce-

lerands, attained graduate or professional degrees, while 87%

of those who were yet to complete their education (n = 45)

were progressing toward a graduate or professional degree.

Outside the United States, Dai and Steenbergen-Hu (2015)

noted that 91% of the radical accelerands of the USTC pro-

gram (n = 497) earned masters or PhDs in China or abroad,

while in Australia, 73% of radical accelerands (n = 8) in Gross

(2004) and Young (2010) were undertaking, or had complet-

ed, post-bachelor study.

Radical accelerands appear to have used the time they saved

from their acceleration not only to pursue graduate study, but

also to make an early start on their careers (Charlton et al.,

2004; Noble et al., 2007; Olszewski-Kubilius, 2002). Reﬂect-

ing high vocational aspirations, the careers of radical accele-

rands generally appear to lie in a diverse range of high-status

ﬁelds (Brody & Stanley, 1991; Gross & van Vliet, 2005; No-

ble et al., 2007), with a substantial number pursuing careers

in academia (Charlton et al., 1994; Dai & Steenbergen-Hu,

2015). Furthermore, most appear to be employed in, and are

satisﬁed with their work in, ﬁelds that the radical accelerands

considered to be appropriate for their level of education and

training (Hertzog & Chung, 2015; Noble et al., 2007). In ad-

dition, it appears that highly able students who experienced

interventions that are closest to radical acceleration may be

more likely than those who were more moderately acceler-

ated to achieve prestigious career outcomes such as publica-

tions, tenure, and patents in scientiﬁc and related areas (Wai,

Lubinski, Benbow, & Steiger, 2010).

In terms of other life outcomes, most radical accelerands

who have been studied longitudinally appear to be satisﬁed

with their lives, their relationships with family, their relation-

ships with friends, their romantic relationships, and their

ﬁnancial situation (Gross, 2004; Noble et al., 1993, 2007). In-

deed, Hertzog & Chung (2015) noted that the vast majority of

the participating alumni of the 35 year follow-up study of the

early college entrance programs at The University of Wash-

ington reported that they were either “very happy” or “fairly

happy” with their family (93%, n = 178), friendships (88%, n =

168), work (87%, n = 167), ﬁnances (83%, n = 158), and romantic

relationships (77%, n = 145).

Negative Outcomes and Issues

In parallel with the numerous positive academic, socio-af-

fective and long-term outcomes of radical acceleration, are

a number of negative outcomes and issues that radical acce-

lerands appear to face. For example, the literature indicates

that some radical accelerands may be frustrated at the need

to make major career-related decisions at an early age (Janos

et al., 1989; Noble et al., 2007), while others have expressed

regret at the perceived loss of extracurricular opportunities

204 A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2

Radical Acceleration : Jung & Gross

such as competitive sport, debating, band, dances, and maths

competitions (Charlton et al., 1994; Noble & Drummond,

1992; Noble & Smyth, 1995). Issues such as dating and driving

only appear to be problematic for some radical accelerands

(Hertzog & Chung, 2015; Noble & Drummond, 1992; Noble

& Smyth, 1995; Noble et al., 2007; Young, 2010). It is note-

worthy that most of these issues may be addressed through

the communication of information on the range of services

available at the accelerated placement. For example, in the

college setting, where many of these issues are likely to be

most salient, it may be useful to encourage radical acceler-

ands to participate in interviews with representatives of the

counseling service, career advisory service, and student or-

ganizations, to raise their awareness of the available support

(Jung et al., 2015).

In addition, a number of studies have noted negative issues

that are less likely to be resolvable. For example, many radical

accelerands may have a reduced ability to access scholarships

that they may have easily obtained prior to acceleration (No-

ble & Drummond, 1992; Noble & Smyth, 1995), while others

may experience diculty in enrolling in the most prestigious

or selective institutions for tertiary study due to the lack of

formal early college entrance programs in such institutions

(Janos et al., 1989; Olszewski-Kubilius, 2002). Therefore, al-

though many radical accelerands may consider the positives

of radical acceleration to substantially outweigh the nega-

tives (Charlton et al., 1994), all potential candidates will need

to make an informed decision that carefully balances the pos-

sible advantages and disadvantages of radical acceleration.

Moreover, the decision will need to fully incorporate the

individual wishes of the accelerating student (Gross, 1992;

Olszewski-Kubilius, 2002).

The most serious of the possible negative outcomes of radical

acceleration may, nevertheless, be the incidence of students

who terminate their studies for various reasons. Whereas

“drop out” was a reality for some radical accelerands, its inci-

dence appears to be quite low. For example, Noble et al. (1993)

noted that between 5% to 10% of students who entered col-

lege early did very poorly or dropped out of the program at

The University of Washington, while at the USTC, an average

of two to three students in each cohort of approximately 40

to 50 students dropped out without a degree (Dai & Steen-

bergen-Hu, 2015). No attrition has been identiﬁed in the ear-

ly entrance program at The University of New South Wales,

which has a low acceptance rate from a comparatively small

applicant pool (i.e., 10 students from 39 applicants between

1991 and 2013; Jung et al., 2015). Some of the reasons for the

termination of study appear to include a lack of psychological

maturity, a lack of self-regulation, an inability to achieve per-

sonal autonomy, a pre-occupation with extracurricular activ-

ities, a lack of study skills, and socio-emotional issues on the

part of the radical accelerand (Dai & Steenbergen-Hu, 2015;

Gregory & Stevens-Long, 1986; Gross & van Vliet, 2005;

Janos, Sanﬁlippo, & Robinson, 1986). Unfortunately, little is

known about the destinations of the radical accelerands who

discontinue their studies (Noble et al., 2007).

Retrospective Thoughts on the

Decision to Radically Accelerate

It is noteworthy that an overwhelming majority of the radi-

cal accelerands who have been investigated indicate that they

were satisﬁed with their decision to accelerate and the result-

ing educational experiences (Janos et al., 1989; Muratori et al.,

2006; Noble & Drummond, 1992; Noble et al., 1993; Noble &

Smyth, 1995; Olszewski-Kubilius, 2002; Young, 2010). In fact,

Gross (2004, 2006) noted that of the radical accelerands in her

longitudinal study, none had any regrets about their accelera-

tion decision or experience, and many would have preferred

to have accelerated further or to have started their accelera-

tion earlier. Similarly, Hertzog & Chung (2015) indicated that

90% of the participants from the early college entry programs

at The University of Washington would have made the same

decision to accelerate if the decision had to be made again.

Nevertheless, the research on highly able students who qual-

iﬁed for radical acceleration but chose not to be accelerated

also suggests that these students were largely satisﬁed with

their decision and may not have discontinued their studies in

any greater numbers than the radical accelerands (Janos et al.,

1989; Noble et al., 1993; Robinson & Janos, 1986).

Discussion

The existing literature provides a number of interesting ﬁnd-

ings on the practice of radical acceleration. Nevertheless, in

interpreting this literature, it is critical to be mindful of the

need for further and more widespread research in the area.

For example, with only a few exceptions, the majority of stud-

ies relating to early college entry focus on one of two early

college entrance programs (i.e. the Early Entrance Program

at The University of Washington and the School for Gifted

Youth at the USTC), the ﬁndings of which may be speciﬁc to

these particular programs. Furthermore, only a small number

of detailed case studies exist of highly gifted students who

have been radically accelerated. Because the populations

from which the samples for these studies are drawn are rel-

atively small, the sample sizes employed in studies of radical

acceleration tend to be small. As well, the research originates

A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2 205

Radical Acceleration : Jung & Gross

from only a few countries (e.g., the United States, China, and

Australia). Consequently, a number of questions must be

raised about the representativeness and generalizability of

these ﬁndings to all radical accelerands or those who could

potentially be radically accelerated.

Future research is impacted by current practice. Speciﬁcal-

ly, if the various accelerative options that cumulatively lead

to radical acceleration were to become more accessible to

students, and thus a greater number of students who are in

need of radical acceleration are allowed to radically accel-

erate, more research about the issues and impact related to

radical acceleration would be possible. Some strategies that

may be considered by educational decision-makers, various

stakeholders, and other interest groups to increase oppor-

tunities for radical acceleration include: (a) better and wider

publicizing of the positive precedents and outcomes of accel-

eration and radical acceleration, (b) the formalization of the

acceleration options and pathways that lead to radical accel-

eration in school policies, and (c) better training of teachers

about acceleration, radical acceleration, and gifted education

in pre-service and professional development programs. The

possible consequence of a greater number of radical acceler-

ands in the general student population is that radical acceler-

ands may become a vital student group to which more atten-

tion, including research attention, may be devoted.

Despite the limitations of the current research on radical ac-

celeration, the existing literature nevertheless oers a num-

ber of useful insights that may form a solid foundation for

future research in the area. The ﬁndings to date, with respect

to the candidates for radical acceleration, the pathways to

radical acceleration, the positive and negative outcomes of

radical acceleration, and the retrospective thoughts of radical

accelerands on their acceleration experiences, are notable for

their general consistency. Moreover, longitudinal follow-up

studies (Gross, 2004; Noble et al., 1993, 2007; Hertzog &

Chung, 2015) have tended to replicate the previously iden-

tiﬁed academic, socio-aective, career, and longer term life

outcomes of radical accelerands. The repeatedly identiﬁed

ﬁndings in the current research are likely to inform the im-

plementation and reﬁnement of radical acceleration practic-

es in schools that enroll highly gifted students.

Profile of Radical Accelerands

A number of studies that have investigated the characteris-

tics of students who have been radically accelerated, under

both cohort and non-cohort arrangements, and the mecha-

nisms by which such students go about radical acceleration

(Gross, 2004, 2006; Janos & Robinson, 1985; Noble et al.,

1999, 2007; Noble & Smyth, 1995; Olszewski-Kubilius, 2002;

Robinson, 1992; Robinson & Janos, 1986) collectively allow

the creation of a tentative proﬁle of students who are most

likely to be radically accelerated. Although such a proﬁle is

unlikely to be representative of all radical accelerands, it may

nevertheless provide valuable information about the mem-

bers of this group.

Generally, radical accelerands appear to have:

(a) highly motivated and educated parents who are familiar

with the gifted education literature and have the ability

to access radical acceleration opportunities in co-oper-

ation with supportive school personnel;

(b) a high level of intelligence;

non-conventionalism, non-conformity, introversion,

cautiousness, and a competitive nature;

(d) a motivation to learn and achieve;

(e) a desire to be intellectually stimulated;

(f) a range of socially acceptable interests; and

(g) unhappy schooling experiences prior to radical

acceleration.

The proﬁle appears to be similar to the proﬁle of highly gifted

students with IQ scores of 145 or above, who generally appear

to have highly educated parents of economically privileged

backgrounds, extremely high educational aspirations, and

social diculties that may reﬂect factors such as dierenc-

es in ability compared to age peers, and tendencies toward

introversion (Jung & Gross, 2014). Indeed, the research sug-

gests that of the available educational interventions, radical

acceleration may be particularly useful for many highly gifted

students (Gross, 1992, 2004). Nevertheless, some dierences

may lie in the possibly higher degree of independence, low-

er levels of conventionalism, and higher degrees of restraint,

caution, and introversion of the radical accelerands (Charl-

ton et al., 1994; Noble et al., 1993; Robinson & Janos, 1986;

Young, 2010). Future research may therefore be necessary to

conﬁrm any dierences between the proﬁles of highly gifted

students and radical accelerands, as well as the sub-groups of

highly gifted students who may be most suited to radical ac-

celeration interventions.

Among a range of possible uses, a proﬁle of radical acceler-

ands may enable an assessment of the accessibility of radi-

cal acceleration options for various segments of the gifted

student population. Of note, highly able students from low

206 A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2

Radical Acceleration : Jung & Gross

socio-economic status or other disadvantaged backgrounds

may be a group for which access to radical acceleration may

be dicult, as they may not have highly educated parents with

the motivation, time, or ability to familiarize themselves with

the gifted education literature. Furthermore, they may come

from educational settings that have not aorded them ad-

vanced opportunities. To address the needs of this group, it

may be desirable to make active eorts to communicate in-

formation, possibly using straightforward language or trans-

lated documents, to their parents about radical acceleration

and the available avenues for its implementation. Gifted

family support groups and centers of gifted education may be

able to play a role in the dissemination of such information.

Avoidance of Unsuccessful

Radical Acceleration

While the literature suggests that the provision of radical

acceleration interventions is likely to result in positive aca-

demic, socio-emotional, career, and long-term life outcomes

for the radical accelerands, these ﬁndings may also reﬂect,

to some extent, the exclusion of unsuccessful radical accele-

rands who may have dropped out during the course of their

studies (Olszewski-Kubilius, 2002). The non-participation

of the less successful radical accelerands is particularly likely

in the longer term follow up studies of early college entrants

(Noble et al., 1993, 2007; Hertzog & Chung, 2015). Fortunate-

ly, the existing literature provides some tentative clues on the

characteristics or indicators of radical accelerands who may

be at greatest risk (i.e., a lack of psychological maturity, a lack

of self-regulation, an inability to achieve personal autono-

my, pre-occupation with extracurricular activities, a lack of

study skills, and socio-emotional issues). Nevertheless, more

research that speciﬁcally focuses on how and why students

drop out from radical acceleration interventions, or are oth-

erwise unsuccessful as radical accelerands, is desirable.

To better cater to the needs of potentially unsuccessful rad-

ical accelerands, it may be useful to introduce more regular

and rigorous monitoring procedures to enable the early de-

tection of possible problems. Ideally, counselors or psycholo-

gists should make assessments of radical accelerands prior to

the implementation of any acceleration options and regularly

thereafter to identify and address any issues relating to auton-

omy, self-regulation, and socio-emotional diculties. More-

over, workshops on time management and advanced study

skills could be made compulsory prior to the implementation

of any acceleration options. In the college setting, time man-

agement and advanced study skills may be readily addressed

by representatives of the academic skills center.

To address some possible concerns for radical accelerands

in adjusting to the dierences in the educational environment

before and after radical acceleration, it may be desirable to

encourage some preparatory experiences. For example, it may

be possible to encourage prior meetings with teachers at

the proposed placement, or to allow part-time study at the

higher level through a period of dual enrollment (Jung et al.,

2015; Muratori et al., 2006; Olszewski-Kubilius, 2002). If the

radical acceleration results in placement at college, it may be

useful for the radical accelerand to undertake courses on a

non-award basis, perhaps in a vacation period prior to enroll-

ment (Jung et al., 2015). Ideally, potential radical accelerands

should be made aware that any arrangements that lead to rad-

ical acceleration will be implemented on a trial basis with the

option of returning to the original placement (Gross, 1992).

The Role of

Educational Practitioners

Educational practitioners may have a particularly vital role

to play in the education of radical accelerands due to their

position of being in daily contact with students who may be

suitable candidates for radical acceleration and students who

may already have radically accelerated. Indeed, all educational

practitioners may beneﬁt from familiarizing themselves with

the issues pertinent to radical acceleration so that they are

able to facilitate radical acceleration. This familiarization will

also enable them to provide support to radical accelerands in

collaboration with experts in gifted education. The following

are some of the speciﬁc functions that educational practi-

tioners may need to fulﬁll with gifted education experts:

(a) the identiﬁcation of potential candidates for radical

acceleration;

(b) the development, formulation, and planning of pro-

grams of radical acceleration;

problems, to address such problems, and to examine

the need for further acceleration or educational inter-

ventions);

(d) the directing of radical accelerands to appropriate

counseling and careers advisory services, as needed;

and

(e) the identiﬁcation of appropriate mentors for radical

accelerands.

Without the support of educational practitioners, who are

in a unique position of being able to provide timely responses

A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2 207

Radical Acceleration : Jung & Gross

to individual students, many highly gifted students who are

suitable candidates for radical acceleration, and many radical

accelerands, may fail to live up to their substantial potential.

Conclusion

There is no doubt that radical acceleration is a highly useful

intervention to meet the educational needs of many highly

gifted students. Empirical studies consistently demonstrate

overwhelmingly positive academic, socio-aective, career,

and later life outcomes for highly able radical accelerands.

Nevertheless, such outcomes will need to be considered

in conjunction with the possible, and arguably more mi-

nor, negative outcomes of radical acceleration. Moreover, a

number of cautions are recommended to ensure the optimal

implementation of the practice. It is hoped that continuing

research in the area, and targeted education and communica-

tion eorts, may allow substantially greater opportunities for

highly gifted students to radically accelerate and to be suc-

cessful as radical accelerands in the future.

References

Bloom, B. S. (1985). Developing talent in young children. New York: Bal-

lantine.

Brody, L. E., & Stanley, J. C. (1991). Young college students: Assessing fac-

tors that contribute to success. In W. T. Southern & E. D. Jones (Eds.),

e academic acceleration of gifted children (pp. 102–132). New York:

Teachers College Press.

Charlton, J. C., Marolf, D. M., & Stanley, J. C. (1994). Follow-up insights

on rapid educational acceleration. Roeper Review, 17, 123-129.

Clinkenbeard, P. R., Kolloﬀ, P. B., & Lord, E. W. (2007). A guide to state

policies in gifted education. Washington, DC: National Association for

Gifted Children.

Cox, C. M. (1926). e early mental traits of three hundred geniuses: Genetic

studies of genius (Vol. 2). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Dai, D. Y., & Steenbergen-Hu, S. (2015). Special Class for the Gifted

Young (SCGY): A 34-year experimentation with early college entrance

programs in China. Roeper Review, 37, 9-18.

Galton, F. (1869). Hereditary genius: An enquiry into its laws and consequenc-

es. London: Macmillan.

Gregory, E. H., & Stevens-Long, J. (1986). Coping Skills among Highly

Gifted Adolescents. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 9, 147-55.

Gross, M. U. M. (1992). e use of radical acceleration in cases of extreme

intellectual precocity. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36, 91-99.

Gross, M. U. M. (1993). Exceptionally gifted children. London: Routledge.

Gross, M. U. M. (2004). Exceptionally gifted children (2nd ed.). London:

RoutledgeFalmer.

Gross, M. U. M. (2006). Exceptionally gifted children: Long-term out-

comes of academic acceleration and nonacceleration. Journal for the Ed-

ucation of the Gifted, 29, 404-429.

Gross, M. U. M., & van Vliet, H. E. (2005). Radical acceleration and early

entry to college: A review of the research. Gifted Child Quarterly, 49,

154-171.

Hertzog, N., & Chung, R.U. (2015). Outcomes for students on a fast track

to college. Roeper Review, 37, 39-49.

Holmes, J. S., Rin, L., Tremblay, J. M., & Zeldin, R. K. (1984). Colin

Camerer: e early years of a radical acelerand. Gifted Child Today, 33,

33-35.

Janos, P. M., & Robinson, N. M. (1985). e performance of students in

a program of radical acceleration at the university level. Gifted Child

Quarterly, 29, 175-179.

Janos, P. M., Robinson, N. M., & Lunneborg, C. E. (1989). Markedly early

entrance to college: A multi-year comparative study of academic perfor-

mance and psychological adjustment. e Journal of Higher Education,

60, 495-518.

Janos, P. M., Sanﬁlippo, S. M., & Robinson, N. M. (1986). “Underachieve-

ment” among markedly accelerated college students. Journal of Youth

and Adolescence, 15, 303-313.

Jung, J. Y. (2014). Predictors of attitudes to gifted programs/provisions:

Evidence from preservice educators. Gifted Child Quarterly, 58, 247-

258.

Jung, J.Y., & Gross, M.U.M. (2014). Highly gifted students. In J. A. Plucker

& C. M. Callahan (Eds.). Critical issues and practices in gifted education:

What the research says (2nd ed., pp. 305-314). Waco, TX: Prufrock

Press.

Jung, J. Y., Young, M., & Gross, M. U. M. (2015). Early college entrance in

Australia. Roeper Review, 37, 19-28.

McBee, M. T., Peters, S. J., & Waterman, C. (2014). Combining scores in

multiple-criteria assessment systems: e impact of combination rule.

Gifted Child Quarterly, 58, 69-89.

Muratori, M., Colangelo, N., & Assouline, S. (2003). Early-entrance stu-

dents: Impressions of their ﬁrst semester of college. Gifted Child Quar-

terly, 47, 219-238.

Muratori, M. C., Stanley, J. C., Ng, L., Ng, J., Gross, M. U., Tao, T., & Tao,

B. (2006). Insights from SMPY’s greatest former child prodigies: Drs.

Terence (“Terry”) Tao and Lenhard (“Lenny”) Ng reﬂect on their talent

development. Gifted Child Quarterly, 50, 307-324.

Noble, K. D., Arndt, T., Nicholson, T., Sletten, T., & Zamora, A. (1999).

Diﬀerent strokes: Perceptions of social and emotional development

among early college entrants. e Journal of Secondary Gifted Education,

10, 77-84.

Noble, K. D., & Drummond, J. E. (1992). But what about the prom? Stu-

dents’ perceptions of early college entrance. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36,

106-111.

Noble, K. D., Robinson, N. M., & Gunderson, S. A. (1993). All rivers lead

to the sea: A follow-up study of gifted young adults. Roeper Review, 15,

124-130.

Noble, K. D., & Smyth, R. K. (1995). Keeping their talents alive: Young

women’s assessment of radical, post-secondary acceleration. Roeper Re-

view, 18, 49-55.

Noble, K. D., Vaughan, R. C., Chan, C., Childers, S., Chow, B., Federow,

A., & Hughes, S. (2007). Love and work: e legacy of early university

entrance. Gifted Child Quarterly, 51, 152-166.

Olszewski-Kubilius, P. (2002). A summary of research regarding early en-

trance to college. Roeper Review, 24, 152-157.

Pollins, L. D. (1983). e eﬀects of acceleration on the social and emo-

tional development of gifted students. In C. P. Benbow & J. C. Stanley

(Eds.), Academic precocity: Aspects of its development (pp. 160–178).

Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Robinson, N. M. (1992). Radical acceleration in the People’s Republic of

China: Early entrance to university. Roeper Review, 14, 189-192.

208 A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2

Radical Acceleration : Jung & Gross

Robinson, N. M. (2004). Eﬀects of academic acceleration on the so-

cial-emotional status of gifted students. In N. Colangelo, S. G. As-

souline, & M. U. M. Gross (Eds.), A Nation deceived: How schools hold

back America’s brightest students (V.II., pp. 59-67). Iowa City, IA: e

Connie Belin & Jacqueline N. Blank International Center for Gifted

Education and Talent Development.

Robinson, N. M., & Janos, P. M. (1986). Psychological adjustment in a

college-level program of marked academic acceleration. Journal of Youth

and Adolescence, 15, 51-60.

Stanley, J. C. (1978). Radical acceleration: Recent educational innovation

at JHU. Gifted Child Quarterly, 22, 62–67.

Scholarship America, Inc. (2014). Barry Goldwater Scholarship and Excel-

lence in Education Program. Retrieved from: https://goldwater.schol-

arsapply.org/yybull.php

e Rhodes Trust. (2014). e Rhodes Scholarships. Retrieved from:

http://www.rhodeshouse.ox.ac.uk/rhodesscholarship/about-the-

rhodes-scholarships

e University of New South Wales (2014). Prizes and medals. Retrieved

from: https://student.unsw.edu.au/prizes-and-medals

Wai, J., Lubinski, D., Benbow, C. P., & Steiger, J. H. (2010). Accomplish-

ment in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM)

and its relation to STEM educational dose: A 25-year longitudinal

study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102, 860-871.

Young, M. (2010). Admission to Australian universities for accelerated stu-

dents: Issues of access, attitude, and adjustment (Unpublished doctoral

dissertation).

A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2 209

Academic Acceleration in Europe : Hoogeveen

Introduction

Writing about academic acceleration in Europe poses chal-

lenges. Some authors have described gifted education in dif-

ferent European countries (Freeman, 1992; Freeman, Raan

& Warwick, 2010; Györi, 2011; Heinbokel, 2012; Mönks &

Pﬂüger, 2005). These and others have noted positive develop-

ments in gifted education in several countries, but also con-

cluded that there remains “… an important and signiﬁcant

list of expectations and distinct priorities identiﬁed by the

countries surveyed” (Mönks & Pﬂüger, 2005, p. 8). This chap-

ter provides a short overview of the general status of gifted

education in dierent European countries, with a focus on

academic acceleration.

There is well-documented evidence that academic accelera-

tion is a very ecient adaptation of the curriculum for gifted

and talented students (Assouline, Colangelo, VanTassel-Bas-

ka, & Lupkowski-Shoplik, this volume; Colangelo, Assouline,

& Gross, 2004; Hornyák, 2011; Steenbergen-Hu & Moon,

2011). However, many European teachers, policymakers and

parents of gifted children seem to be reluctant to accelerate

their students. This means that there are many students who

are excluded from an educational adaptation that could im-

prove their academic, social, and emotional outcomes.

Education in Europe: From

Ancient Greece to Modern Europe

In order to discuss gifted education in Europe, it is essen-

tial to understand the development of general education

in Europe over the centuries. Education has always played

an important role in the development of countries (Green,

2013), but the goal of education has changed over time. For

example, in ancient Greece, citizenship was the goal of ed-

ucation; the foundation of the idea of fostering intellectual

excellence was laid in Plato’s Republic (Guisepi, n.d.; Tannen-

baum, 2000). Typically considered the cradle of education in

Europe, this Grecian system inﬂuenced the Roman model of

education.

By the ﬁfth century, European schools were operated by the

Catholic Church and most students were, or would become,

members of the clergy. Goals of education were related to

religious duties, for which the students learned Latin, math-

ematics, and singing. Schools were un-graded; a six-year-old

and an adult could sit on the same bench. Clearly, academic

acceleration was not an issue at that time; age-graded educa-

tion was not “invented” yet.

Drill and memorization of words, sentences, and facts char-

acterized 17th and 18th century education in Europe. Most

Abstract

This chapter presents an overview of accelerative opportunities in gifted education in Europe based on reports, research, and professional

opinions and experiences of experts and others, including students and parents. The ﬁndings show that Europe is on the right track

concerning gifted education, and that acceleration is applied as an educational measure in almost all European educational systems.

Improvement can and should be made, though. There are still countries where gifted students do not receive the education they deserve.

Cooperation between teachers, parents, scientists and policy makers is recommended, as is more speciﬁc teacher training focused on

educating the gifted. American and European research ﬁndings show that acceleration should be part of that training. Considering the

passionate advocacy of those who are involved in gifted education in their country, the future looks bright.

Academic Acceleration in Europe:

A Comparison of Accelerative

Opportunities and Activities

Lianne Hoogeveen

Radboud University, Nijmegen, The Netherlands

Chapter 17

210 A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2

Academic Acceleration in Europe : Hoogeveen

members of the lower classes experienced no schooling

whatsoever. Important educational pioneers in this era were

the Czech Johann Amos Comenius (1592-1670), who insisted

that eective education should take the nature of the child

into account, and the English philosopher John Locke (1632-

1704), who said the mind at birth was a blank tablet (tabula

rasa). The goal of education was to train various mental abili-

ties. Latin and mathematics, for example, were thought to be

especially good for strengthening reason and memory. This

idea remained entrenched in educational practice well into

the 20th century. In France, Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-

1778) described the development of the child–intellectually,

physically, and emotionally–much like the development of a

plant. He believed that the aim of education should be to aid

in the natural development of the learner. Those who were

inﬂuenced by Rousseau tried to create schools that provided

a controlled environment in which natural growth could take

place and at the same time were guided by society through

the teacher. During this time, gymnasiums were established

in some European countries, including the Netherlands

and the German-speaking regions; these gymnasiums were

schools speciﬁcally designed for excellence and talent devel-

opment (Ziegler, Stoeger, Harder & Balestrini, 2013).

In the 19th century, nationalism grew strong in Europe and,

with it, the belief in the power of education to shape the fu-

ture of nations as well as individuals. As in ancient Greece

and China, citizenship became an important role for educa-

tion. European countries established national school systems

(Green, 2013). By and large, European elementary schools

were much like those of the 16th, 17th, and 18th centuries, in

that all children attended until age 10 or 11, when schooling

terminated for all but a few of the “brightest” among them.

The usual subjects were reading, writing, religion, and arith-

metic. The concern of some educators in the late 19th century

for the welfare and development of the individual eventually

began to include children that previously were considered

to be uneducable. One of the ﬁrst to become interested in

educating students with intellectual disabilities was the

Italian physician Maria Montessori (1870-1952). Montessori

believed in the value of self-activity, sense training through

the handling of physical objects, and the importance of the

child’s growth as an individual. Because the development of

cognition was a speciﬁc goal for Montessori, many of the

physical objects she designed for the children led directly to

such cognitive ends as reading and writing (Guisepi, n.d.).

Cognitive ability became measurable at the start of the 20th

century, when Alfred Binet and Theodore Simon created the

ﬁrst modern intelligence test. The idea of “mental level” was

introduced as a way to express the cognitive ability of a child.

In 1916, Louis Terman translated and adapted Binet and Si-

mon’s test for the United States, the Stanford-Binet Intelligence

Scales. This test popularized the term “intelligence quotient,”

or IQ (Colangelo & Davis, 2003; Thorndike, 2007), which,

until recently, has been seen as one of the most important

factors in identifying giftedness.

Today, Europeans acknowledge that education is a funda-

mental right for everyone, which means that every European

country should develop the most appropriate education in

relation to the needs of all students and enable all students to

develop their potential to the fullest (Eurydice, 2006; 2014).

European countries do this in dierent ways. Despite the

deepening of European integration through the European

Union, individual member states maintain control over their

school systems and their curriculum content (Keating, 2014).

The websites of Eurydice

and Eurypedia

give detailed infor-

mation about these dierences. The focus of this chapter is

the education of gifted students, with an emphasis on aca-

demic acceleration, in dierent European countries.

Gifted Education in

Contemporary Europe

In 1994, the Council of Europe highlighted the special edu-

cational needs of students with exceptional potential, stating

that gifted children should be able to beneﬁt from appropri-

ate educational conditions that would allow them to devel-

op their abilities fully. It was stated that adequate tools are

needed for this purpose. Later, in 2012, a written declaration

was submitted by four members of the European Parliament

(Gál, Kleva, Lochbihler, & Takkula, 2012) calling on the mem-

ber states to consider oering curricular and extracurricular

forms of talent support, including the training of education-

al professionals to recognize and develop talented students.

They recommended that talent support should be a priority

of future European policies.

Most European countries have special educational programs

for gifted students (European Agency for Development in

Special Needs Education, 2009; Mammadov, 2012; Palchyk,

2007; UNESCO, 2011). However, according to the European

Agency for Development in Special Needs Education (2009),

many of those countries do not provide a speciﬁc deﬁnition

for gifted learners within their legislation. The majority of

European countries use dierent identiﬁcation procedures,

and classiﬁcation criteria are not always established or clear-

1. http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/education/eurydice/index_en.php

2. http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/education/eurydice/eurypedia_en.php

A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2 211

Academic Acceleration in Europe : Hoogeveen

ly deﬁned (European Agency for Development in Special

Needs Education, 2009). This is, however, not the only rea-

son that describing gifted education in Europe is a challenge.

Europe consists of 51 countries, all with their own education-

al system. Within some countries there are more than one

(and as many as 26), educational systems. For example, Bel-

gium has Dutch, French, and German speaking communities,

which all have dierent educational systems. Germany has 16

states and Switzerland 26 cantons, each with their own edu-

cational system. VanTassel-Baska (2009; this volume) called

the development in gifted education in the United States a

patchwork quilt, and this also seems to apply to the European

situation. The information that is described in this chapter is

based on what could be found in documents

as well as in per-

sonal communications, aiming to gain an overview of gifted

education in modern Europe.

Combining these dierent sources of information reveals

that the situation concerning gifted education in Europe

is not clear; what is written is not always applied and what

seems to be prohibited sometimes still happens. For exam-

ple, dedicated teachers and administrators may bend the

rules in order to do the right thing for students. Due to lim-

ited written information (in a language that could be read

by the author), changing laws and attitudes, the availability

of experts, and limitations on the length of this chapter, this

survey is primarily anecdotal, not exhaustive. In searching

for information, experts revealed previous inaccuracies and

contradictions.

Terminology and Classification

The terminology used by a country, and the model underlying

that terminology, inﬂuences the approach to identiﬁcation

of students (Freeman, Raan, & Warwick, 2010). Eurydice

(2006) found that among the various deﬁnitions used in Eu-

rope to denote gifted students, the terms “gifted” and “talent-

ed” (or their equivalents in other languages) are the most used

terms in national deﬁnitions, used separately or in combina-

tion. However, there are exceptions. Finland, Sweden and

Norway have no speciﬁc term to indicate these students, al-

though in Finland the term “gifted” is used unocially (Eury-

dice, 2006) and also in Ukraine gifted and talented students

are not deﬁned as such (A. Burov, personal communication,

January 2015).

The English government’s Department of Children, Schools

and Families dierentiates between three terms: “Gifted” is

interpreted as “hav[ing] exceptional abilities or potential in

one or more subjects in the statutory school curriculum oth-

er than art and design, music and physical education” (Bal-

chin, 2009, p. 50; see also Eurydice, 2006), while “talented”

refers to arts, design, music, and other creative pursuits, and

“very able” describes academically gifted learners with excep-

tionally high-level performance (Balchin, 2009). Spain is an

example of a country in which terms and concepts of gifted-

ness are not concrete (Comes Nolla, Díaz Pareja, A Luque de

la Rosa & Ortega Tudela, 2009). The expression, “pupils with

high intellectual abilities,” is preferred to the terms “gifted”

or “talented” (Eurydice, 2006), but there is little consisten-

cy in deﬁning the expression. In Slovenia, the Law for the

Primary School (Nov. 2011) deﬁnes gifted students as an in-

dependent group of students with special/additional needs

(Juriševič, 2012); this expression is also used in the Estonian

Basic Schools and Upper Secondary Schools Act (V. Sepp,

personal communication, January 2015).

European countries like Austria, Germany, the Netherlands,

Portugal and Switzerland prefer a multidimensional, dynam-

ic model of giftedness (Almeida & Oliveira, 2010; Grossen-

bacher & Vögeli-Mantovani, 2010; Segers & Hoogeveen,

2012; Resch, 2014; Weilguny, Resch, Samhaber & Hartel,

2013; Ziegler & Phillipson, 2012). The Austrian Center for

Talent Development and Research (ÖCBF) for example,

describes giftedness as a multidimensional and dynamic con-

cept, “encompassing a person’s overall potential, which un-

folds through lifelong learning and development” (Weilguny

et al, 2013, p. 13-14). Eurydice (2006) indicates that new terms

concentrate more on the extent to which pupils are “educa-

ble” and the signiﬁcance of the environment in relation to

how various kinds of ability develop. This focus emerges very

clearly in the Welsh Assembly Government’s (WAG) publica-

tin, The Learning Country, in which it stated, “We want all our

pupils to have the best start in life, the opportunity to reach

their full potential and a clear entitlement to inﬂuence the

services that aect them…” (Welsh Assembly Government,

2008).

The dierent deﬁnitions of giftedness and talent are related

to dierent identiﬁcation criteria applied in schools. Eu-

rydice (2006) indicates that the most common criterion is

performance on aptitude tests or tests of potential ability

and/or measurement of performance. In some countries or

regions, a term for giftedness exists but there are no deﬁned

classiﬁcation criteria. In some cases, diagnostic tests may be

used if there is disagreement between parents and the school

about a child’s ability, regardless of the existence of clear-cut

3. Documents written in English, Dutch, German, Spanish and French, which could

all be translated by the author

212 A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2

Academic Acceleration in Europe : Hoogeveen

criteria (Eurydice, 2006). In Belgium, high potential ability is

reﬂected in the coexistence and coordination of a whole set

of factors. Aptitude tests and tests to measure attainment or

performance are only one stage in the more comprehensive

assessment of a particular pupil. In Latvia, aptitude tests or

tests of potential ability are organized at the schools’ own

initiative only (Eurydice, 2006), while in Hungary, schools

primarily identify and serve individuals with cognitive and

artistic talents. Aective and social forms of intelligence are

increasingly included in the identiﬁcation process in Hunga-

ry (Eurydice, 2006).

Educational Interventions for

Gifted Students

The survey of the European Agency for Development in Spe-

cial Needs Education (2009) indicated that the most com-

mon type of curricular adaptation/modiﬁcation throughout

Europe was individualized support, followed by acceleration

and enrichment, often used in combination with one anoth-

er. It is striking that teacher education concerning gifted

learners in most countries is optional and that the needs of

gifted learners are usually advocated by parents and organiza-

tions for gifted learners.

Most of the special educational programs for gifted children

in Europe are implemented within the school system. Györi

and Nagy (2011) correctly argue that it can be confusing to

deﬁne what programs are actually meant for gifted children.

One could even discuss if this is important to deﬁne. A sur-

vey conducted by Freeman et al. (2010) revealed a movement

away from seeing giftedness as something ﬁxed and gifted

education for only a few high achievers. More and more peo-

ple now view gifted education as an opportunity related to

eort; there is also a focus on disadvantaged gifted students

and support for special social and emotional needs.

Based on the information in this survey, one can place coun-

tries in four dierent categories: (1) countries where there

are almost no programs for gifted and talented students,

(2) countries where there are no ocial measures for those

students, but where the system encourages ﬂexibility and

makes special educational measures possible, (3) countries

where schools are expected to oer gifted education, but

where there is much organizational freedom of schools, re-

sulting in a varied approach dependent upon the individual

school or teacher, and (4) countries with a systematic, inte-

gration-based approach toward gifted education. These clas-

siﬁcations are not very clear-cut in practice, however, due to

the range of dierences within countries and regions.

In Malta, Greece and Norway, there are no ocial programs

intended speciﬁcally for gifted students. Although the an-

cient Greeks in Plato’s Republic laid the foundation of the

idea of fostering intellectual excellence in Europe (Matsa-

gouras & Dougali, 2009), it appears that commitment to the

full development and understanding of gifted students is not

a feature of the modern Greek school system. According to

Matsagouras and Dougali (2009), educational objectives are

mainly focused on the needs of the average students. Special

classes or schools, enrichment programs or acceleration pro-

cedures seem to be, out of fear of elitism, unavailable at any

level, in public schools and in the majority of private schools.

In Norway, the Educational Act states that, “Education shall

be adapted to the abilities and aptitudes of the individual pu-

pil.” Although this construct of “adapted education” should

cover special education for gifted students, it is mainly applied

for students with disabilities (K. Kolberg, personal commu-

nication, August 2014). Kolberg expresses her concern con-

sidering the eect of the Norwegian policy on children who

need more challenges. She cited Arnold Hofseth, who, more

than 40 years ago, commented that children with talents were

eagerly waiting for support in Norwegian schools. According

to Kolberg, these children are still waiting, which is in line

with Bakler’s (2014) observation that “Giftedness is rarely

acknowledged in any part of the Norwegian society. There is

no mention of high intelligence or giftedness in education

law or acts, and no programs for gifted children in public

or private schools” (p. 1). These observations raise concerns

about whether the Norwegian educational system adequate-

ly caters to its relatively small proportion of talented and gift-

ed students (Nusche, Earl, Maxwell, & Shewbridge, 2011).

According to Persson (2010), all Scandinavian countries re-

sist supporting gifted students, because of the pursuit of

an egalitarian learning environment. In the Swedish school

system there is no ocial policy for gifted education, and,

according to Persson, there are no educational adaptations

for gifted students.

Hornyák (2011) and Tirri (2006) paint a dierent picture of

the situation in Finland. Unlike other Scandinavian coun-

tries, Finland’s educational laws emphasize individuality and

allow schools to plan curriculum in accordance with stu-

dents’ needs (Hornyák, 2011; Ruokonen, 2005; Tirri, 2006).

Although Ruokonen (2005) noted no ocial educational

policy program for identifying, supporting, or educating

gifted students, Hornyák (2011) considered talent support

an organic part of the national culture and of teaching prac-

tices in Finland. Educational policy stresses individuality and

freedom of choice. Tirri (2006) is optimistic about education

A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2 213

Academic Acceleration in Europe : Hoogeveen

of gifted and talented students in Finland, due to the trend

toward more individualized curricula. This individualism al-

lows for more ﬂexible decisions in acceleration; parents may

decide, for example, to let their child enter school earlier.

Most of Finland’s upper secondary schools, and some prima-

ry schools, are ungraded, which allows students to advance in

their studies at their own pace. Adjustment in time, content,

process and environment for gifted and talented students is

also possible in Estonia. Schools can provide an individual-

ized curriculum to meet the needs of gifted learners (V. Sepp,

personal communication, January 2015). In Scotland, the

Code of Practice (cited in Sutherland & Stack, 2014) says that

“… more able children or young people may require a more

challenging educational provision than that of their peers,”

which allows for similar possibilities for gifted and talent-

ed students as in Finland and Estonia (M. Sutherland & N.

Stack, personal communication, January 2015). J. Raan (per-

sonal communication, January 2015) describes a similar situa-

tion in the rest of the UK.

Ziegler, Stoeger, Harder, and Balestrini (2013) discussed gift-

ed education in German-speaking Europe (Germany, Austria,

Liechtenstein and parts of Switzerland, Italy, and Luxem-

bourg) and found many educational adaptations, based on

separation and on inclusion. In the German-speaking com-

munities of Belgium, Bulgaria, Denmark, Finland, Malta, the

Netherlands (in primary education), and the UK, there is de

facto inclusion. The organizational freedom in Dutch (Hoo-

geveen, 2008) and Belgian schools (Himpe, 2008) enables

them to choose whether or not to oer special educational

programs for gifted students. By law, schools have the obli-

gation to oer their students a continuous learning process

(Ministry of Education, Culture and Science, 1998; Ministry

of the Flemish Society, 1996), which implies that acceleration

is possible.

In Spain (Ley Orgánica, 2006), gifted and talented students

have the right to receive adapted education, including a more

ﬂexible duration of every educational step. Comes Nolla et al.

(2009) consider this legislation concerning gifted education

very limiting. J. Touron (personal communication, July 2014),

on the other hand, thinks that the legislation is sucient, but

that the application is a problem. However, talent support

has expanded in Spain since Touron founded CTY España in

2001 (Benyhe, 2011). Oliveira and Martin (2010) mentioned

a lack of clear political guidelines regarding gifted education

in Portugal. Portugal has a “General Basic Law” (Ministry of

Education, Bureau for European Aairs and International

Relations, 1999; see also Oliveira & Martin, 2010) that refers

to curriculum dierentiation as a way to create equality of

opportunities for dierent students. Some educational pro-

visions are available for students with exceptional learning

abilities, including academic acceleration and enrichment ac-

tivities, with pedagogical dierentiation and individual men-

toring (Oliveira & Martin, 2010; F. Pereira, personal commu-

nication, August 2014).

Switzerland seems to be a good example of a country where

gifted education is systematically applied. Although there are

no mandatory national policies on gifted education (Muel-

ler-Oppliger, 2014), the majority of Swiss cantons base deci-

sions on dynamic perceptions of talent and require concrete

implementations (Grossenbacher & Vögeli-Mantovani,

2010; Mueller-Oppliger, 2014). The cantons follow a system-

ic, integration-based approach and include all levels of the

school system. Schools oer enrichment and acceleration as

well as combinations of these elements (Grossenbacher &

Vögeli-Mantovani, 2010).

Academic Acceleration in Europe

Academic acceleration, as one curriculum adaptation for gift-

ed and talented students, is a complex issue in European edu-

cation, in large part due to the multiple forms of acceleration

Southern and Jones, 2004; this volume). The options vary in

visibility, and those that are less visible might be applied by

teachers without awareness of policymakers, administrators,

or even students’ parents. The compilation of information

below was obtained from published and unpublished docu-

ments including anecdotal experiences of specialists in the

ﬁeld. The collection represents a snapshot of gifted educa-

tion and acceleration in Europe.

Prevalence of Acceleration

With the exception of Malta and Norway, all European coun-

tries ocially oer educational measures for gifted students.

Most countries oer both enrichment and acceleration.

There are still some European countries, however, where

academic acceleration is not allowed, such as Cyprus (Eury-

dice, 2006; Z. Poulli, personal communication, June 2014),

Greece (Eurydice, 2006; A. Gari, personal communication,

August 2014; Matsagouras & Dougali, 2009) and Latvia (L.

Sakijeva, personal communication, January 2015). However,

it is remarkable that, while not allowed, students in Latvia do

skip grades.

Although allowed in almost every European country, in most

countries acceleration is infrequently applied in education.

Exceptions seem to be Switzerland, Germany, Austria, and

the Netherlands, where academic acceleration is part of the

214 A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2

Academic Acceleration in Europe : Hoogeveen

adaptation of education for gifted students. Experts from

Norway, Sweden, France, Latvia, Hungary, Portugal, Slove-

nia, Croatia, Macedonia, Romania, Estonia, Ireland, and the

UK explicitly state that acceleration is rare in their respective

educational systems. In England and Wales, for example, stu-

dents are encouraged to work at their own level within their

age group class, and some curriculum compacting occurs; stu-

dents are rarely advanced to the next grade ahead of their age

peers. Some pupils do take the examinations set at 16 years of

age, which is a year early (Raan, personal communication,

June 2014). In Scotland (Sutherland & Stack, 2014), the cur-

rent focus in education is on inclusive education, which al-

lows for academic acceleration, although school profession-

als will not necessarily use this terminology (M. Sutherland &

N. Stack, personal communication, January 2015).

In Sweden, although acceleration is allowed, there is no for-

mal method for acceleration in the school system. There

have been some individual cases where students accelerated,

but these seem to be the exception, rather than the rule (A.

Enström, personal communication, June 2014). Some upper

secondary schools give the students opportunities to study

a beginning course (e.g. maths) at the next level (A. Enström,

personal communication, June, 2014). In Ireland, though it is

allowed, academic acceleration is most unusual. Children al-

most always progress through primary and post-primary edu-

cation with their similar-age peers (D. Mahon and C. O’Reil-

ly, personal communication, August 2014). The situation in

Norway is rather confusing, because there are ocially no

speciﬁc programs for gifted students, but according to the

European Agency (2010) and Mathiesen (2010), various kinds

of acceleration and enrichment are practiced in and outside

the classroom, and it is possible for a student to enter school

one year early. J. T. Bakler (personal communication, January

2015) states, however, that early entrance is rarely permitted

by schools. On the one hand, Norwegian students are per-

mitted, and even encouraged by school authorities, to attend

courses at higher levels or skip parts of the regular teaching.

On the other hand, this is not promoted within the school

or taught in teacher education programs. So students can be

accelerated but do not have the legal right to be accelerated

and are utterly dependent on the teacher and school to ﬁnd

it opportune. As a consequence, this measure is realized very

rarely and is not utilized in any systematic way (J. T. Bakler,

personal communication, January 2015).

Requirements for Acceleration

In some countries, such as Germany, Switzerland and the

Netherlands, no speciﬁc conditions need to be met for a

student to accelerate. Teachers and parents agree about a

possible acceleration (B. Harder, personal communication,

January 2015), and when an early entry is considered, some-

times the school doctor will be involved (Gronostaj & Vock,

2014). However, in Germany and the Netherlands, making

the decision to accelerate leads to uncertainty and con

cern

(Hoogeveen, 2008; Hoogeveen, van Hell, & Verhoeven, 2003,

2009, 2011; Kretschmann, Vock & Lüdtke, 2014). Therefore,

there are still schools where acceleration, and speciﬁcally

skipping grades, is infrequently or never applied. In contrast,

acceleration is frequently employed in Switzerland (T. Wetter,

personal communication, August 2014). Parents and teachers

or school administrations decide together if a student should

accelerate. In Luxembourg, acceleration isbased on the cer-

tiﬁcate of an ocial Guidance Service of the Ministry of

National Education or of a registered psychologistworking

in private practice. The certiﬁcate must include the results

of a thorough psychological examination, considering all the

potentially intervening factors (L. Schiltz, personal commu-

nication, June 2014). Also in Romania, a psychological exam-

ination provided by specialists is required before a child can

enter school early (C. M. Cretu, personal communication,

January 2015). In France, the request for acceleration can

come from teachers or parents. Currently, the ﬁnal decision is

based on observations and a medical-psychological ﬁle (Perei-

ra-Fradin & Lubart, 2012). Although a specialist’s opinion is

not required (Vrignaud, et al., 2009), parents feel compelled

to provide proof, e.g., a high IQ score, of the high potential

of their child. Because French schools do not identify gifted

children, parents must thus see a private psychologist who

evaluates the child (Delaubier, 2002). According to Vrignaud,

et al. (2009), it is usually the board of teachers that applies for

acceleration after a request by parents.

In Lithuania, students may be grade advanced if her or his

learning achievements are signiﬁcantly higher than the other

students. Grade-skipping takes place at the request of par-

ents or, from ages 14 to 18, at the request of the student and

one of the parents. They need a written agreement and the

approval from the student’s teachers and the Child Welfare

Commission of School (Ministry of Education and Science

of the Republic of Lithuania, 2012). In the Czech Republic,

the decision about acceleration is taken by the school head

and examination by an examining board nominated by the

school head (Eurydice, 2006). This is also the case in Hunga-

ry, where students may be granted permission by the school

principal to fulﬁll the study requirements set for two or more

school grades over one academic year or over a shorter time

than prescribed (Public Education Act, translation of C.

Fuszek, personal communication, January 2015).

A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2 215

Academic Acceleration in Europe : Hoogeveen

Types of Acceleration

Southern and Jones (2004) stated that, “Accelerative options

vary by the degree to which they are noticeable to others…”

(p. 5). In discussions about academic acceleration, early en-

trance and skipping grades are the primary types of acceler-

ation people seem to consider. Other types of acceleration

are applied in many educational systems, but are less noticed

and documented. Most European educational systems oer

some kind of personalized learning for gifted students with-

in mainstream settings. This means, as Sutherland and Stack

(personal communication, January 2015) appropriately com-

mented, subject matter acceleration should be possible. Com-

bined classes exist in many schools and the ungraded Finnish

schools allow for acceleration. Dual enrollment, early gradu-

ation and Advanced Placement were mentioned anecdotally,

but were mostly not documented. For this reason, only early

entrance and grade-skipping will be described below.

Early Entrance to School and

Skipping Grades

Based on the documents examined and communication with

experts in the ﬁeld, early admission to primary school is pos-

sible in Austria, Belgium, Croatia, Estonia, Finland, France,

Germany, Great Britain, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania,

Luxembourg, Macedonia, Netherlands, Norway, Poland,

Portugal, Romania, Scotland, Slovenia, Switzerland, and Tur-

key. It is important to note that the fact that early entrance is

permitted does not mean it is utilized frequently.

Grade-skipping is utilized in Austria, Belgium, France, Ger-

many, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, the Netherlands,

Norway, Portugal, Scotland, Spain, Switzerland, and Turkey.

In some countries, for example the Netherlands and Tur-

key, grade-skipping typically takes place during the elemen-

tary school years. In other countries, including Germany,

grade-skipping is mostly applied with older age groups in sec-

ondary schools (Heinbokel, 1997). In France, schooling can

be accelerated according to the pupil’s “rhythm of learning”

(Ministère Education Nationale Enseignement Supérieur

Recherche, 2005). Schooling is organized in multi-year blocks

called “cycles,” through which gifted children may progress

more quickly than normal, eventually resulting in a grade skip.

Although grade-skipping is the most accepted practice with

precocious children in France (Vrignaud, Bonora & Druex,

2009), ocial statistics indicate that acceleration is primarily

used for early entry into elementary or middle school (Vri-

gnaud, 2006). In Italy, students may skip one year during the

ﬁrst eight years of school or the last year of secondary school

(fourth and ﬁfth year together). Students have access to Uni-

versity in Italy only if they have completed 12 years of school;

as a consequence, students who skipped more than one grade

during primary and secondary school can attend only a for-

eign university (A. M. Roncoroni, personal communication,

June 2014). In Spain, acceleration consists of advancing the

student one academic year (Hernandez & Ferrando, 2012).

Spanish students can skip up to a maximum of three grades

(Eurydice, 2006), while in Portugal students can accelerate

up to a maximum of two years (Almeida & Oliveira, 2010). In

Austria, while skipping grades was made possible in 1974, it

was relatively unpopular and unknown until the 1980s. It has

been used increasingly in the last several decades, especially

in primary school (Resch, 2014).

Review of the Research on

Acceleration in Europe

The most striking ﬁnding concerning research on academic

acceleration in Europe is how little research exists (Freeman,

Raan, & Warwick, 2010; Gronostaj & Vock, 2014; Györi &

Nagy, 2011; Heinbokel, 2012; Himpe, 2008; Hoogeveen et

al., 2009; Resch, 2014). Heller (2009) expressed his concern

about the infrequency of evaluating gifted programming ac-

tivities in general. He stated that ﬁnancial constraints and

methodological limitations act as barriers to this type of re-

search. There are also psychological barriers; teachers regard

an evaluation of “their” education as a nuisance, or, in some

cases, a threat (Heller & Reimann, 2002). Another potential

barrier is the existence of many dierent theories of gifted-

ness and performance; it can be dicult to decide which the-

ory or theories to apply in the research on gifted education

(Harder, Vialle & Ziegler, 2014).

All research papers used described those forms of accelera-

tion in which the accelerated student was younger than his

or her classmates, probably because these forms are most

obvious and lead to more concerns. Generally, ﬁndings from

European studies seem to parallel the outcomes of earlier

studies in the United States; they indicate that acceleration

does not harm gifted students, even in the case of multiple

grade skips.

Prevalence

The prevalence of accelerated students was studied by Vri-

gnaud (2006), Vock, Penk, and Köller (2013) and Heinbokel

(2012), and Himpe (2008) in France, Germany and Belgium,

respectively. Vrignaud (2006) found a decrease in the use of

acceleration as an educational measure in France. This was

216 A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2

Academic Acceleration in Europe : Hoogeveen

also the ﬁnding of Himpe, who found the number of ac-

celerated students in the Flemish part of Belgium declined

over the past 50 years. Himpe (2008) also found gender dif-

ferences over time: Before 1972, more boys were acceler-

ated; since then, more girls have been accelerated. Himpe

mentioned several possible reasons for the general decline,

including a changed curriculum, more inﬂuence of the Na-

tional Educational Advising Institute, or more emphasis on

the social-emotional development of students. However, due

to a lack of empirical studies, there is no scientiﬁc base for

these assumptions. In Germany, the movement seems to be

in the opposite direction. Since the 1990s, there has been an

increase in the number of students who skipped grades in

German schools (Heinbokel, 2012). Heinbokel also found

substantial dierences between the dierent German states,

with the highest rate of acceleration in Hamburg (0.12% of

all students in primary and secondary school), and the low-

est in Sachsen and Brandenburg (.02%). In their research on

German students, Vock, Penk, and Köller found that accel-

erated students were predominantly boys who had been ac-

celerated during their ﬁrst years at school. Van Steen (2010)

studied policy and practice concerning acceleration in Dutch

secondary schools with a special proﬁle for gifted students

and gymnasia. He found that 11 of the 15 schools examined

oered one or more forms of acceleration. Skipping grades

was possible in three of the 15 schools. None of those schools,

however, had a policy concerning this type of acceleration.

Cognitive and Academic Achievements

of Accelerated Students

Vrignaud (2006) found that 44% of the children in France

who entered elementary school when they were ﬁve years

old (one year earlier than the national norm) obtained their

baccalaureate by passing an exam at the end of high school

without having to repeat a grade; in contrast, this percentage

was 25% for those students who entered at the regular age.

This ﬁnding supports the idea that, in the French system, ac-

celeration is not a predictor of failure when the child is older

(Pereira-Fradin & Lubart, 2012). The positive eect on cog-

nitive and academic achievement was also found by Almeida

and Oliveira (2010), who described three Portuguese studies

investigating the eects of early entrance to school and grade-

skipping, and by Boogaard, who studied Dutch accelerated

secondary school students who reported that they were do-

ing well academically. In Ireland, Ledwith (2013) found that

early entrants in a dual enrollment program at the University

of Dublin performed as well as, if not better than, their ﬁrst

year classmates in their end of semester examinations.

Accelerated German students, however, performed only a

little above average on measures of cognitive ability (Vock,

Penk, & Köller, 2013). At the time of the survey, 39% did not

attend a Gymnasium, the highest level of secondary edu-

cation in Germany, and 34% had to repeat one grade after

having been accelerated. Although their mathematical com-

petence was above average, the students reported average

grades in relation to their peers (Vock, Penk, & Köller, 2013).

Social/Emotional Development of

Accelerated Students

Heinbokel (1997) conducted a survey among German par-

ents of accelerated students. The data revealed that the

number of children with a close friend increased after grade-

skipping. Parents of 23% of the girls and 49% of the boys re-

ported that before acceleration their child did not have a very

good friend. This number decreased to 17% for girls and 31%

of boys after grade-skipping. Boogaard (2008) found similar

results in her study of social contacts of accelerated students

in secondary school: accelerated students had better contact

with their classmates and more friendships than they had in

primary school. These positive ﬁndings are supported by the

results of three Portuguese studies described by Almeida and

Oliveira (2010). They concluded that acceleration is eective,

not only cognitively and academically, but also considering

socio-emotional factors such as self-concept.

In the Netherlands, Hoogeveen, van Hell, and Verhoeven

(2011) examined social-emotional characteristics of accelerat-

ed gifted students in relation to personal and environmental

factors. The results of this study strongly suggested that so-

cial-emotional characteristics of accelerated gifted students

and non-accelerated gifted students were largely similar. In a

study of the self-concept and social status of accelerated and

non-accelerated students in their ﬁrst two years of second-

ary school in the Netherlands, Hoogeveen et al. (2009) found

that accelerated students had more positive self-concepts

concerning school in general, and mathematics speciﬁcally,

than non-accelerated students. They also demonstrated a less

positive social self-concept, which increased slightly during

their school career. Accelerated students had a lower social

status than nonaccelerants and were considered to be less co-

operative, humorous, helpful, leading, and social (Hoogeveen

et al., 2009). Peer ratings were more negative for accelerated

boys than for accelerated girls. The authors suggested that

the results might have been inﬂuenced by prejudiced atti-

tudes of peers and teachers. The inaccurate, negative atti-

tudes of secondary school teachers found by Hoogeveen et al.

(2005), seem to support this suggestion. Cornell (1990) also

A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2 217

Academic Acceleration in Europe : Hoogeveen

mentioned prejudicial attitudes in the classroom or school as

a possible cause for unpopularity. In a recent follow-up study

of the same age group (Wagenaar, Denessen & Hoogeveen,

submitted), no dierences in social status between accelerat-

ed and non-accelerated students were found.

In Ireland, Ledwith (2013) evaluated social, emotional, per-

sonal and academic integration of students in a dual en-

rollment program called Early University Entrance (EUE).

Students in this program experienced some diculties in

adapting to the new learning environment, but they adopted

a mature attitude toward their studies in coping and over-

coming the issues they encountered. Their self-concept de-

creased at the midpoint but recovered by the end of the pro-

gram. Socially, the early entrants integrated well with their

university peers, although they experienced some diculties

in maintaining links with their school friends. The students’

attitudes toward school were negative in the beginning of the

program, as students gained greater perspective, their atti-

tudes were relatively positive by the end of the program.

In England, Freeman (1996) described a self-report sample of

young gifted students in the United Kingdom. She found that

accelerated students and their parents felt that rules such as

a curfew were dicult to develop and enforce because of

the dierence in the accelerated students’ ages and those of

their classmates. Some of the accelerated students perceived

themselves as small, in spite of the fact that they were of nor-

mal size for their ages. Other students defended their failure

to be chosen for sports teams by saying that they did not like

sports anyway. The only boy in the study who reported being

“very pleased” with being accelerated was tall and mature for

his age. He said he was particularly happy because accelera-

tion enabled him to leave school earlier.

Teachers’ Attitudes

Toward Acceleration

In the Netherlands, Hoogeveen, van Hell and Verhoeven

(2005) investigated secondary school teacher attitudes to-

ward acceleration and accelerated students. Most teachers

reported that they considered a special approach for gifted

students advisable and viewed acceleration as a useful inter-

vention (Hoogeveen et al., 2005). Teachers’ opinions about

accelerated students’ social competence, school motivation

and achievement, emotional problems, and isolation were

qualiﬁed by the quantity and quality of prior experience with

accelerated students and by their opinion on acceleration in

gifted education. Teachers who attended a meeting and re-

ceived written information expressed more positive opin-

ions about accelerated students’ social competence, school

achievement, and motivation and less negative opinions

about emotional problems after acceleration.

Endepohls-Ulpe (2012) studied the attitudes of German sec-

ondary school teachers towards students’ early entrance to

university. She found that teachers in general had a positive

attitude toward this kind of acceleration, but also feared or-

ganizational and social problems and additional work. She no-

ticed that teachers with less experience with this accelerative

option anticipated more problems. Endepohls-Ulpe conclud-

ed that these results indicate a lack of information provided

to teachers about acceleration and giftedness in general.

Experiences, Beliefs, and Attitudes of

Those Concerned with Gifted Students

Most teachers and counselors express concern about social-

emotional problems caused by acceleration of gifted students

and therefore have a negative attitude toward it (J. T. Bakler,

personal communication, January 2015; C. M. Cretu, per-

sonal communication, January 2015; Heinbokel, 1997; Hoo-

geveen, et al., 2005; M. Juriševič, personal communication,

August 2015; Sak, personal communication, January 2015;

Schilz, personal communication, June 2014; Schraml, per-

sonal communication, January 2015; Van Steen, 2010). As a

51-year old history teacher of a Dutch secondary school ex-

pressed, “They will behave as solitaries, isolated, having prob-

lems to socialize, behaving as little professors” (Hoogeveen,

2008, p. 65). Parents also express those concerns. Parents in

Boogaard’s (2008) study were afraid that their child would be

bullied after an acceleration or would feel bad if their friends

could drink alcohol and they could not, because of their age.

S. Schraml (personal communication, January 2015) heard

similar concerns: “Parents are scared and worried about the

age dierence, the emotional and social isolation especially

later in puberty, and for that reason do not want their child to

enter school early or skip a grade.”

However, when we look at what accelerated students them-

selves and their parents say, the image is more positive. Hein-

bokel (1997) and Kretschmann et al. (2014) asked German

accelerated students about their academic performance and

both reported positive experiences. S. Schraml (personal

communication, January 2015) described how one of her cli-

ents who accelerated graduated at age 15 instead of 18 and is

doing his master studies at 19. Karisa Matomäki, professor of

Turku University (cited in Hornyák, 2011) stated that one of

the reasons why he got his PhD degree by his 23rd birthday

was that he could make faster progress in the special school

218 A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2

Academic Acceleration in Europe : Hoogeveen

he attended. Fifteen-year-old Lucia from Italy was glad that

she could skip ﬁrst grade, because she had been reading since

she was 2 ½ years old. She joined an International Baccalau-

reate School with enthusiasm about the challenging curricu-

lum, individual involvement in social themes, and the encour-

agement to raise her standards. Lucia will be able to apply to

University at 17 years of age, probably in the UK, two years

before the typical age of University enrollment in Italy (per-

sonal communication, Lucia and her mother, January 2015).

Heinbokel (1997) noted that most accelerated students had

more friends after accelerating. Schraml (personal commu-

nication, January 2015) observed the same in some of her

clients, sometimes after some dicult years of isolation or

bullying. Boogaard (2008) found similar results when asking

Dutch accelerated students and their parents about their

social experiences. Two students said, “It improved my so-

cial life very much” and “Now I have friends who are at the

same level of development.” One of the mothers said, “My

daughter is feeling much better. Before the acceleration she

said she was tired of life. After a second acceleration she

never said that again.” Sak (personal communication, Jan-

uary 2015), who advises Turkish parents of gifted children,

says that the accelerated students in Turkey felt happy after

their acceleration. Smeets’ experience in Belgium is that

for highly intelligent and motivated students acceleration

has a positive eect on their academic achievements and

no negative eects on their social emotional functioning

(S. Smeets, personal communication, January 2015).

There were some negative experiences, though. A Dutch

teacher stated:

Other students do not accept him [an accelerated student],

partly because they are jealous. He does not [do] his home-

work, forgets his books, still his grades are ﬁne. His parents

have given him the idea he is a miracle, but he is not social-

ly competent, he does not understand criticism (Hoogeveen

et al., 2005).

Also Heinbokel (1997) and Schraml (personal communica-

tion, January 2015) found some emotional and social prob-

lems in German students. Heinbokel commented that it was

not clear, however, whether they were actually caused by the

acceleration, by individual, private problems, or by an unsym-

pathetic environment. A unsympathetic environment was

also mentioned by the parents who participated in the study

of Boogaard (2008); the great opposition of some teachers,

combined with a lack of information, made it dicult for

parents to make the right decision. Sometimes it is not the

social, but academic environment that is insucient, even af-

ter an acceleration, as in the case of the eight-year-old Italian

student, Luigi (not his real name). His story illustrates that

skipping a grade is not always enough. His father wrote that

his son is doing ﬁne socially, but still has the feeling that he

is not learning anything that he does not know yet, despite

having skipped ﬁrst grade.

All the personal experiences described here stressed the

importance of the individual teacher. Positive and negative

experiences where related to knowledge and experience

of teachers and the way they did, or did not, support the

individual student.

Discussion

This review shows that there are many positive activities con-

cerning gifted education in Europe. Even countries advocat-

ing inclusion and not focusing on gifted education appear to

oer a good education for the gifted and talented, including

opportunities to accelerate. Finland and the UK seem to be

good examples of these kinds of educational systems, where,

without mentioning gifted education, students’ curriculum

can be personalized and students can accelerate in an ungrad-

ed educational system.

In particular, the German-speaking countries (Germany,

Austria and Switzerland) seem to be very advanced in system-

atically oering educational programs for gifted and talented

students. In Switzerland, for example, enrichment and ac-

celeration dovetail with one another and time is created for

deeper and broader learning options. The possibilities for

acceleration are open, either as a complement to the enrich-

ment activities oered, or in combination with them (Gros-

senbacher & Vögeli-Mantovani, 2010).

In some countries, like Malta, Norway, and Greece, experts

still notice a lack of opportunities for gifted and talented stu-

dents and there is pessimism concerning the way gifted stu-

dents are educated. Claiming equality may result in a lack of

opportunity and also the freedom to learn for gifted students

(Persson, 2005; 2010). However, even in these countries,

where experts say that education for the gifted and talented

is insucient, those same experts are passionately advocat-

ing for this group.

In some countries, declarations based on thorough psycho-

logical assessments are necessary before a student can accel-

erate, while in other countries recommendations from teach-

ers, in consultation with parents, are enough to make the

decision. Although teacher nomination can be a good criteri-

on for acceleration, many researchers and experts in the ﬁeld

comment that there is a lack of teacher training in relation to

A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2 219

Academic Acceleration in Europe : Hoogeveen

issues concerning gifted learners (Almeida & Oliveira, 2010;

J. Cvetkovic-Lay, personal communication, August 2015; Free-

man et al., 2010; Hoogeveen et al., 2005; 2008; Ziegler et al.,

2013). Hoogeveen et al. (2005) showed that teacher attitudes

toward accelerated students are not only related to the qual-

ity of their experiences with accelerated students and their

opinions about acceleration, but that these attitudes also can

be positively inﬂuenced by professional and objective infor-

mation on giftedness and acceleration. The important role of

the teacher in the education of the gifted and talented is men-

tioned in studies and personal experiences. Almost all experts

state that, independent of policy, in the end the academic and

social emotional development of gifted and talented students

depends to a great extent on the individual teacher.

It is striking that many researchers and experts notice the

lack of speciﬁc training of teachers in dierentiating edu-

cation for gifted students. Heinbokel (1997) suggested that

teachers with a negative attitude towards acceleration see

problems that other, less biased and better informed and ex-

perienced teachers, would either list under normal behavior

after grade-skipping or would help to solve by appropriate

means. This suggestion is supported by Hoogeveen et al.’s

work (2005) in the Netherlands. We need well-trained teach-

ers, with knowledge and experience about what really works

for gifted children.

The focus of this review was on academic acceleration. As

in the United States, acceleration works in European educa-

tional systems, but it should not be applied blindly. Accelera-

tion is not to be used as a method of disposing a problematic

student from a classroom (an experience of Schraml, person-

al communication, January 2015) or because of the lack of

other educational opportunities (Pareira-Fradin & Lubart,

2012). As Gronostaj and Vock (2014) note, academic accelera-

tion has nothing to do with accelerating the natural develop-

ment of a student, but with the intent to educate students at

a level that corresponds with their level of competency. The

Belgian scientist De Corte (2013) represents the opinion of

most of the experts, declaring that there are conditions that

should be satisﬁed before accelerating, including providing

trained and motivated teachers, an appropriate curriculum,

and parent support.

The German counseling center LBFH (B. Harder, personal

communication, January 2015) is an example of an excellent

program that supports acceleration. In this center, coun-

selors prepare students before they skip a grade and make

sure they will connect socially and be ready to deal with the

subject contents when they enter the higher grade. Teachers

evaluate the student’s knowledge in speciﬁc subject areas; if

the student has knowledge gaps, the student can study the

appropriate material during the holidays. After the decision

has been made for a grade skip, the student moves into the

higher class and spends the last four weeks of the school year

with those students, as a way of helping him or her to connect

with the class. Then, the student moves on with the class to

the higher grade in the fall.

With Gronostaj and Vock (2014), we can conclude that ac-

celeration is an uncomplicated measure in gifted education

that can prevent the problems occurring when students are

placed with their age-mates in an intellectually inadequate

situation. Acceleration has the added advantage of reducing

costs, is easy to apply and will beneﬁt the students who will

move through their educational careers at a faster pace. Our

most excellent students can complete their studies at an ear-

lier age, which also oers societal and economic beneﬁts.

Recommendations for Practice

and Further Research

In the process of improving gifted education and using ac-

celeration as one of the valuable measures, we can learn from

each other. Several best-practices in various countries were

discussed. For example, Hoogeveen, van Hell, and Verhoev-

en (2003) developed a Dutch-language acceleration scale that

has been revised to include background information and a

workshop (Verlinden, Oostindie, Bouwman, & Ottink, 2014).

Schools in other countries could beneﬁt from this instrument.

The Acceleration Institute at the University of Iowa (former-

ly called the Institute for Research and Policy on Acceleration

(www.accelerationinstitute.org) is dedicated to the study and

support of educational acceleration for academically talented

students and oers information about policy guidelines and

an example of an acceleration scale (Assouline, Colangelo,

Lupkowski-Shoplik, Lipscomb, & Forstadt, 2009). Educa-

tors and parents can also download Volume I of A Nation De-

ceived in 11 dierent languages.

The patchwork quilt of gifted education in Europe is color-

ful and varied; we should take advantage of that, while we

increase European cooperation. For the past 25 years, the Eu-

ropean Council of High Ability (ECHA) has worked for that

cooperation, aiming to advance the study and development

of potential excellence in people and, in the 2014 words of

ECHA’s president, “...to stand in the forefront of building a

European Talent Support Network” (Czermely, 2014). This

recently founded network will give even more opportunities

for researchers interested in gifted education to learn from

each other.

220 A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2

Academic Acceleration in Europe : Hoogeveen

Acknowledgements

Writing this chapter has given me the opportunity to go

deeply into the fascinating world of gifted education in Eu-

rope. I had interesting discussions with distinguished Euro-

pean experts, who are mentioned below. It made me realize

how many people are concerned with gifted students and are

willing to put eorts into oering them the best possible edu-

cation. I am sure that there are more experts with whom I did

not have the chance to communicate. This story does not end

here. I would like to invite all people involved in gifted edu-

cation to add their knowledge and experience. A lot has been

done, and much work remains. Not only is the United States

of America empowering teachers, parents, and students; Eu-

rope is joining them.

European Experts Consulted

for this Chapter

Austria

Petra Wolfsberger, MSc – ECHA-Specialist in Gifted Education – Na-

tional Correspondent ECHA – Coordinator for Gifted Education

Niederösterreich

Belgium

Dr. Stijn Smeets – Modesto development of intellectual talent – University

of Leuven – Center for the Study of Giftedness – Radboud University

Croatia

Jasna Cvetkovic-Lay – National Correspondent ECHA - Founder and

vice-president of the Center for Gifted Child Development BISTRIĆ

Zagreb

Jasna Arrigoni - Center for Gifted Children, Rijeka

Cyprus

Dr Zena Poulli – National Correspondent ECHA - Director of Second-

ary Education in the Ministry of Education and Culture of Cyprus

Denmark

Ole Kyed – Psychologist - Danish delegate of ECHA and World Council

for Gifted and Talented Children

Estonia

Dr. Viire Sepp – National Correspondent ECHA – Director, e Gifted

and Talented Development Centre - University of Tartu

Germany

Dr. Bettina Harder – Landesweite Beratungs- un Forschungsstelle für

Hochbegabung (LBFH)- University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Germany

Dr. Annette Heinbokel – Editor of ECHA news; German Association for

Gifted Children (DGhK; 1978)

Dr. Miriam Vock – University of Potsdam

Sabine Schraml - certiﬁed educator - pedagogue for giftedness- Forum

Hochbegabung, Hof (Bavaria)

France

Elise Hill – President ANPEIP Est (Alsace, Champagne-Ardenne, Lor-

raine), Association Nationale Pour les Enfants Intellectuellement Pré-

coces

Greece

Dr. Aikatarina Gari – National Correspondent ECHA - National and Ka-

podistrian University of Athens.

Hungary

Csilla Fuszek – National Correspondent ECHA - Association of Hungar-

ian Talent Support Organizations

Italy

Dr. Anna Maria Roncoroni – General Committee ECHA - President of

the Italian Association for Gifted and Talented Students

Ireland

Don Mahon- Assistant Chief Inspector - Department of Education and

Skills – Dublin

Dr. Colm O’Reilly - Director at the Centre for Talented Youth, Ireland

Latvia

Laili Sakijeva – National Correspondent ECHA - Foundation ASNI

(Giftedness System for the Nation’s Development)

Lithuania

Dr. Grazina Gintiliene – National Correspondent ECHA – Vilnius Uni-

versity

Luxembourg

Prof. Dr. Lony Schiltz – National Correspondent ECHA

Macedonia

Prof. Ljupco Kevereski - President of the Macedonian Association for

Gifted and Talented (MANT) Bitola

Norway

Kari Kolberg – National Correspondent ECHA - Board member of the

Norwegian gifted children parent’s network “Lykkelige Barn”

Portugal

Filomena Pereira – General Director of Education

Romania

Prof. Dr. Carmen Mihaela Cretu - Vice Rector University of Iasi, “Alexand-

ru Ioan Cuza” - Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences

Slovenia

Dr. Mojca Juriševič – University of Ljubljana – Faculty of Education

Spain

Prof Dr. Javier Touron – University of Navarra – Faculty of Education –

formal president of ECHA

Prof Dr. Luz Perez - University Complutense Madrid – member of the

Superior Council of Experts in High Abilities

A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2 221

Academic Acceleration in Europe : Hoogeveen

Sweden

Dr. Arne Engström – National Correspondent ECHA - Karlstad University

Switzerland

omas Wetter – Information Specialist Schweizer Zentrum für Heil-

und Sonderpädagogik SZH

Turkey

Prof. Ugur Sak – Chair, Gifted Education Division – Director, Center for

Research and Practice on Gifted Education (EPTS) – Editor Turkish

Journal of Giftedness and Education – Anadolu University

Ukraine

Dr. Alexander Burov - System Engineer and Psycho physiologist - Institute

of Information Technologies and Education Technologies

United Kingdom (Scotland)

Dr Margaret Sutherland – University of Glasgow – Director of the Scot-

tish Network for Able Pupils – member of the Executive Committee of

the European Council for High Ability (ECHA)

Dr. Niamh Stack – University of Glasgow - Development Oﬃcer Scottish

Network for Able Pupils.

United Kingdom (England)

Johanna Raﬀan – National Correspondent ECHA - Founding Director

of the National Association for Able Children in Education (NACE)

References

Almeida, L., & Oliveira, E. (2010). Los alumnos con características de so-

bredotación: La situación actual en Portugal. REIFOP, 13, 85-95.

Assouline, S., Colangelo, N., Lupkowski-Shoplik, A., Lipscomb, J., &

Forstadt, L. (2009). Iowa Acceleration Scale Manual (3rd ed.). Scotts-

dale, AZ: Great Potential Press.

Bakler, J.T. (2014). An appreciation of the situation for gifted and talented

children in Norway. Unpublished manuscript.

Balchin, T. (2009). e future of the English deﬁnition of giftedness. In:

In: T. Balchin, B.Hymer, & D.J. Matthews (Eds.), e Routledge In-

ternational Companion to Gifted Education, pp. 50-55. London (UK):

Routledge.

Benyhe, I. (2011). e relationship of Spanish public education and gifted

education. In J.G. Györi (Ed.), International Horizons of Talent Support,

I., pp. 185-206. Budapest: Magyar Géniusz Program.

Boogaard, L. (2008). (Te) jong naar het voortgezet onderwijs ((Too) young

to secondary school ). esis ECHA training. Nijmegen: Center for the

Study of Giftedness (CBO).

Colangelo, N., Assouline, S. G., & Gross, M. U. M. (2004). A Nation de-

ceived. How schools hold back America’s brightest students (V.II.). Iowa

City, IA: e Connie Belin & Jacqueline N. Blank International Center

for Gifted Education and Talent Development.

Colangelo, N., & Davis, G.A. (2003). Introduction and Overview. In: N.

Colangelo & G.A. Davis (Eds), Handbook of Gifted Education (3rd ed.).

Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Comes Nolla, G., Díaz Pareja, E., Luque de la Rosa. A., & Ortega Tudela,

J. (2009). Análisis de la Legislación Española sobre la educacación del

alumnado con altas capacidades (Analysis of the Spanish legislation

concerning the education of gifted students). Escuela Abierta, 12, 9-31.

Council of Europe(1994).Recommendationno.1248on education for gifted

children. Strasbourg, France:Council of Europe.

Cornell, D. G. (1990). High-ability students who are unpopular with their

peers. Gifted Child Quarterly, 34, 155-160.

Czermely, P. (2014). Message from the President (2012-2016), Peter Cserme-

ly. Retrieved from http://www.echa.info/component/k2/19-message-

from-the-president-2012-2016-peter-csermely?Itemid=160

De Corte, E. (2013). Giftedness considered from the perspective of re-

search on learning and instruction. High Ability Studies, 24, 3-19.

Delaubier, Jean-Pierre (2002). La scolarisation des enfants intellectuellement

précoces. Rapport à Monsieur le Ministre de l’Education Nationale. Re-

trieved from www.education.gouv.fr/rapport/delaubier.pdf

Endepohls-Ulpe, M. (2012). Attitudes of German secondary school teach-

ers towards students’ early placement at university. In H. Stoeger, A.

Aljughaiman, & B. Harder (Eds.), Talent Development and Excellence

(pp. 235-254). Münster, Germany: LIT.

European Agency. (2010.). Act of 17 July 1998 no. 61 relating to Prima-

ry and Secondary Education and Training (the Education Act)with

amendments as of 25 June 2010. In force as of 1 August 2010. Re-

trieved from http://european-agency.org/sites/default/ﬁles/Educa-

tion_Act_Norway.pdf

European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education (2009).

Gifted learners. A survey of educational policy and provision. Retrieved

from http://www.pef.uni-lj.si/ﬁleadmin/Datoteke/CRSN/branje/

Gifted_Learners_A_Survey_of_Educational_Policy_and_Provi-

sion__2009_.pdf

Eurydice. (2006). Speciﬁc Educational Measures to Promote all Forms of Gift-

edness at School in Europe (Working Document). Brussels: Eurydice

European Unit.

Eurydice. (2014). e Structure of the European Education sys-

tems 2014/15: Schematic Diagrams. Retrieved from http://eacea.

ec.europa.eu/education/eurydice/documents/facts_and_ﬁgures/

EN_2014_15_diagrams_version_ﬁnale_pngs.pdf

Eurypedia. European encyclopedia on National Educational systems. Re-

trieved from https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/fpﬁs/mwikis/eurydice/

index.php?title=Home

Freeman, J. (1992). Education for the gifted in a changing Europe. Roeper

Review, 14, 198-201.

Freeman, J. (1996). Self-reports in research on high ability. High Ability

Studies, 7, 191-201.

Freeman, J, Raﬀan, J. & Warwick, I. (2010). World-wide Provision to De-

velop Gifts and Talents: An International Survey. Reading (UK): CfBT

Education Trust.

Gál, K., Kleva, M., Lochbihler, B., & Takkula, H. (2012). WRITTEN

DECLARATION pursuant to Rule 123 of the Rules of Procedure on

the support of talents in the European Union. Retrieved from http://

www.talentcentrebudapest.eu/sites/default/ﬁles/EN-European-Par-

liament-talent-support-Written-Declaration.pdf

Green, A. (2013). Education and State Formation. Europe, East Asia and

the USA (2nd Ed.). DOI:10.1057/9781137341754 ebook ISBNs:

9781137341754 PDF 9781137341761 EPUB

Gronostaj, A. & Vock, M. (2014). Akzeleration der Schullaufbahn (Ac-

celeration in the school career). In A. Racherbäumer & I. Mammes

(Hrsg.), Übergänge im Bildungssystem. Nationale und internationale

Ergebnisse empirischer Forschung. (Transition in the educational system.

National and international results of empirical research). (pp. 191-206)

Münster: Waxmann.

Grossenbacher, S. & Vögeli-Mantovani, U. (2010). Support Measures for

Gifted and Talented Children in Switzerland. ECHA News, 24, 13-16.

222 A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2

Academic Acceleration in Europe : Hoogeveen

Guisepi, L. (n.d.). e history of education. International World History

Project. Retrieved from http://history-world.org/history_of_educa-

tion.htm

Györi, J.G. (Ed.) (2011). International horizons of talent support, I. Buda-

pest: Magyar Géniusz Program.

Györi, J.G., & Nagy, T. (2011). New trends in talent support. In J.G. Györi

(Ed.), International horizons of talent support, I. Budapest: Magyar

Géniusz Program.

Harder, B., Vialle, W., & Ziegler, A. (2014). Conceptions of giftedness and

expertise put to the empirical test. High Ability Studies, 25, 83-120.

Heinbokel, A. (1997). Acceleration through grade skipping in Germany.

High Ability Studies, 8, 61-77.

Heinbokel, A. (2012). Handbuch Akzeleration. Was Hochbegabten nützt.

(Handbook of acceleration. What the gifted need). LIT Verlag Mün-

ster.

Heller, K.A. (2009). Gifted education from the German perspective. In: T.

Balchin, B.Hymer, & D.J. Matthews (Eds.), e Routledge International

Companion to Gifted Education, pp. 61-67. London (UK): Routledge.

Heller, K. A. & Reimann, R. (2002). eoretical and methodological prob-

lems of a 10-year follow-up program evaluation study. European Journal

of Psychological Assessment, 18, 229–241.

Hernandez & Ferrando, M. (2012). State of educational attention for stu-

dents with high abilities in Spain. ECHA News, September, 4.

Himpe, L. (2008). Versnelde leerlingen: de situatie in Vlaanderen en elders,

vandaag en in het verleden. (Licentiaatsverhandeling) [Accelerated pu-

pils: e situation in Flanders and elsewhere, today and in the past].

Leuven (Belgium): KU Leuven.

Hoogeveen, L. (2008). Social emotional consequences of accelerating gifted stu-

dents. (Doctoral thesis Radboud University Nijmegen).

Hoogeveen, L. (in preparation). Implicit and explicit goals of education ac-

cording to teachers all over the world.

Hoogeveen, L., van Hell, J.G., & Verhoeven, L. (2003). Versnellingsw-

enselijkheidslijst (Acceleration desirability list). Nijmegen: Center for

the Study of Giftedness, Radboud University Nijmegen.

Hoogeveen, L., van Hell, J.G., & Verhoeven, L. (2005). Teacher attitudes

toward academic acceleration and accelerated students in the Nether-

lands. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 29, 30–59.

Hoogeveen, L., van Hell, J.G., & Verhoeven, L. (2009). Self-concept and

social status of accelerated and non-accelerated students beginning sec-

ondary school in the Netherlands. Gifted Child Quarterly, 53, 50–67.

Hoogeveen, L., van Hell, J.G., & Verhoeven, L. (2011). Social-emotional

characteristics of gifted accelerated and non-accelerated students in the

Netherlands. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 585–605.

Hornyák, B. (2011). Pillars of talent support in Finland: e Päivölä

School Mathematics Programme. In: J.G. Györi (Ed.), International

Horizons of Talent Support, I., pp. 51-72. Budapest: Magyar Géniusz

Program.

Juriševič, M. (2012). Faculty of Education UL: Vision and Mission of GE.

Paper presentation on the 7th Regional Meeting on talent support in

the Central-Eastern European Region Szeget, 24th – 26th Oct 2012.

Keating, A. (2014). Education for citizenship in Europe. European policies,

national adaptations and young people’s attitudes. London: Palgrave Mac-

millan

Kretschmann, J., Vock, M., & Lüdtke, O. (2014). Acceleration in elemen-

tary school: Using propensity score matching to estimate the eﬀects on

academic achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 106, 1080–

1095.

Ledwith, C. (2013). A case study investigation into the performance of

gifted, transition year students participating in a dual enrolment pro-

gramme. PhD esis Dublin City University, Ireland.

LEY ORGÁNICA 2/2006, de 3 de mayo, de EDUCACIÓN (LOE).

(BOE Núm. 106, jueves, 4 de mayo de 2006). Retrieved from http://

www.e-torredebabel.com/leyes/LOE/LOE-Titulo-II-Equidad-educa-

cion.htm

Mammadov, S. (2012). e gifted education in Azerbaijan. Journal of Stud-

ies in Education, 2, 43 - 61.

Mathiesen, S.W. (2010). Gifted learners in Norwegian education person-

alised education – Meeting the needs of the gifted. ECHA News, 24,

24-27.

Matsagouras, E.G., & Dougali, E. (2009). A proposal for gifted education

in reluctant schools: the case of the Greek school system. In: T. Balchin,

B.Hymer, & D.J. Matthews (Eds.), e Routledge International Com-

panion to Gifted Education, pp. 84-91. London (UK): Routledge.

Ministère Éducation Nationale Enseignement Supérieur Recherche

(2005). Bulletin oﬃciel, 18. Retrieved from http://www.education.gouv.

fr/bo/2005/18/MENX0400282L.htm

Ministry of Education and Science of the Republic of Lithuania (2012).

Description of the Procedure of Learning according to the General

Education Programme (Order No V-766 of May 8, 2012 (non-oﬃcial

translation).

Ministry of Education, Bureau for European Aﬀairs and International Re-

lations (1999). e Portuguese education system: e system today and

plans for the future. Retrieved from http://www.ibe.unesco.org/Inter-

national/ICE/natrap/Portugal_1.pdf

Ministry of Education, Culture and Science (1998). Wet op het Primair

Onderwijs (Law of Primary Education). Den Haag (e Netherlands):

Ministerie van Onderwijs, Cultuur en Wetenschappen.

Ministry of the Flemish Community, Department Education (1996). Ed-

ucation in Flanders and the Netherlands. Brussels (B): Flemish Govern-

ment.

Mönks, F.J., & Pﬂüger, R. (2005). Gifted education in 21 European coun-

tries: Inventory and Perspective. Nijmegen (NL): Radboud University.

Mueller-Oppliger, V. (2014). Gifted education in Switzerland: Widely

acknowledged – but still with obstacles in the implementation. CEPS

Journal, 4, 89-110.

Nagy, T., & Zsilavecz, C. (2011). Best practice in Austrian talent support:

Model and practice of the Platon Jugendforum. In: J.G. Györi (Ed.), In-

ternational Horizons of Talent Support, I., pp. 17-50. Budapest: Magyar

Géniusz Program.

Nusche, D., Earl, L., Maxwell, W., & Shewbridge, C. (2011). OECD Re-

views of Evaluation and Assessment in Education. NORWAY. Re-

trieved from http://www.oecd.org/norway/48632032.pdf

Oliveira, E.P. & Martins, M. (2010). Gifted education and research in Por-

tugal. ECHA News, 24, 1, 20-21

Palchyk, H. (2007). Experience and perspectives of inclusive education de-

velopment in the ﬁeld of Belarus comprehensive secondary education.

ird Workshop of the IBE Community of Practice, Commonwealth of In-

dependent States (CIS)Minsk, Belarus, 29 – 31 October 2007.

Pereira-Fradin, M. & Lubart, T. (2012). School policy for gifted children in

France. ECHA News, September, 6.

Persson, R. S. (2005). Voices in the wilderness: Counselling gifted students

in a Swedish egalitarian setting. International Journal for the Advance-

ment of Counselling, 27, 263-276.

Persson, R.S. (2010). Experiences of intellectually gifted students in an

egalitarian and inclusive educational system: A survey study. Journal for

the Education of the Gifted, 33, pp. 536–569.

A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2 223

Academic Acceleration in Europe : Hoogeveen

Resch, C. (2014). e development of gifted and talented provision in

Austria – from separative measures to a holistic and systemic approach.

CEPS Journal, 4, 9-29.

Ruokonen, I. (2005). Estonian and Finnish gifted children in their learning

environments. (Dissertation University of Helsinki). Retrieved from

https://helda.helsinki.ﬁ/bitstream/handle/10138/20047/estonian.

pdf?sequence=1

Segers, E., & Hoogeveen, L. (2012). Research into excellence in primary, sec-

ondary and higher education. Nijmegen: Radboud University Nijmegen.

Southern, W. T. & Jones, E.D. (2004). Types of acceleration: Dimensions

and issues. In: N. Colangelo, S.G. Assouline, & M.U.M. Gross, A Na-

tion deceived: How schools hold back America’s brightest students (V.II.),

pp. 5-12. Iowa City, IA: e Connie Belin & Jacqueline N. Blank Inter-

national Center for Gifted Education and Talent Development.

Steenbergen-Hu, S. & Moon, S.M. (2011). e eﬀects of acceleration on

high-ability learners: A meta-analysis. Gifted Child Quarterly 55, 39-53.

Sutherland, M. & Stack, N. (2014). Ability as an additional support need:

Scotland’s inclusive approach to gifted education. CEPS Journal, 4, 73-

87.

Tannenbaum, A.J. (2000). A history of giftedness in school and society. In

K.A. Heller, K.A., F.J. Mönks, R.J. Sternberg, & R.F. Subotnik, R.F.

(Eds.), International handbook of giftedness and talent (2nd ed.) (pp. 23-

54). Oxford: Elsevier Science Ltd.

orndike, R.M. (2007). Intelligence tests. In: N.J. Salkind & K. Ras-

mussen, Encyclopedia of Measurement and Statistics. Retrieved from

http://dx.doi.org.proxy.ubn.ru.nl/10.4135/9781412952644

Tirri, K. (2006). e case of Finland. Retrieved from http://www.palmenia.

helsinki.ﬁ/congress/echa/tirri.pdf

UNESCO (2011). World data on education. (VII Ed. 2010/2011). Re-

trieved from http://www.ibe.unesco.org/ﬁleadmin/user_upload/Pub-

lications/WDE/2010/pdf-versions/Albania.pdf

Van Steen, H. (2010). Versnelling in het Voortgezet Onderwijs. Een

onderzoek naar het beleid en de praktijk van versnelling op de Begaaf-

dheidsproﬁelscholen en de Zelfstandige Gymnasia (Acceleration in

secondary education. A study of the policy and practice of acceleration

on gifted proﬁle schools and independent gymnasia). ECHA thesis.

Nijmegen (NL): Center for the Study of Giftedness (CBO).

VanTassel-Baska, J. (2009). United States policy development in gifted ed-

ucation: A patchwork quilt. In L. Shavinna (Ed.), Handbook on gifted-

ness (pp. 1295–1312). New York, NY: Springer Science.

Verlinden, J., Oostindie, B, Bouwman, N. & Ottink, M. (2014). Vers nel-

len zonder drempels. Onderwijsbehoeften van excellente leerlingen in kaart

gebracht. Versnellingwijzer. (Acceleration without barriers. Educational

needs of excellent students. Acceleration Indicator). e Hague (NL):

School aan Zet.

Vock, M., Penk, C., & Köller, O. (2013). Wer überspringt eine Schulk-

lasse? Befunde zum Klassenüberspringen in Deutschland (Who skips

a grade? Findings concerning gradeskipping in Germany). Psychologie

in Erziehung und Unterricht, 60, 1-12.

Vrignaud, P. (2006). La scolarisation des enfants intellectuellement préco-

ces en France: Présentation des diﬀérentes mesures et de résultats de

recherche. Bulletin de Psychologie, 59, pp 439-449.

Vrignaud, P., Bonora, & Druex, A. (2009). Education practices for gifted

learners in France: an overview. In: T. Balchin, B.Hymer, & D.J. Mat-

thews (Eds.), e Routledge International Companion to Gifted Educa-

tion, pp. 68-75. London (UK): Routledge.

Wagenaar, O., Denessen, E., & Hoogeveen, L. (submitted). Glad to have

skipped grade level(s): Ho do social status and ego development of ac-

celerated children aﬀect their well-being and results?

Weilguny, W.M., Resch, C. , Samhaber, E. & Hartel, B. (2013). White

Paper. Promoting talent and excellence. Austrian Research and Support

Center for the Gifted and Talented – ÖZBF.

Welsh Assembly Government. Department for Children, Education,

Lifelong Learning and Skills. (2008). Meeting the challenge. Quality

standards in education for more able and talented pupils. Retrieved

from http://learning.wales.gov.uk/docs/learningwales/publications/

131016-meeting-the-challenge-en.pdf

Ziegler, A., & Phillipson, S.N. (2012). Towards a systemic theory of gifted

education. High Ability Studies, 23, 3-30.

Ziegler, A., Stoeger, H., Harder, B., & Balestrini, D.P. (2013). Gifted ed-

ucation in German-speaking Europe. Journal for the Education of the

Gifted, 36, 384-411.

224 A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2

Academic Acceleration in Europe : Hoogeveen

A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2 225

Acceleration in Australia : Young, Rogers, Hoekman, van Vliet, & Long

Introduction

All Australian states and territories now have policies regard-

ing the education of gifted and talented students, and some

of these policies acknowledge the practice of acceleration.

The presence of gifted education policies, however, does not

guarantee that these policies will be implemented in schools

(Long, 2012). There is considerable variation between educa-

tion sectors, systems, and individual schools in terms of the

implementation of academic acceleration across Australia

(Gross, Urquhart, Doyle, Juratowitch, & Matheson, 2011).

The new Australian Curriculum documents from the Austra-

lian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACA-

RA; Australian Government, 2013) and the New South Wales

Syllabus from the Board of Studies, Teaching and Education-

al Standards (BOSTES), for example, make speciﬁc reference

to the need to consider gifted students. While they mention

the possibility of ﬂexible pacing, there is no explicit reference

to mandate or exclude consideration of accelerative options.

Concerns about the long-term social and emotional conse-

quences of accelerated progression have generally tempered

enthusiasm and negatively impacted the prevalence of this

promising educational practice. Although acceleration is one

of many dierentiation strategies used to address the educa-

tional needs of gifted students in Australia, there is little Aus-

tralian research that records students’ recollections of school

acceleration and early transition to university (Jung, Young, &

Gross, 2015). It is important to consider students’ experienc-

es because there are concerns about the wisdom of school-

based acceleration and early admission to university among

Abstract

Early admission to university is generally accepted in the United States; however, it is less likely to occur in Australia. Qualitative analysis of

in-depth interviews with 12 Australian subjects who retrospectively recalled their experiences of acceleration through school and entry to

university early (before the age of 18) elicited ﬁve key themes centering on the accelerative pathways the students experienced in school,

as well as on academic, social, and psychological adjustment at university. In response to individual needs for ﬂexible pacing, schools

facilitated a number of accelerative pathways at different ages and stages. The students were generally pleased to have accelerated, and

they acknowledged and successfully negotiated a number of academic and social challenges linked to acceleration with support from family

and/or school staff. Similar positive themes emerged concerning early entry to university. In particular, all subjects were generally pleased to

have entered university early, expressing a general sense of relief to ﬁnd their academic interest rekindled. Developing friendships with like-

minded peers and participating in extra-curricular activities were signiﬁcant factors in adjusting and responding positively to the stimulation

of university. Parents, university staff, and friends provided support. Other prevalent trends that arose include the accelerated students’

preference for less formal support structures at school and university, and a strong desire to be treated like other university students. Results

suggest that acceleration can work well for academically talented students in Australia, and these students enjoy the opportunity to enter

university early and experience the freedom and challenges of university life.

Acceleration in Australia:

Flexible Pacing Opens the Way for

Early University Admission

Marie Young, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia

Karen Rogers, University of St. Thomas, Minneapolis, Minnesota

Katherine Hoekman, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia

Helen van Vliet, Sydney, Australia

Lye Chan Long, Sydney, Australia

Chapter 18

226 A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2

Acceleration in Australia : Young, Rogers, Hoekman, van Vliet, & Long

Australian school teachers, parents, and university sta that

persist despite policy support for acceleration practices

across Australian states and territories (Gross et al., 2011).

This qualitative study involved interviewing 12 subjects who

were accelerated through school and experienced early en-

trance to university. It aimed to provide helpful insights re-

garding the variety of accelerative pathways gifted students

might experience and to address concerns about what might

subsequently happen to these learners at the university level.

How did the subjects view the ﬂexible pacing opportunities

provided at school? Were they able to handle the accelerated

level of study? Could they manage to adjust socially and to

connect with other learners, regardless of their young age?

Were they able to maintain positive perceptions of them-

selves as learners and remain motivated to challenge them-

selves through rigorous studies?

To locate study subjects, academic personnel were ap-

proached who worked in the area of gifted and talented edu-

cation at Australian universities where early entry was known

to take place. These academics were able to suggest possible

candidates. Some subjects (n=4) did not complete school but

rather left ahead of time, commencing university at 12 to 15

years old. Therefore these subjects experienced accelerated

progression by skipping one or more of the ﬁnal years of high

school. The other subjects (n=8) completed the ﬁnal year of

high school and then moved on to university but they were

younger than the regular ﬁrst year university students as a

result of grade acceleration during elementary and/or high

school. They were between 16 and 17 years old when they

commenced university.

Through in-depth interviews with these 12 accelerated stu-

dents, the researchers explored issues that aected the stu-

dents’ experiences at school and university. A retrospective

analysis of the varied paths taken through the elementary and

high school experience is also elaborated. A detailed analysis

provides helpful insights from this small sample about the

variety of ways that academically talented students’ need for

ﬂexible pacing can be accommodated in Australian schools.

Research Background

Early admission to university has been studied extensively in

the United States for over 50 years. In general, it is shown to

be a positive experience academically, socially, and aectively

(Bleske-Rechek, Lubinski, & Benbow, 2004; Lubinski, Webb,

Morelock, & Benbow, 2001; Noble, Arndt, Nicholson, Slet-

ten, & Zamora, 2007; Rogers, 1991; Swiatek & Benbow, 1991).

Researchers and practitioners have compiled guidelines

(Brody & Stanley, 1991; Olszewski-Kubilius, 1995; Rogers,

2002; Sayler, 1994) and have instituted supportive programs.

There is, however, little documentation of the variety of ac-

celerative pathways actually implemented in school to facil-

itate ﬂexible pacing, and a paucity of empirical Australian

research to conﬁrm - or deny - that early admission of excep-

tionally talented students is viable for stakeholders including

students, university, and society.

The Education of Gied Children (The Commonwealth of

Australia, 2001) report to the Senate indicated that all their

submissions stated that there was a problem with the educa-

tion of gifted students in Australia. “The problem, in brief, is

children of high intellectual ability have special needs in the

education system; for many their needs are not being met;

and many suer underachievement, boredom, frustration

and psychological distress as a result” (p. 2). In regard to early

admission, Recommendation 11 stated that there was a need

to “develop a policy providing more ﬂexible university entry

and study options for gifted students” (p. 77).

In most states of Australia, it is mandatory to provide stu-

dents with the appropriate level of educational challenge,

which takes into account their special characteristics as

learners. The Adelaide Declaration on National Goals for

Schooling for the 21st Century, mentioned in The Education

of Gied Children (The Commonwealth of Australia, 2001),

enshrined this same principle in its ﬁrst goal: that “school-

ing should develop fully the talents and capacities of all stu-

dents” (p. 14). The Guidelines for Accelerated Progression (Board

of Studies NSW, 2000) directed that gifted school students

should be provided with a wide range of challenging options

to cater to their exceptional ability. Various forms of accel-

eration may be instituted by educators in schools in New

South Wales, including radical acceleration (i.e., two-years).

If the needs of the student cannot be met by appropriate in-

tellectual challenge at available schools, then early university

admission is a possible option.

Young, Rogers, and Ayres (2007) reported on their eorts to

map the terrain concerning early admission to university ed-

ucation for gifted learners in 40 Australian universities. The

statistics they collected on Australian universities oering

early admission options indicated that 13 universities oer

formal or informal early admission to gifted students, while 33

universities provide dual enrollment options. No minimum

age requirements are in place for the majority of Australian

universities. Nonetheless, the authors concluded that enroll-

ment of students younger than 17 years is more often used as

a recruiting tool than as an accommodation for extraordinary

academic talent. Information about available early admission

A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2 227

Acceleration in Australia : Young, Rogers, Hoekman, van Vliet, & Long

or dual enrollment opportunities is often dicult to ﬁnd and

procedures vary greatly from institution to institution. At the

time of the study, the authors recommended that streamlin-

ing access would facilitate gifted high school students ﬁnding

appropriate university options across the country. However,

little central coordination has occurred since then.

In a separate study, Young, Ayres, and Rogers (2009) identi-

ﬁed 61 Australian students who entered university early after

grade accelerations in elementary and/or high school. A num-

ber of students experienced subject acceleration as well as

grade-skipping. Part of the issue lies in the perspective most

Australian states have that all students must complete the

state graduation tests, such as the Higher School Certiﬁcate

(HSC) in New South Wales or the Victorian Certiﬁcate of

Education in Victoria (VCE), which are normally completed

in 12th grade. These high stakes assessments are considered

the “ﬁnal word” in whether a student is ready for university

or for the world of work. In recent years, however, the Inter-

national Baccalaureate (IB) program has been used by many

schools, especially private schools, as an alternative means

for demonstrating students’ readiness for university. Hence,

it is rare that individual students go against these tradition-

al choices and apply directly for university admission. Early

admission, in the form of entering university one or more

years early without completing the “acceptable” alternatives

is infrequently practiced. Therefore, although comparatively

young students may be accepted as regular undergraduates,

there are lingering concerns among school teachers, parents,

and university sta about the potential consequences of early

admission of gifted students.

The following discussion of Australian research mentions

young students entering university because there are some

accounts of accelerative options that include students who

have progressed to university study ahead of their age co-

hort (Bailey, 1997; Gross, 1992; Merrotsy, 2003, 2006; Vialle,

Ashton, Carlon, & Rankin, 2001). In her longitudinal study

of 15 radically accelerated students, Gross (2004) reported

on their young age on entry to university, academic success,

outstanding careers, and on positive social and psychological

adjustment. Merrotsy’s (2003, 2006) case studies on dual en-

rollment for radically accelerated students indicated that the

students progressed to full time study at university but pro-

vided scant detail about their actual adjustment at university.

One student commented that he found university study to be

exciting and interesting, and he was never bored. Bailey (1995)

brieﬂy referred to a case study of “Michael,” an early admis-

sion student who excelled; Michael found people at universi-

ty who shared his interests, and commented that high school

appeared “as one great stretch of misery” (Bailey, 1995, p. 17 ).

Australian researcher, Shannon (1997), wrote a personal rem-

iniscence about his early admission to university at the age of

15.5 years. His reﬂection suggested that he found academic

work challenging and satisfying, had positive self-esteem, was

motivated, and that friendships were not a problem.

Methodology

The methodology design followed the descriptive case study

protocol suggested by Yin (1993). The multiple-case studies

were exploratory. The research questions were guided by is-

sues that arose from the literature from the United States and

focused on the following questions: (a) what were the experi-

ences of accelerative options designed to enable ﬂexible pac-

ing at school; (b) what issues, perceived by the students, fa-

cilitated their positive adjustment to university; and (c) what

hurdles students identiﬁed. Ethics approval was obtained, an

interview schedule was developed, and personal interviews

were conducted.

o put a face on the data (Sharratt & Fullan, 2012), a quali-

tative analysis was conducted with in-depth interviews with

12 Australian early-entrants. The interviews were compared

and the responses were used to elicit key themes centering

on their personal history of acceleration, as well as their aca-

demic, social, and psychological adjustment at university. The

audiotaped interviews were transcribed and were imported

into NVivo 8, which assisted in data management and organi-

zation, and facilitated the coding and categorizing of the large

amount of narrative text generated by the interviews. The use

of thematic analysis, both inductive and comparative, allowed

for the data to be analyzed for speciﬁc themes: for example,

diculty in initial university adjustment, necessity of positive

family and university support for decision, need to escape ear-

lier school malaise, value of social relationships, and personal

self-direction and intrinsic motivation to learn. Each inter-

view was summarized as a case study, because each student’s

responses were analyzed question by question (Creswell,

2007). Cross-case analysis, which integrated case-oriented,

variable-oriented, and mixed strategies, was used to analyze

the case studies. The process included the interpretation and

naming of categories, comparison and pattern analysis (Miles

& Huberman, 1994), in order to reﬁne and relate categories,

examine divergent views and negative cases, and relate data to

the literature review, as suggested by Bazeley (2007).

Participants

The students were selected as a convenience sample. Four

were known to the researchers; two were tracked down via

228 A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2

Acceleration in Australia : Young, Rogers, Hoekman, van Vliet, & Long

the public domain of a university website; two were referred

for participation via students; and four were identiﬁed after

requesting help from the researchers’ colleagues. All pro-

spective candidates were informed of the research, and invit-

ed to contact the researchers through email. When possible,

the interviews were conducted in a face-to-face situation;

however, when face-to-face interviews were not possible,

either a phone interview or an emailed response was substi-

tuted. The interview was planned to take 40 minutes, a time

span recommended by Seidman (1998) to avoid participant

fatigue. This time span excluded written responses address-

ing the section entitled, “Reﬂections on your early admission

experiences.” As a professional courtesy, as well as a validating

procedure recommended by Yin (1984), the interviews were

transcribed and sent to each participant for checking and/or

amendment. Some (n=4) participants did not respond to this

checking process; one responded and made no amendments;

some (n=3) made small amendments; and some (n=4) made

extensive amendments. Table 1 lists each student’s pseud-

onym, gender, acceleration history, age at entry to university,

how they entered (completed HSC or IB or decided not to

participate in those alternatives), and degrees.

Interview Schedule

The interview schedule used standardized open-ended

questions that emerged from a review of research from the

United States on early entrance to university (Benbow & Ar-

jmand, 1990; Brody, Assouline, & Stanley, 1990; Lubinski et

al., 2001; Muratori, Colangelo, & Assouline, 2003; Noble &

Drummond, 1992; Rogers, 1991; Sayler, 1994; Sethna, Wick-

strom, Boothe, & Stanley, 2001; Swiatek, 1993). The prelim-

inary strategy was to ask the students about their past, their

present, and their future. The approach then became tied

to speciﬁc concepts: (1) past experiences with acceleration;

(2) making the early admission decision; (3) process of early

admission; (4) university adjustment; (5) their future; and (6)

reﬂections on early admission experiences.

This section will summarize a smorgasbord of accelerative

options implemented in Australia. It focuses on the variety

of accelerated pathways taken at dierent ages and stages by

this sample of students, as they negotiated their elementary

and high school years prior to early admission to university.

All of the early-entrants to university students were relatively

younger than their cohort, with an age range of 12 -17 years on

entering university.

Results and Implications

Experience with School Acceleration

Acceleration fell into three categories: grade acceleration

(where a student skipped one or more grades), subject accel-

eration (where a student moved ahead in a single subject),

and a combination of these two. Four students experienced a

grade skip of one year, ﬁve students a grade skip of two years,

and two students a grade skip of three years. The grade ac-

celerations (n=9) mostly took place in elementary school, but

two students experienced grade acceleration in both elemen-

tary and high school. Five students experienced subject ac-

celeration: two began by taking accelerated math courses in

elementary school, as well as multiple subject accelerations

in high school; three students took multiple subject accelera-

tions in high school. Four students undertook a combination

of grade acceleration and subject acceleration. One student

experienced both grade-skipping and subject acceleration

in elementary school; three students were grade skipped in

elementary school and then, in high school, took subject ac-

celeration as well.

In general, grade-skipping occurred mostly in elementary

school and subject acceleration in high school. The two stu-

dents who began radical subject acceleration in elementary

school were gifted in math. Daniel was six years ahead of his

peers and Peter was three years ahead of his peers. Those who

took subject acceleration in high school seemed to have tak-

en multiple subject accelerations. Admission routes to uni-

versity were varied. One participant began dual enrollment

at 12 years, and at 15 was admitted as a full-time undergrad-

uate through case-by-case admission. Another 15-year-old

had early admission through a formal program and a third

15-year-old had early admission through an informal case-by-

case process. The fourth 15-year-old, who had been radically

accelerated, had case-by-case admission as he had completed

his HSC. Eight other young students, 16 to 17 years old, had

completed the HSC and experienced routine admission.

Student Voice

The following vignettes focus on the students’ school experi-

ences, and their academic and social adjustment to university.

In general, the students seemed pleased to have accelerated,

and succeeded with the challenges of university study. Find-

ing friends and participating in extra-curricular activities

were signiﬁcant factors in adjusting and responding positive-

ly to the stimulation of university. Parents, sta, and friends

were supportive. As these vignettes point out, there were

A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2 229

Acceleration in Australia : Young, Rogers, Hoekman, van Vliet, & Long

Table 1: Subject Acceleration History, Age, and Degrees

Age History of Acceleration Degrees

Name

On Entering

University

Interview

Elementary Secondary Current Completed

Daniel 12 - Single

subject dual

enrollment

(Math)

15 - Full Time

30 Grade acceleration:

2 to 4,4 to 6

Radical subject

acceleration:

Math (at age ﬁve,

taking grade six

Math)

Subject acceleration: HSC

3U Math in grade nine

(age 12)

Bachelor of Mathematics

Bachelor of Computer Science

(Honors)

PhD

Sean 15 29 Grade acceleration:

2 to 4

Grade acceleration: 8 to

10, 11 to university

Bachelor of Science -

Medicine

Bachelor of Computer

Engineering (Honors)

Masters of Biomedical

Engineering

Peter 15 21 Radical subject

acceleration:

Math by three

years

Subject acceleration:

HSC 4U Math in grade nine

HSC 2U Physics in grade

nine

Grade acceleration:

9 to university

PhD Bachelor of Arts in Advanced

Mathematics (Honors)

Masters of Mathematics

Adrian 15 19 Early entry to K

Grade Acceleration:

K to 2, 2 to 4

Masters

Doctor of Public

Health in

Biostatistics

Bachelor of Advanced

Mathematics - Applied

Statistics (Honors)

Nanette 16 21 Grade Acceleration:

1 to 2, 3 to 5

Bachelor of Science and Arts

Sophie 16 30 Grade Acceleration:

5 to 7

Grade Acceleration:

nine to 10

PhD Bachelor of Arts (Honors)

Felicity 16.5 17 Grade Acceleration:

3 to 5, 5 to 7

Bachelor of

Advanced

Science

Suzanne 16.5 17 Grade Acceleration:

1 to 3

Subject Acceleration:

HSC 2U History in grade10

HSC Extension History in

grade 10

HSC 3U English in

grade 11

HSC 3U French in grade 11

Distinction Course in

grade 12

Bachelor of

Advanced

Science

230 A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2

Acceleration in Australia : Young, Rogers, Hoekman, van Vliet, & Long

Age History of Acceleration Degrees

Name

On Entering

University

Interview

Elementary Secondary Current Completed

Gena 16.5 26 Grade Acceleration:

K to 2, 4 to 6

Subject acceleration:

HSC 3U* Math in grade

nine

HSC 4U Math in grade 10

Physics Olympiad in

grade 10

HSC 2U Physics in

grade 11

HSC 2U Chemistry in

grade 11

Distinction Course in

grade 12

B Medical Science (Honors)

B Medicine

Steve 17 18 Grade Acceleration:

K to 2

Subject Acceleration:

HSC 2U Chemistry in

grade 11

Distinction Course in

grade 12

Bachelor of

Computer

Science

Tim 17.3 24 Grade Acceleration:

5 to 7

Bachelor of Engineering

- Software Engineering

(Honors)

Bachelor of Science - Pure

Mathematics

Lucinda 17.5 20 Grade Acceleration:

4 to 6

Bachelor of Arts/

Law (Honors)

Table 1: Subject Acceleration History, Age, and Degrees (continued)

signiﬁcant individual dierences in how the intrapersonal,

motivational, and environmental catalysts combined.

Sean’s “self-direction was an asset” and extra-curricular par-

ticipation assisted transition. Sean was radically accelerated

by three years; he skipped third, ninth, and 12th grades and

began university when he was 15-years-old. He was admitted

to the University of New South Wales (UNSW) under the

Early Entry Program, after completing 11th grade without a

University Admission Index (UAI).

Sean’s parents initiated the ﬁrst acceleration from second

to fourth grade. He does not recall any social problems with

skipping third grade and nor did he have any social problems

with the next two accelerations. He felt challenged when he

skipped ninth grade as he had to catch up in subjects other

than Science and Mathematics; his performance improved

and he was happier at school. He felt competitive and re-

sponded when friends challenged him in Physics and Chemis-

try. In 11th grade, the challenge subsided, as he had mastered

his subjects; he was getting bored and he relied on self-direct-

ed learning to stay interested. He was not looking forward to a

similar experience in 12th grade, and feared that he would not

achieve his best. As a result, Sean investigated the Early Ad-

mission for Exceptionally Talented Students at the University

of New South Wales on his own, but supported by his parents.

Sean was not concerned about ﬁtting in at university, as he was

used to mixing with older students, nor was he apprehensive

about missing out on 12th grade activities.

Sean successfully navigated the rigorous admission process,

including extensive interviews with ﬁve university personnel

focusing on his social and psychological maturity and reasons

for early matriculation, followed by the four-hour Scholastic

Aptitude Test (SAT). As Sean described, he adjusted well to

university: “Like a duck to water! It was just right. … There

*U refers to Units of Study.

A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2 231

Acceleration in Australia : Young, Rogers, Hoekman, van Vliet, & Long

wasn’t really a period of adjustment.” Being a quick, self-di-

rected learner was an asset. Sean loved the work and inter-

actions with other students. He enjoyed the environment

- “independent people” with “amazing ideas”; some of his lec-

turers were “inspirational.”

In his ﬁrst year, support was minimal and private and that

was the way he liked it. One of the admission panel mem-

bers chose to keep in contact, and was very helpful in sort-

ing out subjects and courses. Lecturers were aware of his age,

but he did not feel he was treated any dierently from other

students. He acknowledged that there was a lot of support

available, if needed. Dating, drinking, drugs, driving, and ex-

tra-curricular activities were not signiﬁcant issues. He made

great friends at university and attributed his successful social

adjustment, in some measure, to his experience of playing in a

community band with people of all ages. The outside interest

that began in high school enhanced his social skills to mix,

work, and cooperate with people of all ages.

Sean was pleased with his accelerated pathway. He has been

really happy ever since he started university. He believed that

an element of luck was involved: his supportive parents, his

education in Australia, and his fortuitous career situation all

helped to yield a good experience. Personal factors contribut-

ing to his happiness included being a quick and self-directed

learner. His advice to students considering early admission

was that the advantages outweighed the disadvantages. His

advice to universities is to allow more early admissions, and

perhaps to “lower the bar” for entry. He completed a degree

in Computer Engineering and a Masters in Biomedical Engi-

neering and PhD in the near future.

Peter coped with “the usual undergraduate issues” thanks

to his love of math. Peter was accelerated by three years in

mathematics, in elementary school, in spite of his school’s

resistance to acceleration. He continued to take accelerated

math in high school while taking all other subjects with his

same-age peers. In eighth grade, he also took 11th grade class-

es. In ninth grade he was studying two HSC subjects: 4 Unit

Mathematics and 2 Unit Physics, as well as his other ninth

grade subjects.

During high school, Peter spent most of his time with his

same-age peers. When he participated in the accelerated

classes, his older classmates welcomed him. At university, he

became friends with those older classmates and they made

him feel like one of them. He had no regrets about leaving

high school early to attend university as he saw that it was

the only possible route available to him in order to continue

with his accelerated subjects. “I don’t think at the time I had

any real concerns, [sic] University seemed exciting and High

School isn’t the most forgiving place.”

At university, he experienced some of the usual undergraduate

diculties in adjusting. His parents were constantly support-

ive and he continued to live at home. He enjoyed university,

especially mathematics. This led, ultimately, to his doctor-

al studies on Number Theory. At university his intellectual

peers were his “big brothers”; they always included him and

made him feel welcome. However, he didn’t ﬁt in with peo-

ple his own age at that time, and he characterized his social

life as “mixed.” If given the opportunity, though, Peter would

make the same decisions again about acceleration and early

admission. In addition to recognizing his supportive parents,

Peter found the encouragement given by the computer sci-

ence lecturer to be very important: “[His support] was invalu-

able, everything from his friendship down to the programs

we worked on, he made the ﬁrst couple of years amazing.”

Daniel relied on iends and family for support with dual

enrollment. When 12-year-old Daniel started university to

study mathematics, he wore his school uniform. He had been

radically accelerated by multiple grade skips as well as subject

acceleration. He was able to attend two schools where there

were not demarcated grade levels; instead, students were

classiﬁed on ability, rather than age. He experienced acceler-

ation in mathematics and science. He was in a formal school

setting as well as homeschooled at various times.

By 10th grade, Daniel began dual enrollment at his local uni-

versity; he entered university as a full time undergraduate at

the age of 15. Initially the university accepted Daniel on a

case-by-case basis; his HSC results for 3 Unit Mathematics

(the most dicult level oered in high school) was accepted

as proof of his ability, and allowed him to enroll in university

mathematics subjects, even though he had not completed the

HSC in any other subjects.

Daniel’s parents and his schools worked together to create

an accelerative program for Daniel. When he was ready to

attend high school, Daniel’s father had to become very pro-

active in his advocacy by writing letters to the government

and lobbying to get public policy changed to allow students

younger than 12 years to attend high school. Daniel was sup-

ported by the New South Wales Gifted and Talented Associ-

ation. Ultimately, after demanding evidence through general

ability and IQ tests, a private school agreed to allow Daniel

to enroll, and provided a bursary (scholarship) for him. The

school recognized his giftedness and supported and super-

vised his progress.

At some points during his school years, Daniel was home-

schooled for some subjects. This highlighted the fact that

he was academically advanced compared to other students.

Daniel recalled enjoying hanging around with older students,

232 A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2

Acceleration in Australia : Young, Rogers, Hoekman, van Vliet, & Long

since they treated him like an equal and they were willing to

spend time with him. Daniel’s athletic ability became an as-

set; he played handball with the older students at lunchtime

and played ball, backyard cricket, and used the trampoline

with neighborhood children who were his age. Although

there was recognition of “something dierent” about Daniel,

it did not matter.

By 11th grade, Daniel became academically bored: he was dis-

ruptive, made jokes, read the paper, and did crosswords, but

he gained a sense of belonging. Once at university he adjusted

well to the academic challenges. Later, he found the freedom

to play computer games and to miss lectures. His academic

ability enabled him to ﬁt in. Dating, drinking, and driving

were not issues for him. He lived with his parents, who were

a constant support. Daniel relied on his outside group for so-

cial contact and support. Although learning came easily, he

did not always maximize his achievements, nor was he mo-

tivated to do his best. He did not look for support on these

issues from the university. Although he had some humiliating

failures, he ﬁnished a Bachelor of Mathematics and a Bache-

lor of Computer Science (Honors) by the age of 19. He later

related that he undertook his doctoral study through a sense

of inevitability, rather than motivated by passion.

If given the option again, Daniel would make the same de-

cision about acceleration “because there is no alternative.”

Through the acceleration he averted boredom; otherwise

there would have been problems. He felt motivated by his

enjoyment of math, and his parents cleared the path of ob-

stacles, supported him, and provided a stable home life. His

advice to students considering acceleration – or early admis-

sion – is that it is not a matter of choice, but rather a matter of

being prepared to adapt, to deal with changing environments.

Being gifted is about opportunity, motivation, discipline, per-

severance and determination. For Daniel the advantages of

early admission were clear: “Why would I choose to be con-

sistently bored, for years of my life so that I ﬁnish at the same

time as other people? Would it not be better for me not only

to enjoy school, but to have extra time?”

Suzanne just wanted to be respected and treated like an

adult. In elementary school, Suzanne was accelerated from

ﬁrst grade to third grade; she also experienced radical subject

acceleration. Her parents did not have to initiate the accel-

eration, but when they found she was bored and unhappy,

they did ask for change, by requesting extra work as well as

subject acceleration. During high school, she continued with

various subject accelerations in English, History, French, and

Geography. By the age of 16 she began university, having com-

pleted 19 units of her HSC when most of her same-age peers

had completed only 12 units. She also completed an external

Distinction Course in Cosmology, a university based course

for high school students.

Suzanne had bitter memories of her school days, as she

clashed with some sta and school executives. She was phys-

ically and verbally bullied by peers, but well supported by

some teachers in both elementary and high school. Eventual-

ly, she found good friends when she surrendered her unrealis-

tic dreams of joining the “cool” group. She had a happy social

life, with friends outside of school. At university, Suzanne

chose to study subjects about which she was passionate, rath-

er than choosing the humanities in which she excelled. She

took two semesters to adjust academically to physics, her

weakest subject, and two semesters to overcome anxiety is-

sues about math exams. She had always been a highly moti-

vated student who enjoyed working independently. Although

young, she had a normal undergraduate entry and embraced

university studies with joyful enthusiasm, enjoying the free-

dom from school authority:

… I love uni, absolutely. I love my classes; I love the culture

of university. People treat you with respect, they treat you as

an adult…At university, no-one cares! That’s the thing. If you

don’t turn up, you may fail and that’s your problem and I’m

not going to yell at you because it’s your life. So that’s fantastic.

Suzanne participated in university activities. Her high admis-

sion score enabled her to join the Talented Students’ Program

(TSP); her TSP mentor was encouraging and supportive. She

had a wide, informal support system of friends. She did not

use any of the formal counseling structures available at uni-

versity. Her age was not an issue socially, and none of the lec-

turers made an issue of it.

Suzanne regarded her experience of early admission as “an

overwhelmingly positive experience.” She attributed her suc-

cess to her own hard work, help from faculty and sta, and

support from friends, both her undergraduate peers and her

older friends, including former teachers. She appreciated the

role her mentor played in assisting and guiding her during her

ﬁrst undergraduate year. Involvement in the extra-curricular

activities was a means of interacting with older students. For

Suzanne, the most important outcome of her acceleration

was “getting to uni and over the psychological scars of a twist-

ed and evil school system.”

Felicity’s family, good iends, and extra-curricular activi-

ties assisted her positive adjustment to university. Felicity,

at 16 years old, began a four year Bachelor of Advanced Sci-

ence, including an honors year. Her enrollment was routine

for an undergraduate, although she was younger than usual.

A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2 233

Acceleration in Australia : Young, Rogers, Hoekman, van Vliet, & Long

In elementary school, Felicity had been accelerated in some

subjects such as Science, English and Mathematics but ﬁnally

she skipped fourth and sixth grades, resulting in a radical (i.e.,

two-year) acceleration. Her school was very cooperative and

willingly presented her with opportunities, such as attending

an external accelerative cluster group for mathematics; her

parents did not initiate the acceleration but supported her.

After skipping two grades, she followed a conventional path-

way through high school.

Felicity recalls that she never felt socially comfortable in

elementary school; instead, she enjoyed the company of

like-minded friends during extension classes. Felicity report-

ed that she was verbally bullied and isolated when unwilling

to join in class pranks. She disapproved of constant chatter in

class. She remembers running back home, at times, to escape.

Felicity completed her HSC and proceeded to university with

a routine admission, at 16 years of age. Felicity adjusted to uni-

versity studies and coped well with academic challenges: “It’s

fairly dierent from (high) school. It’s good: you get more time

to learn things, over a whole semester.” At high school she had

always relied on her independence and anonymity, for she dis-

liked seeking help. In university, she felt comfortable mixing

with adults or talking to lecturers and sta. Felicity enjoyed

the freedom of university. For academic support, Felicity re-

lied on her university friends and did not seek the formal uni-

versity support systems. She did not feel conspicuous about

her ability at university, for she did not always tell her friends

her results; she performed well in university (she achieved a

distinction average over the year). Socially, she managed to

conceal her age until she turned 17 years. She was a lot happier

at university than she was at high school. Family, good friends,

and extra-curricular activities assisted her positive adjust-

ment to university. Felicity also had a strong interest in sailing,

where she learned to balance work and other commitments;

membership was not based on age, so she had opportunities

to make good, older friends. She considered that the decision

to accelerate was worthwhile, for it averted boredom and got

her out of school sooner. Her early admission to university

came while she was still excited about academic work. Her

ﬁnal words of wisdom to gifted students: “Try and ﬁnd other

gifted students: That’s the best way to have friends.”

Lucinda’s change om “being a total loser at school to being

socially valued at uni…was a wonderful turnaround.” Lu-

cinda’s self-described prima donna behavior in kindergarten

was very disruptive. She was bored in class, and her reading

was very advanced. Her kindergarten teacher had suggested

that she be accelerated but the advice was not heeded by the

school and her parents thought it might have been too big

a social jump at the time. Lucinda was accelerated by one

year when she skipped ﬁfth grade, and her behavior in class

and at home improved. After sixth grade, Lucinda proceed-

ed through high school in the usual way, completed her HSC

and enrolled at university at 17 years old for a double degree: a

Bachelor of Arts/Law, with honors in English.

Prior to enrolling in the university, Lucinda did not ﬁnd her

social niche at school; she found companionship, but not with

her intellectual peers: “... I ended up attaching myself to the...

social misﬁts.” Her school life was lonely: “I felt totally, total-

ly isolated and obviously school...was my only…social sphere

and one which I didn’t ﬁt into.” Lucinda’s parents had always

been supportive; she did not consider them to be pushy or

ambitious; although she reports that it was mainly ambition

and academic determination that moved her forward.

Lucinda found university a “major jump” in terms of academ-

ic expectations, but she thoroughly enjoyed that challenge. It

was dispiriting when her marks went from 98% at school to

68% at university; however, she attributes this in large part to

the impact of anorexia and depression, which started in high

school. Gradually, both her health and her marks improved.

In her honors year she received high distinctions in all her

work. Her love of learning motivated her: “I ﬁnally felt that

I was on the road to doing something that actually meant

something…whereas at school it seemed like a bit of a game,

like being sort of stuck in a fairly boring, mindless limbo. And

so at uni I had that determination from the very start, and the

love of it, from the very start.”

Being legally underage meant she was excluded from many

social events. However, she enjoyed the intellectual stimula-

tion of fellow students who were like-minded and fun. Uni-

versity was a very positive experience: “I went from being a

total loser at school to being socially valued at uni. It was a

wonderful turnaround.” Living at home with her very sup-

portive family was also a positive factor in her adjustment to

university. Throughout her continuing battle with anorexia,

the university provided excellent support for her illness, but

there was no support system for helping her to adjust socially

and academically. She chose not to join any clubs or societies

until her third year. She acknowledged that she might have

found support if she had alerted sta that she had trouble

“settling in,” but she persisted independently.

Lucinda indicated that she would make the same decision

again about acceleration, because it made her battle through

social and mental issues and, as a consequence, made her

stronger. Her illness exacerbated the diculty with adjust-

ment to early admission to university; however, she recog-

nized that it is impossible to separate cause and eect. Most

important for Lucinda was the intellectual satisfaction: “I ﬁ-

nally felt challenged, and that was worth everything.”

234 A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2

Acceleration in Australia : Young, Rogers, Hoekman, van Vliet, & Long

Her ﬁnal words of wisdom to gifted students were cautionary

about social and emotional issues: “Don’t beat yourself up,

too much. Take a running leap – but be aware that not every-

thing is always easy. Don’t forget yourself. Take every oppor-

tunity thrown at you, and seek out more. Don’t be ashamed

of yourself – years pass, people fall away, you will grow. It just

takes patience.”

Gena’s university experience was a “ time to grow up, to have

fun, to develop socially, to develop emotionally, to go out and

do things.’’ Gena was a profoundly gifted student who was

accelerated by two years in elementary school with radical

subject acceleration in high school. She was also accelerated

in university physics. Gena entered high school when she was

10.5 years old, and she was very advanced in math, chemistry

and physics. She was also gifted in music and foreign languag-

es. She entered the university at 16 years as a regular under-

graduate, having completed 16 units of her HSC, seventh

grade violin, and an external university-based course. She also

represented Australia in the Physics Olympiad. Gena took a

double degree: a Bachelor of Medical Science and a Bachelor

of Medicine.

Gena’s elementary school initiated the grade skip and her

parents agreed to it. Her parents supported her acceleration

and sometimes contacted the high school to suggest changes

in pace and sequence of subjects, based on Gena’s academic

needs. Gena reported that she never found her social niche

until she reached university. She found elementary school

dicult; she refused to go to school, had tantrums and was

“...generally not getting through.” Her family guided and sup-

ported her and supervised her challenges.

Gena settled into university in the ﬁrst week. She enjoyed the

lectures because they presented her with new information.

She thought university was not challenging; she said, “I mean

it was time consuming, but it wasn’t…dicult.” She found

a group of friends who had reasonably similar interests and

were academically focused. Gena did not feel conspicuous

because of her age, and she did not feel socially awkward. She

enjoyed the culture of freedom at university. However, she

experienced some mental health issues, and did not develop

essential skills to manage her own life:

“I think [there] is a diculty...for gied young adults who

ﬁnd themselves in the eedom of university. We do not need to

study. You can cruise through university and pass everything

with high distinctions, and not do much. And that doesn’t pre-

pare you for challenges.”

For Gena, acceleration bought her time to get on with her

life and choice in her career. She had no regrets about leaving

high school as she had completed the various stages, and even

though she had health issues at university, she did not regret

the experience. It enabled her to meet like minds: “...universi-

ty is an area of opportunity... opportunities to develop in a lot

of other areas…music and sport, for example... It is also a time

to grow up, to have fun, to develop socially, to develop emo-

tionally, to go out and do things.’’ Given the opportunity, she

would make the same decisions again about her acceleration

and early admission to university, because:

“university is a bit more of an accepting environment than

high school is, for a gied person… obviously I was very lucky

in terms of …the way mine was managed, and I had a lot of

opportunities. I think I would want more support – psycho-

logical support – at the school level. Not necessarily by the

school, but at that time.”

Steve’s dual enrollment helped him avoid boredom, pro-

vided excellent academic preparation for university, and

facilitated making supportive iends. Steve was ﬁrst accel-

erated from kindergarten to second grade. In elementary

school, Steve was placed in a gifted and talented class, and

then placed in a selective class for bright students for ﬁfth

and sixth grade. He then progressed to a selective high school

where he had a series of subject accelerations with a cohort

of peers. With his class, he completed 11th grade chemistry

while in 10th grade; and the following year (11th grade) com-

pleted HSC chemistry. At the end of 11th grade, he partici-

pated in the Chemistry Olympiad Summer School but was

not included in the ﬁnal team. In 12th grade, Steve was able to

undertake a Distinction Course (inter-disciplinary university

level course) in Cosmology that he thoroughly enjoyed. He

enrolled at the university in a Bachelor of Computer Science

program at the age of 17 and reported that he was treated like

any other undergraduate, which was his preference.

While he was growing up, Steve felt “out of place.” When he

was accelerated he had no special friends in his grade; when

he changed schools, he was able to start afresh in making

friends who were a year or two older. Yet without accelera-

tion, he “would have been more bored.” He found there was

little choice about subject acceleration: “...it was a good thing

to get into the accelerated class…. because that means you’re

smart…so you were selected ... so, you couldn’t say no.” He

enjoyed it, because he was with friends; “[It] is a lot easier to

do the course if you have all your friends there with you and

you can study together.”

Steve responded to university study with ease; however, he

persisted in making wrong choices by taking courses that

were not really challenging for him or that did not interest

him. Steve found that dual enrollment was excellent academ-

A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2 235

Acceleration in Australia : Young, Rogers, Hoekman, van Vliet, & Long

ic preparation for university: he learned to do research, write

essays, and compile bibliographies. What Steve enjoyed most

about university were the student societies, as they were

fun and useful for getting to know fellow students. Having

friends was the best support. Also, he reported that dating

was not a problem and he continued living at home.

Sophie’s greatest achievement was overcoming her personal

problems, which ultimately made her happier and more con-

ﬁdent. Sophie was accelerated by two years: she skipped from

ﬁfth grade to seventh in elementary school, and completed

ninth and tenth grades during the same year in high school.

Sophie’s parents initiated both of the accelerations and each

involved changing schools. The ﬁrst move was from an ele-

mentary school to an all girls’ high school, and the second was

from the country high school to a city private girls’ school.

The receiving schools were happy to accommodate Sophie,

especially the private school, which willingly accelerated her

to 10th grade.

In elementary school, Sophie was bored and unhappy; she did

not get along well with her age-peers. She had friends outside

school from her gifted and talented courses and the neigh-

borhood. She was much happier at her high school as she had

more friends and found the high school acceleration chal-

lenging and interesting, as she had to “catch up.” However,

the mid-year move from grade nine to grade ten was socially

disruptive, as she was new to the school and self-conscious

about being accelerated:

“… I always felt like basically people treated me like a bit of

a eak...I really started, in a way, to act out. Like I made

iends but a lot of that was based on like going out heaps, just

started to drink a lot, like the girls at school who took drugs,

you know, really trying, I think, to prove that I was one of

them and just normal.”

Sophie did have friends then, but she did not work hard in

11th grade. In 12th grade, after the school called her parents

in for a meeting, she settled down and achieved an excel-

lent HSC. She discovered punk music while she was in high

school and that interest was sustained for the ﬁrst few years

of university; the friend with whom she shared that interest

has remained a good friend. However, friendship in general

seemed to elude her. When Sophie moved to the city to at-

tend school there, her family continued living in the coun-

try and she boarded with her older step-sister. It was during

these later years of high school that Sophie “acted out” by ex-

perimenting with alcohol and drugs, and attending punk gigs.

For Sophie the next automatic step was university. She enrolled

in a Bachelor of Medicine program as a regular undergraduate

at 16 years old; however, by the end of the ﬁrst year she trans-

ferred to a dierent university with an emphasis on an Arts

degree. Adjusting to university was not overwhelming because

she had lived away from her rural home for three years when

she attended a city school and had learned independence.

Freedom at university was a challenge: “…it’s mainly those nor-

mal things like not getting too carried away when, you know,

you realize that you can just not go to class. No one cares. But

you do have to control your own life very much more.”

Sophie’s parents were the catalysts for her acceleration; yet,

in Sophie’s opinion, her parents were not supportive and she

indicated that her mother became irate when Sophie’s HSC

marks were not suciently excellent to merit mention in the

newspapers. “My parents at that time were more pushy than

supportive. I deﬁnitely did feel, by that stage, like we didn’t

have a very good relationship around that time, end of school

and beginning of uni. And I did actually feel very pushed by

them.” Sophie reports that her parents approved of her doing

Medicine but were very upset when she changed to Arts be-

cause they were disappointed that they “had wasted all this

time and money and eort” for her to do an Arts degree.

Sophie was able to cope with university studies, but was dis-

abled by her anxiety disorder. Her academic record was a

mixture of High Distinctions, Withdrawals, or Absent Fails.

Although Sophie took a long time to complete her ﬁrst de-

gree, she did not associate her diculties in adjusting to uni-

versity with her acceleration or her age.

“I think it was a combination of things. It was more to do

with stu om my family, than that [personal] stu … – and

thinking back now, I had problems I had to deal with and I

don’t think…I actually don’t think they were exacerbated by

going to uni. I don’t think I would have been happier or better

adjusted by still being at school an extra two years.”

Overcoming her personal problems was Sophie’s great

achievement and made her happier and more conﬁdent. She

felt she had also been successful in achieving her academic

goals, despite taking many years to move forward. She list-

ed her success factors: “Academic success, academic support

along the way, from academics, I’ve had good friends – friend-

ships have been a big thing for me, in my life.” Sophie used

the counseling services at university to help her sort out her

personal problems, and her lecturers were also very support-

ive. She went to great pains to dissociate her personal issues

from her acceleration. What she wanted was “… basically, for

no-one to know that I was accelerated. And to go through

and just be normal.”

236 A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2

Acceleration in Australia : Young, Rogers, Hoekman, van Vliet, & Long

She did not feel conspicuous because of her age; she used a

fake ID and socialized with her undergraduate peers. She felt

that drinking and drugs did not have a great impact on her

at university as she had experimented with them during high

school. She did not feel that she stood out because of her abil-

ity, as there was a wide mix of abilities in the Arts students,

but she was aware that lecturers noted her ability, her keen in-

terest, and her good marks. She has since completed a Ph.D.

Sophie expressed that she was pleased to have accelerated

and reports that she does not have any regrets about her ac-

celeration. Given a second chance, Sophie would make the

same decision about acceleration:

“… I did want to get out of school and I did want to get to uni

and I really wanted to start my life. I felt like things were

just on hold and I don’t think it would have been very good

for me to stay at school any longer. Deﬁnitely…I don’t have

any regrets about it.”

Tim found academic support om older students through his

campus community. Tim was accelerated from a ﬁfth grade

gifted and talented extension program into seventh grade

at a full time high school for gifted students. He completed

high school in the usual sequence. He entered university at 17

years of age, after completing his HSC. He completed a dou-

ble degree: Bachelor of Engineering (Software Engineering

with Honors) and Bachelor of Science (Pure Mathematics).

In elementary school, Tim was generally unhappy and discon-

nected from his same-age peers and his behavior was poor.

He was quite bored and lacked a sense of direction: “I was

bouncing around in elementary school without really know-

ing what I was doing.” His high school academic experience

was disappointing:

“I imagined that moving to high school would be like going to

university really … that there’d be kind of …more eedom and

open-ended…sta with more a focus on actually doing some-

thing... rather than kind of sit in classrooms and be instructed,

be told.” He continued: “I know that I didn’t really ﬁt in

socially at high school until the later years.”

Tim felt that his parents were supportive of his acceleration;

his mother was relatively keen on the move but his father was

more ambivalent. Although Tim expected that high school

would be more of a challenge, making the decision to acceler-

ate into high school was not dicult.

From an academic perspective, Tim coped well with univer-

sity. His biggest struggle was with time management. He

enjoyed the more ﬂexible social environment of university,

as well as his actual studies. Tim found academic support,

without seeking additional help. He found informal support

from the older students in university social clubs and coped

with social situations involving alcohol when he was under-

age. Living at home was a positive factor in adjusting to uni-

versity life. “I think that a healthy campus community which

allows people to meet others, particularly those outside their

[grade] group, is important.” If given the opportunity again,

Tim would make the same decision about acceleration, to

skip one whole year. He attributes his success at school and

university to good teachers, lecturers who made it interesting

and enjoyable, and to good friends who helped him succeed

with the challenges.

Nanette’s personal motivation to succeed contributed to her

success. Nanette was accelerated by two years in elementary

school when administrators collapsed ﬁrst and second grade

into one year. A couple of years later, she skipped fourth

grade. She was transferred to a full-time Opportunity Class

(OC) for gifted students in sixth grade. She attended a selec-

tive high school, and proceeded to university at the age of

16-years where she enrolled in her double degree: Bachelor

of Science and Arts.

Nanette did not ﬁnd her accelerations disruptive to her

friendships, as the elementary school had multi-grade

classes. In high school, the age dierence was not an issue

for her. Nanette’s family was her chief source of support,

and pressure:

“I always had some amount of pressure om my parents to

perform well. As well as that, since I was at a selective school,

there was the usual pressure of being in a cohort of high-per-

forming peers, which forced me to try to perform my best.”

Nanette found that university was as she expected and she

had no issues in adapting to the academic challenges. She

stated that her experiences were no dierent than any other

undergraduate adjusting to the change. Socially, there were

minor setbacks because she was only 16 years old. However,

she had long ago adjusted to being with a cohort of older stu-

dents at school, so it was not dicult. Nanette enjoyed the

freedom of university: “And there was a lot of ﬂexibility you

know, what I could do and when I could do it and so on and so

forth... I had some time to do extracurricular activities, get a

job and that sort of thing.” She was treated as a normal under-

graduate and that was the way she liked it. Living at home was

a positive factor in Nanette’s life; she accepted that cultural

expectation. She was very positive about her experience. She

viewed herself as having had a “distorted time line” and that,

having arrived at the end of her degree, she had achieved her

goal, rather than having saved time. According to Nanette,

personal motivation to succeed contributed to her success.

A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2 237

Acceleration in Australia : Young, Rogers, Hoekman, van Vliet, & Long

Adrian found his social niche aer moving into college,

where he had iends and felt normal. Adrian was radical-

ly accelerated by three years in elementary school. He ex-

perienced early-entry to Kindergarten when he was four

years old; then skipped ﬁrst and third grades. He proceeded

through the rest of his precollege studies and enrolled at the

local university at 15 years old. His university admission, in

spite of the fact that he was 15 years old, was routine. He en-

rolled in a Bachelor of Advanced Mathematics with Honors,

majoring in Applied Statistics.

His parents had to push hard for the elementary school acceler-

ation and found the school to be uncooperative. Adrian’s family

was a constant source of support; his older brother was particu-

larly encouraging. Socially, Adrian found school dicult:

“I had regrets about the acceleration in high school as I felt

excluded om social activities. I was a recluse and an out-

cast, socially. It was not until I was 17 -18 that things turned

around. Academically, om [seventh to twelh grade], I felt

I was marking time, waiting for the piece of paper at the end

to show I had completed the course. It was not enjoyable…”

He had learned to be emotionally and mentally tough: “... I

knew the only way to escape high school …was to do well at

school, so no matter what, I had to work hard.”

Once he was at university, Adrian found mathematics dif-

ﬁcult. After changing to statistics, he performed well ac-

ademically. Socially, he did not enjoy his ﬁrst three years of

university: “I was used to coping... I just had to be incredibly

resilient and plough through the hard times waiting until I

was old enough to properly socially interact with my fellow

students.” Age restrictions were problematic: “Because I was

young, I was singled out. I could not go to a bar. I tried a fake

ID. I couldn’t drive so I had to use the train. I was not invit-

ed out.” He found dating a problem as well: “I felt incredibly

alone, as I couldn’t go out with any of the girls at uni...it was

hard to socialize with friends and girlfriends.”

Adrian appreciated the lecturers treating him like everyone

else. He did not seek any assistance and his family was sup-

portive. Adrian suered from depression in his ﬁrst year at

university. He worked hard, academically, in order to achieve

his all-encompassing dream: “I also want to go to Harvard to

have a real ‘university experience,’ i.e. living on campus and

getting involved in sports and campus activities.” Adrian

began to enjoy university life when he moved onto campus

and found his social niche, where he had friends and felt nor-

mal. His dreams came true when he was awarded an overseas

scholarship to undertake postgraduate studies at Harvard.

After university, he wants to include enjoyment, excitement,

and adventure in his future plans, perhaps initially as a ﬁre

ﬁghter, or in the defense force, but ultimately as a diplomat

or as a medical doctor.

Given the opportunity, Adrian would make the same deci-

sions again about acceleration and entering college early. He

learned to be emotionally and mentally tough, and he saw

long term beneﬁts: “I will get an incredibly good qualiﬁca-

tion from Harvard, while being the proper age to enjoy all

uni things at Harvard, and I’ll get out into the workforce at

a good age (25).”

Implications

In aggregating the descriptions of university adjustments to

the radical acceleration, ﬁve themes emerged.

Theme One: Early entrance to university as a method of

escaping social ostracism and lack of academic challenge.

Some students reported boredom in high school, which was

relieved to some extent by acceleration. Lack of like-mind-

ed friends made it dicult to ﬁnd a social niche during their

earlier school life. Their needs were satisfactorily addressed

through acceleration and early entry to university. The hon-

ors students in the study by Hébert and McBee (2007) expe-

rienced a similar sense of isolation at school. Asynchronous

development (Silverman, 1993) may have accounted for much

of the early negative school experience reported in this study.

By the time the ﬂexible pacing had ﬁnally allowed the partici-

pants to reach university and ﬁnd like minds, this asynchrony

seems to no longer have been as signiﬁcant.

Theme Two: The students were self-directed and mo-

tivated learners. It could be that self-motivation made for

an easier adjustment to the more rigorous curriculum they

encountered at university. Earlier accelerations while in the

K-12 system brought them temporary relief, but at universi-

ty, they recognized that access to learning was “in their own

hands.” In the university environment the participants were

highly motivated; perhaps for the ﬁrst time, there was the op-

timal match (Csikszentmihalyi, Rathunde, & Whalen, 1993;

Hoekman, McCormick, & Gross, 1999) between their skills

and the academic challenges they faced. Robinson, Reis, Nei-

hart, and Moon (2002) emphasized that social and emotion-

al diculties are often dissipated when the educational ﬁt

of academic level and pace is appropriate. For the students

in this study, this self-direction followed most of them after

university graduation, with advanced studies in postgraduate

institutions in Australia and overseas.

238 A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2

Acceleration in Australia : Young, Rogers, Hoekman, van Vliet, & Long

Theme Three: The students enjoyed the stimulation and

friendships provided by university. Participants expressed

delight in academic stimulation and challenge, in ﬁnding in-

tellectual peers, and in the freedom of university where fewer

restrictions allowed for greater independence. They enjoyed

the “anonymity” of their age, and being treated respectfully

like any other undergraduate.

As Gross (1994) pointed out, highly gifted children are often

lonely because they mix with same-age peers who do not have

the same interests or values. Sayler (2008) argued that talent

development is necessary for thriving, but in addition “the

gifted individual must develop good friendships in order to

thrive” (p. 3). Friendship oered vital support and seemed to

complement academic stimulation. A study from the Unit-

ed States (Hébert & McBee, 2007) showed that 12 universi-

ty honors students found intellectual stimulation, academic

challenge, an intellectual and social network of like-minded

peers, and an eective mentor. That was echoed by Rinn

(2008) who found that students enrolled in honors programs,

and in early entrance programs, were likely to have positive

academic, social, and emotional development. Therefore,

friendship may be a crucial factor in positive social and emo-

tional adjustment as well as academic success at university.

Theme Four: Social life improved at university. Early

acceleration to university provided the participants with a

more satisfying social life in most cases. Like-minded friends,

perhaps true peers, were acquired mainly through classes,

clubs, societies, and some through activities outside univer-

sity studies. Participants were very positive about having es-

tablished friendships, and it seemed crucial to their process

of adjusting to the university scene. Building friendships was

key, for it was friends who often helped them navigate the

various academic, personal, and social challenges. For most

of the participants building friendships was not a serious

obstacle, as it is common to any undergraduate experience.

However, some participants faced serious problems such as

physical and mental illness, dicult relationships, and social

discomfort. None of these obstacles were necessarily related

to their accelerated program, but these problems sometimes

took years to overcome, perhaps mitigating further success.

The social restrictions for minors (e.g. dating, driving, alco-

hol related activities) existed for these students, but they only

mildly aected them and these restrictions lapsed by the age

of 18 years. Age related concerns such as dating, drinking, and

driving have been raised in the U.S. literature relating to early

university entry (Sethna et al., 2001). The participants in No-

ble et al.’s (1998) study accepted that there were diculties in

being young but that they learned responsibility concerning

social interaction with the older students. Predictors of suc-

cess for early entrants have been developed in the U.S. (Mu-

ratori, 2007; Olszewski-Kubilius, 1999; Sayler, 1994), as have

guidelines to reduce the risk of placing a student inappropri-

ately (Robinson & Harsin, 2002; Rogers, 2002; Trost, 2000).

Such guidelines could be developed for Australian students to

ensure the degree of success that the 12 participants in this

study experienced. The early admission scheme at the Uni-

versity of New South Wales provided an excellent example

for Australian universities: early admission concept, criteria

for entry, application form, and interview process.

Theme Five: A support system was critical for successful

negotiation of university life. Four students lived at home

for most of their university years and had minimal needs for

outside psychological support. Even with living at home they

participated in social activities at the university. One of the

students living at home had psychological issues, which were

lessened once he moved onto campus. Of the seven students

who lived on the campus, two had less than totally positive

experiences, but they did not take advantage of the available

university supports. One who did use these supports report-

ed having a very positive university experience. The others

who found their own solutions felt as if they belonged by do-

ing so. This sense of belonging may be related to ownership

relative to resolving personal issues, including self-discipline,

academic success, or engagement in academic and social

activities. Similar to the ﬁndings of the present study, Robin-

son et al. (2002) found that family played an inﬂuential role

in supporting early college entrants. However, university sup-

port systems for early entrants in Australia contrast markedly

to those established in the United States, where many uni-

versities provide formal academic, social, and psychological

support programs. According to Gross (2006; Gross & van

Vliet, 2005), there was only one Australian university that

had a formal scheme in place for early entry and this scheme

was discontinued in 2015. By contrast, there are at least 23

formal early admission programs in the United States (Mu-

ratori, 2007; Brody & Muratori, this volume). Noble et al.

(2007) found that early-entry graduates from the University

of Washington appreciated the formal support structures

in place. While Australian early entrants acknowledged the

importance of informal support from faculty, friends and

family, one student in the current study suggested that more

formal support from an academic mentor could be provided.

Evidence from research from the United States (Maine &

Maddox, 2007; Rinn, 2005; Robinson & Harsin, 2002; Rog-

ers, 2002; Sayler, 1994) suggests that both informal and for-

mal support may be needed to help with academic, social, or

psychological issues.

A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2 239

Acceleration in Australia : Young, Rogers, Hoekman, van Vliet, & Long

In summary, the university experience was, overall, a positive

one, although sometimes that initial adjustment to the uni-

versity environment posed a hurdle. This was consistent with

the ﬁndings of Neihart (2007), who noted that not all of the

research from the United States had reported positive adjust-

ments of early entrants to university, but the negative eects

were often ameliorated by appropriate personal coping mech-

anisms or external interventions. Four Australian participants

experienced psychological issues; all ultimately coped with

these personal hurdles, a fact that perhaps reinforces the pow-

er of the appropriately stimulating university scene.

Conclusions

The 12 accelerated students found the university setting to

be a stimulating, positive experience. They were pleased to

leave behind the limitations and restrictions of school, to

be motivated by the challenging experiences of university,

to experience academic success, and to ﬁnd friendship with

intellectual peers through extra-curricular activities. They

were supported by family, friends, and sta. They particularly

enjoyed being treated as typical undergraduates. Hurdles re-

ported appeared to be short-lived.

The common issues identiﬁed in this small study mostly con-

form to previous ﬁndings from the United States. The pos-

sible social-emotional problems that co-occurred or arose

from acceleration and early admission to university have

been refuted by many of these studies (Olszewski-Kubilius,

1998; Robinson at al., 2002). The evidence from the Austra-

lian students interviewed supported the widespread idea

of ﬂourishing in the stimulating environment of university.

When challenge and skills are matched, and engagement is

shared with like-minded students/friends, students are usual-

ly motivated to succeed.

While it is dicult to generalize as their pathways were quite

individualized, the trends identiﬁed suggest that all of the

students were pleased to have been accelerated, and they

succeeded with the challenges of university study. Finding

friends among like-minded peers, and participating in ex-

tra-curricular activities were signiﬁcant factors in adjusting

and responding positively to the stimulation of university.

The accelerated students in this sample certainly reported

dierent intrapersonal and coping skills, nevertheless, they

all appear to have thrived on opportunities that allowed them

to engage in more self-directed learning. Parents, sta, and

friends provided support, and while the challenges diered,

most of the Australian accelerated students in this sample

preferred less formal support structures that allowed them to

blend in with university life.

The results of this study correlate with research ﬁndings

from the United States, which suggest that accelerated stu-

dents enjoy the opportunity to enter university early and gen-

erally they adjust and cope well. The results indicate that the

provision of ﬂexible pacing opportunities that enhance the

academic and social engagement of gifted students, and alle-

viate frustration at school, can lead to positive outcomes in

relation to social connections, self-direction, and academic

challenges of university life.

References

Australian Government. (2013). Australian Curriculum Assessment and

Reporting Authority.

Bailey, S. (1995). “Doing acceleration”: Fast but not loose. Ta l e n t E d , 13(3),

14-19.

Bailey, S. (1997). Acceleration as an option for talented students. In B. A.

Knight & S. Bailey (Eds.), Parents As lifelong teachers of the gifted (pp.

43 - 50). Melbourne: Hawker Brownlow.

Bazeley, P. (2007). Qualitative data analysis with NVivo. ousand Oaks,

CA: Sage Publications. Inc.

Benbow, C. P., & Arjmand, O. (1990). Predictors of high academic achieve-

ment in mathematics and science by mathematically talented students:

A longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(3), 430-441.

Bleske-Rechek, A., Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (2004). Meeting the

educational needs of special populations. Psychological Science, 15(4),

217-224.

Board of Studies NSW. (2000). Guidelines for accelerated progression

(pp. 1-51): Board of Studies.

Brody, L. E., Assouline, S. G., & Stanley, J. (1990). Five years of early en-

trants: Predicting successful achievement in college. Gifted Child Quar-

terly, 34(4), 138-142.

Brody, L. E., & Stanley, J. C. (1991). Young college students: Assessing fac-

tors that contribute to success. In W. T. Southern & E. D. Jones (Eds.),

e academic acceleration of gifted children (1991 ed., pp. 102-132). New

York: Teachers College Press.

Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing

among ﬁve approaches (Second ed.). ousand Oaks, California: Sage

Publications, Inc.

Csikszentmihalyi, M., Rathunde, K., & Whalen, S. (1993). Talented teenag-

ers: e roots of success and failure (1st ed.): Cambridge University Press.

Gross, M. U. M. (1992). e use of radical acceleration in cases of extreme

intellectual precocity. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36(2), 91-99.

Gross, M. U. M. (1994). e highly gifted: eir nature and needs. In J.

B. Hansen & S. M. Hoover (Eds.), Talent development (pp. 257-280).

Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company.

Gross, M. U. M. (2004). Exceptionally gifted children (2nd ed.). London and

New York: Routledge Falmer.

Gross, M. U. M. (2006). Exceptionally gifted children: Long-term out-

comes of academic acceleration and nonacceleration. Journal for the Ed-

ucation of the Gifted (July), 404-429.

Gross, M. U. M., Urquhart, R., Doyle, J., Juratowitch, M., & Matheson,

G. (2011). Releasing the brakes for high-ability learners: Gifted Education

Research, Resource and Information Centre, School of Education, e Uni-

verstiy of New South Wales.

240 A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2

Acceleration in Australia : Young, Rogers, Hoekman, van Vliet, & Long

Gross, M. U. M., & van Vliet, H. E. (2005). Radical acceleration and ear-

ly entry to college: A review of the research. Gifted Child Quarterly,

49(21), 154-170.

Hébert, T. P., & McBee, M. T. (2007). e impact of an undergraduate

honors program on gifted university students. Gifted Child Quarterly,

51(2), 136-151.

Hoekman, K., McCormick, J., & Gross, M.U.M. (1999). e optimal con-

text for gifted students: A preliminary exploration of motivational and

aﬀective considerations, Gifted Child Quarterly, 43(3), 170-193.

Jung, J. Y., Young, M., & Gross, M. U. M. (2015). Early entrance programs

in Australia. Roeper Review., 37(1), 19-28.

Long, L. C. (2012). An investigation of principal and teacher inﬂuence on

the scope and quality of gifted programs in New South Wales govern-

ment secondary schools. Unpublished Dissertation, University of New

South Wales, Sydney.

Lubinski, D., Webb, R. M., Morelock, M. J., & Benbow, C. P. (2001). Top

1 in 10,000: A ten-year follow-up of the profoundly gifted. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 86(4), 718-729.

Maine, T., & Maddox, R. S. (2007). An early entrance program. In K. D.

Robson & J. Fort Brennan (Eds.), High IQ kids collected insights, infor-

mation, and personal stories from the experts. (pp. 197-210). Minneapo-

lis, MN: Free Spirit.

Merrotsy, P. (2003). Acceleration: Two case studies of access to university

courses while still at school. TalentEd, 21(2), 10-24.

Merrotsy, P. (2006). Radical acceleration in one subject: Two case studies.

Ta l e n t E d , 24(1&2), 22-32.

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: A methods

sourcebook. ousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Muratori, M. (2007). Early entrance to college. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

Muratori, M., Colangelo, N., & Assouline, S. (2003). Early-entrance stu-

dents: Impressions of their ﬁrst semester of college. Gifted Child Quar-

terly, 47(3), 219 -238.

Neihart, M. (2007). e socioaﬀective impact of acceleration and ability

grouping: Recommendations for best practice. e Gifted Child Quar-

terly, 51(4), 330-341.

Noble, K. D., Arndt, T., Nicholson, T., Sletten, T., & Zamora, A. (1998).

Diﬀerent strokes: Perceptions of social and emotional development

among early college entrants. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education,

10(2), 77-84.

Noble, K. D., & Drummond, J. E. (1992). But what about the prom? Stu-

dents’ perceptions of early college entrance. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36,

106-111.

Noble, K. D., Vaughan, R. C., Chan, C., Childers, S., Chow, B., Federow,

A., et al. (2007). Love and work: e legacy of early university entrance.

Gifted Child Quarterly, 51(2), 152-166.

Olszewski-Kubilius, P. (1995). A summary of research regarding early en-

trance to college. Roeper Review, 18(2), 121-125.

Olszewski-Kubilius, P. (1998). Early entrance to college: Students’ stories.

e Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, X(1), 226-247.

Olszewski-Kubilius, P. (1999). inking through early entrance to college

(pp. 1-10): Northwestern University’s Center for Talent Development.

Rinn, A. N. (2005). Trends among honors college students - An analysis

by year in school. The Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, XVI(4),

157-167.

Rinn, A. N. (2008). College programming. In J. A. Plucker & C. M. Calla-

han (Eds.), Critical issues and practices in gifted education (pp. 97-106).

Waco, Texas: Prufrock Press Inc.

Robinson, N., & Harsin, C. (2002). Considering the options: A guidebook

for investigating early college entrance. Reno, NV: Davidson Institute for

Talent Development.

Robinson, N., Reis, S. M., Neihart, M., & Moon, S. M. (2002). Social and

emotional issues facing gifted and talented students: What have we

learned and what should we do now? In M. Neihart, S. M. Reis, N.

Robinson & S. M. Moon (Eds.), e social and emotional development of

gifted children (pp. 267). Waco, Texas: Prufrock Press, Inc.

Rogers, K. B. (1991). e relationship of grouping practices to the educa-

tion of the gifted and talented learner. e National Research Center on

the Gifted and Talented, Number 9101, 1-62.

Rogers, K. B. (2002). Re-forming gifted education (1st ed.). Scottsdale, AZ

Great Potential Press, Inc.

Sayler, M. F. (1994). Early college entrance: A viable option. In J. B. Hansen

& S. M. Hoover (Eds.), Talent development: eories and practice (pp.

67-79). Dubuque: Kendall/Hunt.

Sayler, M. F. (2008). Talent is not enough: A short introduction to the

model of giftedness and thriving, Ninth Biennial Wallace National Re-

search Symposium on Talent Development. University of Iowa.

Seidman, I. (1998). Interviewing as qualitative research: A guide for re-

searchers in education and the social sciences (2nd ed.). New York:

Teachers College Press.

Sethna, B. N., Wickstrom, C. D., Boothe, D., & Stanley, J. C. (2001). e

Advanced Academy of Georgia: Four years as a residential early-col-

lege-entrance program. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 13(1),

11-21.

Shannon, B. (1997). Acceleration - with hindsight. Gifted, February, 12 -13.

Sharratt, L., & Fullan, M. (2012). Putting faces on the data. Principal Lead-

ership Magazine, December 2012, 48-52.

Silverman, L. K. (1993). Counseling the gifted and talented (First ed.). Den-

ver, CO Love Publishing Company.

Swiatek, M. A. (1993). A decade of longitudinal research on academic

acceleration through the Study of Mathematically Precocious Youth.

Roeper Review, 15(3), 120-124.

Swiatek, M. A., & Benbow, C. P. (1991). Ten-year longitudinal follow-up

of ability-matched accelerated and unaccelerated gifted students. Jour-

nal of Educational Psychology September 1991, 83(4), 528-538.

e Commonwealth of Australia. (2001). e education of gifted and talent-

ed children. Canberra: Parliament of Australia.

Trost, G. (2000). Prediction of excellence in school, higher education, and

work. In A. K. Heller, F. J. Mönks, R. J. Sternberg & R. Subotnik (Eds.),

International handbook on giftedness and talent (2nd ed., pp. 317-327).

Amsterdam-Boston: Pergamon.

Vialle, W., Ashton, T., Carlon, G., & Rankin, F. (2001). Acceleration: A

coat of many colours. Roeper Review, 24(1), 14-19.

Yin, R. K. (1984). Case study research: Design and methods (Vol. 5). Beverly

Hills: Sage Publications.

Yin, R. K. (1993). Application of case study research. Newbury Park, CA:

Sage Publications.

Young, M., Ayres, P., & Rogers, K. B. (2009). Getting in: Australian uni-

versity decision-making processes when gifted learners apply for early

admission. e Australasian Journal of Gifted Education, 18(2), 43-54.

Young, M., Rogers, K. B., & Ayres, P. (2007). e state of early university

admission in Australia: 2000 to present. Australasian Journal of Gifted

Education, 16(2), 15-25.

A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2 241

Early Entrance to College : Brody and Muratori

Appendices

242 A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2

Early Entrance to College : Brody and Muratori

A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2 243

Appendix A : Biographies

ALDERDICE, COREY

Corey T. Alderdice is the director of the Arkansas School for

Mathematics, Sciences and the Arts in Hot Springs. Prior to

his work at ASMSA, he served as a founding administrator

of the Gatton Academy of Mathematics and Science in Ken-

tucky. His research interests include the role of recruitment

and admissions at selective public high schools, academic

engagement for rural students, and global learning in special-

ized high schools. In 2013, the Bezos Family Foundation rec-

ognized him as one of twelve Educator Scholars. Alderdice’s

work in utilizing social media and technology for admissions

and campus external relations has been spotlighted in Educa-

tion Week and The Washington Post.

ANDERSEN, LORI

Lori Andersen received her Ph.D. in Educational Policy, Plan-

ning, and Leadership with an emphasis in Gifted Education

from The College of William and Mary in 2013 and currently

is Senior Science Curriculum and Assessment Specialist for

The Achievement and Assessment Institute at The Universi-

ty of Kansas. She is interested in the development of talent in

the STEM domains, as well as issues concerning implementa-

tion and assessment of the Next Generation Science Standards.

She has published articles in Science Education and Roeper

Review that explore high-ability students’ decisions to pur-

sue STEM occupations. Her research has been recognized

by multiple national awards, including the NAGC Doctoral

Student award in 2013 and second place in the NAGC disser-

tation competition in 2014.

ASSOULINE, SUSAN

Susan G. Assouline is the director of the University of Io-

wa’s Belin-Blank Center for Gifted Education and Talent

Development, a professor of school psychology, and in 2015

was named the Myron and Jacqueline Blank Chair in Gifted

Education. She is especially interested in the identiﬁcation

of academic talent in elementary students and is co-author

(with Ann Lupkowski-Shoplik) of both editions of Develop-

ing Math Talent: A Comprehensive Guide to Math Education for

Gied Students in Elementary and Middle School. As well, she

is co-developer of the Iowa Acceleration Scale, a tool designed

to guide educators and parents through decisions about

grade-skipping students; she has consulted on hundreds of

decisions concerning acceleration.

BRODY, LINDA

Linda E. Brody is the director of the Study of Exceptional

Talent (SET) at the Johns Hopkins University Center for Tal-

ented Youth (CTY). She also directs CTY’s Diagnostic and

Counseling Center, its test development division, the publi-

cation of Imagine magazine, and numerous special projects.

In SET, she leads a team that provides counseling to excep-

tionally advanced students about intervention strategies,

including options for acceleration, to help them fulﬁll their

potential and achieve their goals. Her research interests fo-

cus on evaluating such strategies, and studying the academic

and social needs of special populations, especially the highly

gifted, gifted females, and twice-exceptional students.

CEDERBERG, CHARLES

Charles Cederberg is a doctoral student in Counseling Psy-

chology within the Department of Psychological and Quan-

titative Foundations at the University of Iowa. His primary

clinical and research interests include positive youth devel-

opment, primarily with regards to gifted youth diagnosed on

the autism spectrum. He is a licensed mental health counsel-

or with over ﬁve years of experience providing mental health

and consultative services to children and adolescents within

private agency and public school settings. He currently works

as a graduate assistant at the University of Iowa’s Belin-Blank

Center for Gifted Education and Talent Development.

COLANGELO, NICHOLAS

Nicholas Colangelo is the Dean of the College of Education,

University of Iowa. He is also Director Emeritus of the Be-

lin-Blank Center for Gifted Education and Talent Develop-

ment. Dean Colangelo has been a scholar focusing on the

counseling needs of gifted students as well as acceleration as

the primary intervention on behalf of the academic and so-

cial needs of gifted students. Dean Colangelo has published

extensively and presented at leading national and interna-

tional conferences. In 1991, he received the Distinguished

Scholar Award and in 2012 the Ann Isaacs Founder’s Me-

morial Award, both presented by the National Association

for Gifted Children. In 2013, he received the International

Award for Research presented by the World Council for Gift-

ed and Talented Children.

Author Biographies

244 A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2

Appendix A : Biographies

CROFT, LAURIE

Laurie Croft is a Clinical Associate Professor in the Depart-

ment of Teaching and Learning (University of Iowa College

of Education) and is the Associate Director for professional

development at the Belin-Blank Center for Gifted Education

and Talent Development, a part of the UI College of Educa-

tion. She received her Bachelor of Arts (Honors) and Master

of Arts degrees, both in History, from Oklahoma State Uni-

versity and the University of Oklahoma, respectively. She

earned her Ph.D. in Educational Leadership at the University

of Tulsa, emphasizing gifted programming. Research inter-

ests include the conceptual foundations of gifted education

and professional development for teachers of the gifted.

CROSS, TRACY

Tracy L. Cross, Ph.D., holds an endowed chair as the Jody and

Layton Smith Professor of Psychology and Gifted Education

and is the executive director of the Center for Gifted Educa-

tion at William & Mary. He has published more than 150 ar-

ticles, book chapters, and columns; has made more than 200

presentations at conferences; and has published nine books.

He has edited ﬁve journals in the ﬁeld of gifted studies (Gied

Child Quarterly, Roeper Review, Journal of Secondary Gied Ed-

ucation, Research Briefs) and is the current editor of the Journal

for the Education of the Gied. Tracy is the president of the Na-

tional Association for Gifted Children.

DEGNER, KATHERINE

Kate Degner is anassistant professor of STEM and mathe-

matics education at St. Ambrose University, in Davenport,

Iowa. Her research interests include the sociology of math-

ematics education, as well as the involvement of underrepre-

sented groups in upper-level STEM coursework during their

K - 12 experience.

FOLEY-NICPON, MEGAN

Megan Foley-Nicpon is an Associate Professor of Counsel-

ing Psychology and Associate Director for Research and

Clinic at the Belin-Blank Center for Gifted Education and

Talent Development, both at the University of Iowa. Dr.

Foley-Nicpon’s research and clinical interests include as-

sessment and intervention with twice-exceptional students,

particularly gifted students with autism spectrum disorder,

ADHD, and emotional/learning diculties, and the social

and emotional development of talented and diverse stu-

dents. She has over 35 referreed articles and book chapters

in the areas of gifted, counseling psychology, and twice-ex-

ceptionality, and over 60 presentations at international,

national, and state professional meetings. Awards include

the NAGC Early Scholar Award; AERA Research on Gift-

edness, Creativity, and Talent Path Breaker Award; AERA

Division E Outstanding Research Award in Human Devel-

opment; and, twice, the MENSA Research Award, MENSA

Education & Research Foundation.

GROSS, MIRACA

Emeritus Professor Miraca Gross AM is Honorary Director

of the Gifted Education Research, Resource and Informa-

tion Centre (GERRIC) at the University of New South Wales

in Sydney, Australia. Miraca’s research focuses on issues of

equity for gifted students, ability grouping, acceleration, so-

cio-aective development, and the highly gifted. She has won

several international research awards including, in 1987, the

Hollingworth Award for Excellence in Research in Gifted Ed-

ucation and, in 1988 and 1990, the Mensa International Ed-

ucation and Research Foundation Awards for Excellence. In

2008, this Foundation further honored her with its Lifetime

Achievement Award. In 2005, the American National Asso-

ciation for Gifted Children honored her with their Distin-

guished Scholar Award - the ﬁrst time this was awarded out-

side North America. In 2008, she was appointed a Member of

the Order of Australia in the Queen’s Birthday Honours List

for services to gifted education. The University of New South

Wales appointed Miraca as Emeritus Professor on her retire-

ment in December 2011 in recognition of her long-term and

ongoing service to her ﬁeld and to the University.

HARRIS, BRYN

Bryn Harris, PhD, NCSP, is an Assistant Professor in the

School of Education and Human Development at the Uni-

versity of Colorado Denver. Her primary research interests

include the psychological assessment of English language

learners, underrepresented gifted populations, and improv-

ing mental health access and opportunity within traditionally

underserved school populations. Dr. Harris is the director

and founder of the bilingual school psychology program at

the University of Colorado Denver. She is also a bilingual

(Spanish) psychologist who has conducted numerous re-

search projects within Spanish speaking countries.

A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2 245

Appendix A : Biographies

HOEKMAN, KATHERINE

Katherine Hoekman lectured in Gifted Education at the

School of Education for over a decade, and is currently an

adjunct lecturer in the Oce of Educational Leadership at

the University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia. She

is the Consultant: Academic Performance at the Association

of Independent Schools NSW in Sydney, Australia, assisting

schools in the independent sector to optimize the achieve-

ment and growth of high potential students. She was the Di-

rector of Research and Innovative Learning at Abbotsleigh

Anglican School for Girls in Sydney from 2005-2011 and

2014, and was the Director of the Eileen O’Connor Centre

serving the needs of diverse learners using assistive technol-

ogy across the Archdiocese of Sydney from 2011-2014. She

has been an invited presenter at regional, national, and in-

ternational conferences, as well as a consultant with schools

on the ways to meet the cognitive, motivational and aective

needs of gifted students.

HOOGEVEEN, LIANNE

Lianne Hoogeveen is a developmental psychologist and

director of the Center for the Study of Giftedness (CBO)

(www.ru.nl/fsw/cbo) of the Radboud University in the Neth-

erlands, a board member of the Internationales Centrum für

Begabungsforschung (ICBF) (Westfälische Wilhelms-Uni-

versität Münster, Germany) and a member of the Execu-

tive Committee of the European Council for High Ability

(ECHA). She is professor of the Radboud University and

guest lecturer in dierent other universities, in and outside

the Netherlands. She is involved in post-academic education

for psychologists and teachers and in individual counseling

of gifted children, youngsters, and adults. She conducts sci-

entiﬁc research on giftedness and education and wrote her

PhD-thesis on academic acceleration. Concerning research

and education, she cooperates with colleagues of other uni-

versities, in- and outside the Netherlands.

IHRIG, LORI

Lori Ihrig is the Administrator for STEM Excellence and

Leadership at the Belin-Blank Center for Gifted Education

and Talent Development. In addition to overseeing the fac-

ulty hiring and development for the Center’s pre-college stu-

dent programs throughout the year, she is the lead adminis-

trator for the Secondary Student Training Program, program

director for the STEM Excellence and Leadership program,

and oversees the Blast, Challenge Saturdays, Invent Iowa,

and Weekend Institute for Gifted Students programs. Her

research interests include the development of highly eec-

tive science teachers and academic talent-development in

high-ability rural students. She has authored articles for sci-

ence teachers, been a member of multiple curriculum writing

teams, reviewed science books for the American Association

for the Advancement of Science, and won awards for her

teaching and research.

JOHNSEN, SUSAN

Susan K. Johnsen, PhD, is a professor in the Department of

Educational Psychology at Baylor University in Waco, Texas,

where she directs the PhD program and programs related to

gifted and talented education. She is editor of Gied Child To-

day and coauthor of The Practitioner’s Guide for Using the Com-

mon Core State Standards for Mathematics, Using the Common

Core State Standards for Mathematics with Gied and Advanced

Learners, Using the NAGC Pre-K-Grade 12 Gied Programming

Standards, Math Education for Gied Students, and more than

250 articles, monographs, technical reports, chapters, and

other books related to gifted education. She has written three

tests used in identifying gifted students: Test of Mathematical

Abilities for Gied Students (TOMAGS), Test of Nonverbal In-

telligence (TONI-4) and Screening Assessment Gied Students

(SAGES-2).

JONES, ERIC

Eric D. Jones, prior to his retirement, was a professor of educa-

tion at Bowling Green State University, where he taught grad-

uate and undergraduate classes in special education and was

co-director of the Center for Evaluation Services. Dr. Jones

was appointed Director of the School of Intervention Services

at BGSU. He also provided advocacy and behavioral consulta-

tion for families with children with special education needs.

His research interests include: acceleration of gifted students,

applied behavior analysis, and mathematics education.

JUNG, JAE YUP

Jae Yup Jung is an Australian Research Council DECRA Fel-

low and a senior lecturer in the School of Education at The

University of New South Wales, Australia. He is also a senior

research fellow at the Gifted Education Research, Resource

and Information Centre (GERRIC) at The University of

New South Wales. His research program incorporates var-

ious topics relating to gifted adolescents, including their

career- and friendship-related decisions and academic ac-

celeration. He has published in a range of journals including

246 A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2

Appendix A : Biographies

Gied Child Quarterly, Journal for the Education of the Gied,

Roeper Review, Journal of Career Assessment, Journal of Career

Development, and Research in Higher Education

LONG, LYE CHAN

Lye Chan Long is Learning Enrichment Leader at Inaburra

School, Sydney, where she has oversight of students needing

additional support by way of learning diculties or exten-

sion. She was recently working as Gifted Education Mentor

at OLMC Parramatta, 2013-2014, and as coordinator of the

Centre of Excellence for the Education of Students with

Additional Needs, incorporating 14 independent Catholic

schools who wanted to use their federal grant monies to sup-

port teachers in their practice of teaching students with needs

at both ends of the spectrum. Lye Chan has worked as a pre-

senter for courses oered by the Gifted Education Research,

Resource, and Information Centre (GERRIC), University of

New South Wales. She was also awarded a Templeton Founda-

tion Fellowship by the Belin-Blank Center in 2008.

LUPKOWSKI-SHOPLIK, ANN

Ann Lupkowski-Shoplik, Ph.D. is the Administrator for the

Acceleration Institute at the Belin-Blank Center for Gifted

Education and Talent Development and an adjunct professor

in the Department of Psychological and Quantitative Foun-

dations, both at the University of Iowa. She was founder and

director of the Carnegie Mellon Institute for Talented Ele-

mentary Students (C-MITES) at Carnegie Mellon Universi-

ty. Together

with Dr. Susan Assouline, she wrote Developing

Math Talent: A Comprehensive Guide to Math Education for Gi-

ed Students in Elementary and Middle School (2nd ed.). She is also

a co-author of the Iowa Acceleration Scale with Susan Assouline,

Nicholas Colangelo, Jonathan Lipscomb, and Leslie Forstadt.

MAMMADOV, SAKHAVAT

Sakhavat Mammadov is a PhD candidate in Educational

Policy, Planning and Leadership program with an emphasis

in gifted education at The College of William and Mary. He

currently is working as a graduate research assistant at the

Center for Gifted Education. He earned a B.S. in teaching

mathematics and a M.A. degree in elementary education

from Bogazici University, Turkey. He has worked with gifted

children for many years in a variety of contexts. His interest

areas are social-emotional lives of gifted children, personality,

creativity, mentoring mathematically gifted students, and ad-

ministrative and policy issues in gifted education.

MCCLARTY, KATIE

Katie McClarty, Director of the Center for College & Career

Success in Pearson’s Research & Innovation Network, leads

a team of researchers who plan and execute research in sup-

port of the Center’s mission, which is to identify and measure

the skills needed to be successful in college and careers, de-

termine pathways for students to be college- and career-ready,

track their progress along those pathways, and evaluate eec-

tive ways to keep students on track. Dr. McClarty’s personal

research interests include talent identiﬁcation and develop-

ment, assessment design and standard setting, and non-cog-

nitive predictors of success. Her work has been published in

journals such as the American Psychologist, Research in Higher

Education, Gied Child Quarterly, Educational Measurement: Is-

sues and Practice, and Educational Researcher.

MURATORI, MICHELLE

Michelle C. Muratori is a senior counselor and researcher at

the Johns Hopkins Center for Talented Youth (CTY) where

she works with exceptionally advanced middle school and

high school students who participate in the Study of Excep-

tional Talent (SET) and their families. She is currentlycollab-

orating with Kimberly Lohrﬁnk on a mixed methods study

about how high ability students perceive stress and manage

their day-to-day pressures, hassles, schedules, and activities.

Michelle’s past research focused on the academic, social, and

emotional adjustment of early college entrants, and inspired

her to write Early College Entrance: A Guide to Success (Prufrock

Press, 2007). A faculty associate in the Johns Hopkins School

of Education, Michelle earned the 2014 Johns Hopkins Uni-

versity Alumni Association Excellence in Teaching Award.

OLSZEWSKI-KUBILIUS, PAULA

Paula Olszewski-Kubilius is the director of the Center for

Talent Development at Northwestern University and a pro-

fessor in the School of Education and Social Policy. Over the

past 30 years, she has created programs for all kinds of gifted

learners and written extensively on issues of talent develop-

ment. She has served as the editor of Gied Child Quarterly,

co-editor of the Journal of Secondary Gied Education and on

the editorial review boards of Gied and Talented Internation-

al, The Roeper Review, and Gied Child Today. She is currently

the immediate Past-President of the National Association

for Gifted Children and received the Distinguished Scholar

Award in 2009 from NAGC.

A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2 247

Appendix A : Biographies

PLUCKER, JONATHAN

Jonathan Plucker is the Raymond Neag Endowed Professor

of Education at the University of Connecticut.His research

examines education policy and talent development, with

over 200 publications to his credit. Recent books include

Critical Issues and Practices in Gied Education(2nded.) with

Carolyn Callahan andIntelligence 101with Amber Esping. He

recently became editor for theResearch-Based Decision Making

for Gied Education and Talent Developmentbook series at Pal-

grave-Macmillan and thePsychological Perspectives on Contem-

porary Educational Issuesseries at IAP.His work deﬁning and

studying excellence gaps is part of a larger eort to reorient

policymakers’ and educators’ thinking about how best to pro-

mote success and high achievement for all children.

ROBERTS, JULIA LINK

Julia Link Roberts is the Mahurin Professor of Gifted Studies

at Western Kentucky University as well as Executive Director

of The Center for Gifted Studies and The Carol Martin Gat-

ton Academy of Mathematics and Science in Kentucky. She is

active in the leadership of The Association for the Gifted (a

division of the Council for Exceptional Children), the Nation-

al Association for Gifted Children, the Kentucky Association

for Gifted Children, and the World Council for Gifted and Tal-

ented Children. She is the author of books, chapters, and arti-

cles on dierentiation, advocacy, STEM schools, and twice-ex-

ceptional learners. She was honored with the ﬁrst NAGC

David W. Belin Award for Advocacy, the Acorn Award as the

outstanding professor in a four-year Kentucky university, and

the 2015 Palmarium Award from the Institute for the Develop-

ment of Gifted Education at the University of Denver.

ROGERS, KAREN

Karen Rogers is Professor Emerita of Gifted Studies at the

University of St. Thomas in Minneapolis, Minnesota. She

taught and conducted research there from 1984 - 2014, except

for a three-year hiatus at the University of New South Wales

in Sydney, Australia, where she was Director of Research for

GERRIC (Gifted Education Research and Resource Infor-

mation Centre). She has written ﬁve books with four more in

press, over 200 journal and magazine articles, 36 dierenti-

ated curricula for gifted learners, and conducted 78 program

and curriculum evaluations throughout the United States

and Australia. Her interests in meta-analysis and meta-syn-

thesis techniques began as part of her doctoral dissertation

in 1991 and continue to this day. She is currently an Honorary

Professorial Fellow at the University of Wollongong and an

Honorary Professor at the University of New South Wales in

Australia, in addition to her Emerita status at the University

of St. Thomas.

SOUTHERN, W. THOMAS

W. Thomas Southern is a professor emeritus at Miami Uni-

versity of Ohio. Prior to his retirement, he was the Coordina-

tor of Special Education at Miami University of Ohio where

he worked to develop a gifted education program. Formerly,

he was a member of the faculty in the special education de-

partment at Bowling Green State University. He served as a

consultant on gifted education to the Ohio and Indiana State

Departments of Education. His research interests include:

the identiﬁcation and programming needs of special popula-

tions of gifted children.

VANTASSEL-BASKA, JOYCE

Joyce VanTassel-Baska is the Smith Professor Emerita at The

College of William and Mary in Virginia where she developed

a graduate program and a research and development center

in gifted education. Formerly, she initiated and directed the

Center for Talent Development at Northwestern University.

She has also served as the state director of gifted programs

for Illinois, as a regional director of a gifted service center in

the Chicago area, as coordinator of gifted programs for the

Toledo, Ohio public school system, and as a teacher of gifted

high school students in English and Latin. Dr. VanTassel-Bas-

ka has published widely including 29 books and over 550 ref-

ereed journal articles, book chapters, and scholarly reports.

Her major research interests are on the talent development

process and eective curricular interventions with the gifted.

VAN VLIET, HELEN

Helen van Vliet earned her PhD from the School of Psychia-

try at the University of New South Wales (UNSW), Australia

and holds honors degrees in both medicine and education.

Her teaching and research is situated within the ﬁelds of gift-

ed education and child and adolescent health and develop-

ment. Particular interests include social and emotional well-

being in the school context, supporting high ability learners

in the early years, and student focused approaches to teach-

ing and learning. Helen is presently teaching in university

level education and health programs and taking enrichment

programs with elementary school students. She provides

248 A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2

Appendix A : Biographies

professional development in schools focusing on support-

ing the cognitive and aective needs of gifted and talented

students.

WAI, JONATHAN

Jonathan Wai is a research scientist at the Duke Universi-

ty Talent Identiﬁcation Program, a visiting researcher at

Case Western Reserve University, and earned his doctorate

at Vanderbilt University where he worked on the Study of

Mathematically Precocious Youth. A former member of the

board of directors of the MATHCOUNTS foundation, his

research has won multiple Mensa Awards for Research Excel-

lence, and has been featured in The Economist, The Wall Street

Journal, The New York Times, Education Week, Wired, and news-

papers worldwide. He researches and writes about the devel-

opment of talent and its impact on society and contributes to

popular publications such as Psychology Today, Business Insider,

Quartz, and others, where his ideas have reached millions of

people and started international conversations.

WOOD, SUSANNAH

Susannah Wood is currently an associate professor at the Uni-

versity of Iowa, where she teaches both doctoral students and

students who are pursuing their master’s in school counseling

with an emphasis in gifted education in partnership with the

Belin-Blank Center for Gifted Education and Talent Devel-

opment. Susannah received her M.Ed. in School Counseling

and Ph.D. in Counselor Education and Supervision from

The College of William and Mary. She was a middle school

counselor working with sixth and seventh grade students

in Newport News, Virginia during the academic year, and

spent summers as a residential counselor for programs such

as Johns Hopkins’ Center for Talented Youth, and the Virgin-

ia Governor’s School for the Visual and Performing Arts and

Humanities. Her research interests encompass preparing

school counselors for their practice with a focus on serving

the gifted population in collaboration with other educators

and professionals.

YOUNG, MARIE

Marie Young has been an adjunct academic at the Univer-

sity of New South Wales (UNSW) in the School of Educa-

tion since 2010, after completing her doctoral thesis, which

focused on early entrance to university of accelerated stu-

dents and the associated social and emotional issues. As a

high school teacher of English and mathematics for many

years, she developed an abiding interest in gifted educa-

tion; she was a school coordinator of gifted education and

has taught in many gifted programs at UNSW. She has been

a tutor for gifted education courses and for teacher educa-

tion courses at UNSW; as well she has undertaken several

projects as a research assistant in both teacher education

and gifted education.

A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2 249

Appendix B : NAGC Position Paper

Educational acceleration is one of the cornerstones of ex-

emplary gifted education practices, with more research sup-

porting 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. The

purposes of acceleration as a practice with the gifted are 1)

to adjust the pace of instruction to the students’ capability

in order to develop a sound work ethic, 2) to provide an ap-

propriate level of challenge in order to avoid the boredom

from repetitious learning, and 3) to reduce the time period

necessary for students to complete traditional schooling. Ac-

celeration beneﬁts many highly capable individuals by better

motivating them toward schooling, enhancing their involve-

ment with extracurricular activities, promoting more chal-

lenging options in the middle school and high school years,

and preparing them to begin contributing to society at an ear-

lier age. While not as widely used as a practice with diverse

gifted learners, evidence suggests that it can be a successful

strategy with low income, minority, and students with learn-

ing problems as well. Therefore, NAGC strongly endorses

this practice as one important avenue to address the needs

of gifted learners.

Acceleration practices involve allowing a student to move

through traditional educational organizations more rapid-

ly, based on readiness and motivation. Research documents

the potential academic beneﬁts and positive outcomes of all

forms of appropriately implemented acceleration strategies

for intellectually gifted and academically talented learners.

These research-based best practices include grade-skipping,

telescoping, early entrance into kindergarten or college, cred-

it by examination, and acceleration in content areas through

such programs as Advanced Placement and International

Baccalaureate at the high school level. Instructional adapta-

tions in the classroom such as compacting, which allows for

more economic use of learning time in a speciﬁc subject, are

also a desirable and best practice for talented students.

Both group and individual decisions can be made in respect to

accelerative options. For example, both AP and IB programs

by virtue of their structure and content oer college-level

work. As long as students meet prerequisites and accept the

rigors of such programs, gifted and other learners can and

should take advantage of such group-oriented programs. At

an individual level, students may be tutored or engage in on-

line coursework at an accelerated level. Such options can be

more readily tailored for individual needs.

Talent search programs at selected universities provide ear-

ly assessment of advanced mathematical and verbal abilities

in students such that decisions on appropriate accelerative

options can be constructed inside and outside of schools.

For example, several acceleration opportunities can be ac-

cessed through online coursework in speciﬁc content areas

or oered at university sites. Advanced Placement as an ac-

celerative option may be made available throughout the high

school years or earlier through independent study, tutorials,

or special classes.

Acceleration options should be available at each stage of

development in a child’s educational program from early

entrance to primary school up through early college entry

in order to even out the curriculum challenge. Parents may

also wish to seek out accelerative opportunities beyond the

school setting in order to accommodate an individual student

need that cannot be met in traditional school settings.

Yet acceleration decisions should be made thoughtfully with

the needs of the whole child in mind. In decision-making

about the appropriateness of a particular form of accelera-

tion and the extent of acceleration for a given child at a given

time, educators and parents should consider the child’s intel-

lectual and academic proﬁle, socio-emotional and physical

The National Association for

Gifted Children Position Statement

on Acceleration

The National Association for Gied Children (NAGC) is an organization of

parents, teachers, educators, other professionals, and community leaders who unite to

address the unique needs of children and youth with demonstrated gis and talents

as well as those children who may be able to develop their talent potential with

appropriate educational experiences.

All position papers are approved by the NAGC Board of Directors and remain

consistent with the organization’s position that education in a democracy must respect

the uniqueness of all individuals, the broad range of cultural diversity present in our

society, and the similarities and dierences in learning characteristics that can be

found within any group of students. NAGC Position Papers can be found at www.

nagc.org.

Approved September 27, 2004

250 A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2

Appendix B : NAGC Position Paper

development, and preferences and dispositions of the child

relative to the decision since acceleration may not always be

the appropriate option for every gifted child. Factors that en-

hance the success of acceleration practices include 1) positive

attitudes of teachers, 2) timelines related to the decision, 3)

parental support, and 4) careful monitoring of the implemen-

tation.

Highly able students with capability and motivation to suc-

ceed in placements beyond traditional age/grade parameters

should be provided the opportunity to enroll in appropriate

classes and educational settings. The National Association

for Gifted Children program standards provide some guid-

ance for using accelerative practices on a routine basis at all

stages of development.

Acceleration policies in schools should ensure that opportu-

nities such as the ones described here are available provisions

in all gifted programs for individuals and groups of learners

ready to advance beyond the standard curriculum at any age

and in any area of learning.

Selected References

Benbow, C. P., & Lubinski, D. (1996). Intellectual Talent. Baltimore: Johns

Hopkins Press. is book chronicles landmark research on gifted in-

dividuals and the use of acceleration in their development. Based on

the work of many researchers in the ﬁeld, the volume explicates our

understanding of the eﬀectiveness of acceleration techniques with such

students, the eﬃcacy of accelerative programs and services for them,

and views on the interplay of intelligence and productivity.

Colangelo, N., Assouline, S. G., & Gross, M. U. M. (2004). A Nation de-

ceived: How schools hold back America’s Students (V.I., V.II.) Iowa City,

IA: e Connie Belin & Jacqueline N. Blank International Center for

Gifted Education and Talent Development. In Volume 1, this report

issues a wake-up call to America’s schools on the need to provide ac-

celerative options at every stage of development for gifted learners,

using research evidence coupled with student vignettes of successful

acceleration. e report argues convincingly for action on this key pro-

gramming feature. In Volume 2, the argument for acceleration is further

buttressed by actual data presented by researchers demonstrating its

positive eﬀects on the learning patterns of gifted students.

Gross, M. U. M. (2004). Exceptionally Gifted Children, London: Routledge.

is second edition of a longitudinal study highlights ongoing insights

into the lives of highly gifted children in Australia, their families and

their schools. It provides important ﬁndings into the social, emotional

and academic needs of these children as they mature.

Rogers, K. (2003). Reforming gifted education: How parents and teachers can

match the program to the child, Scottsdale, AZ: Great Potential Press

Inc. is comprehensive text on program development provides me-

ta-analyses on the issue of acceleration, coupled with sound practical

strategies for employing it in schools.

Southern, T. & Jones, E. (Eds.) (1991). e academic acceleration of gifted

children, New York, NY: Teachers’ College Press. is edited volume

provides a strong overview of diverse perspectives and views on accel-

eration in various modes and at various stages of development. It rep-

resents a compendia of important ideas for practitioners.

Swiatek, M.A., & Benbow, C. P. (1991). Ten-year longitudinal follow-up

of ability-matched accelerated and unaccelerated gifted students.

Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 528-538. is research article

reports on the long term beneﬁts of acceleration in a rigorously con-

trolled study. Based on the Study for Mathematically Precocious Youth

(SMPY) ﬁndings, the authors highlight the positive outcomes found

for accelerated learners.

VanTassel-Baska, J. (2004). e acceleration of gifted students’ programs and

curricula. In Karnes, F. A. & Stephens, K. R. (Eds.) fastback series,

Waco, TX: Prufrock Press. is practical guide provides administra-

tors and teachers with ideas, strategies, and assessment protocols for

using various techniques of acceleration in school, including the di-

agnostic prescriptive approach, compacting, testing out of curriculum

standards, and selection of advanced materials.

A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2 251

Appendix C : Policy Guidelines

Recommended Elements

of an Acceleration Policy

Each school district should have a written acceleration pol-

icy stating that acceleration is an appropriate and eective

intervention for select highly able students who have demon-

strated high performance in one or more academic areas. In

this section, we recommend 17 elements in 5 key areas that

can help schools develop a comprehensive, consistent, and

research-based policy.

The policy is characterized by accessibility, equity, and

openness. Speciﬁc recommended elements of a policy to

meet accessibility, equity, and openness criteria include the

following:

Access to referral for consideration of acceleration is open to

all students. A policy should not limit access to referral for

consideration of accelerative curricular modiﬁcation based

on gender, race, ethnicity, disability status, socioeconomic

status, English language proﬁciency, or school building at-

tended. The policy shall be applied equitably and systemat-

ically to students referred for acceleration.

All student populations are served. The acceleration pol-

icy will be comprehensive in addressing acceleration for all

grades, K-12, and all students who demonstrate advanced

academic ability in one or more content areas, including stu-

dents who are English language learners (ELL)

, at-risk, of

low socio-economic status, profoundly gifted, and/or twice-

exceptional. Profoundly gifted students are those whose abil-

ity scores place them at the 99.9th percentile. Because these

students are so rare (1 in 1,000), they require special atten-

tion when discussing appropriate educational interventions.

Twice-exceptional students are those who are gifted and who

have a cognitive, social, or behavioral disability; they, too, re-

quire special attention.

Student evaluation is fair, objective, and systematic. A fair,

objective, and systematic evaluation of the student should be

conducted using the appropriate instruments for the form of

acceleration being considered. When evaluating English lan-

guage learners, appropriate instruments should include those

in the student’s heritage language.

Parents or guardians are allowed open communication about

the policy and procedures. Written consent is required from

parents or legal guardian(s) in order to evaluate the referred

student for possible acceleration placement. All students who

have been referred, and for whom consent has been obtained,

should receive an evaluation from professionals in the district.

Parents or legal guardians should be informed of the evalua-

In 2009, several members of a national working group collaborated to generate guidelines to establish local, state, or district guidelines for

acceleration policy. The participants of the national working group were professionals from the Belin-Blank Center (B-BC), the Council of

State Directors of Programs for the Gifted (CSDPG), and the National Association for Gifted Children (NAGC).

The complete Guidelines for Developing an Academic Acceleration Policy publication, which includes introductory letters from the B-BC,

CSDPG, and NAGC leadership, as well as ﬁve highly informative appendices is available at: http://www.accelerationinstitute.org/Resources/

Policy_Guidelines/

The information below represents an abridged version of the 2009 publication.

Guidelines for Developing

an Academic Acceleration Policy

Developed by the National Work Group on Acceleration, November, 2009

1. ELL enrollment in the United States has grown by 57 percent over the past 13

years, compared with less than four percent for all other student populations (Flan-

nery, 2009). ELLs account for 10 percent of the total student population, represent-

ing more than ﬁve million students. There are students within this linguistically and

culturally diverse group who have advanced academic achievement and cognitive

abilities that exceed those of grade and age peers. Academic acceleration should be a

highly valued program option for the schools these students attend.

252 A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2

Appendix C : Policy Guidelines

tion results in a timely manner (within 10 days recommended).

A comprehensive written plan for the acceleration of recom-

mended students should be developed; a copy of which should

be provided to the student’s parents or legal guardian(s).

The community has ready access to the policy document and

procedure guidelines. Community access includes making

the policy available in the language(s) served by the school.

The acceleration policy and procedures must be easily acces-

sible to the community. The acceleration policy and referral

forms should be available upon request in the language(s)

served by the school. Parents should receive this information

in writing and in their heritage language. The administration

and school sta should be informed on an annual basis to as-

sist the parents and students about the referral process.

The policy provides guidelines for the implementation of

acceleration. Speciﬁc recommended elements of a policy that

provides guidelines for the practice of acceleration include:

The categories, forms, and types (where appropriate) of ac-

celeration are speciﬁed. The two categories of acceleration,

grade-based and content-based, their speciﬁc forms (e.g.,

telescoping, curriculum compacting), and types (when ap-

propriate) should be part of a school’s acceleration policy.

The entire process to obtain acceleration services is detailed

in the policy. The process of implementing acceleration in-

cludes referral and screening, assessment and decision mak-

ing, and planning.

Acceleration decisions should be made by child study teams,

not individuals. An acceleration policy should be informed

by research-based best practices, not personal opinions or

anecdotal evidence. A common impediment to acceleration

occurs when acceleration decisions are made by one person,

a gatekeeper, who may harbor negative personal views about

acceleration (Southern & Jones, 2004, this volume). A child

study team, which should include experts in gifted education,

should consider individual acceleration cases, and, with the

use of valid and reliable instruments to guide the discussion,

decide on the form of acceleration needed.

The child study team creates a “Written Acceleration Plan.”

The child study team should appoint a sta member of the

school to oversee and aid in the implementation of the Writ-

ten Acceleration Plan.

The district should retain a copy of the student’s Written

Acceleration Plan to help assure that future opportunities

speciﬁed in the plan are provided and that the student does

not run into obstacles in subsequent years of school (such as

when a student who is accelerated by continuous progress re-

quires curriculum from two dierent schools).

The policy speciﬁes that the acceleration process include a

monitored transition period within which decisions can be

reversed. If a student is recommended for accelerated place-

ment, the child study team should establish an appropriate

transition period. We recommend that the student’s transi-

tion be evaluated no later than 30 days after the placement,

and sooner if there are concerns about the placement. A sta

member of the school should monitor the student’s adjust-

ment during the transition period.

Within the time speciﬁed for the transition period, the par-

ent or legal guardian may request in writing an alternative

placement. The administrator should bring such proposals

before the decision-making team who will be responsible for

issuing a decision within a speciﬁed number of days (we rec-

ommend a decision within 10 days) of receiving the request.

If the acceleration plan is modiﬁed, the written acceleration

plan should be updated.

During this time, the parent or legal guardian(s) may request,

in writing, the discontinuation of the acceleration program

without any repercussions.

The policy provides guidelines on administrative mat-

ters to ensure fair and systematic use of accelerative op-

portunities and recognition for participation in those ac-

celerative opportunities. Speciﬁc recommended elements

of a policy that provides guidelines on administrative matters

include the following:

Short-term needs are addressed. An acceleration policy

should provide guidance for issues in the short term, which

include, but are not limited to:

• specifying which grade level state achievement

test the student should take, and

• allowing for ﬂexible transportation arrange-

ments should a student need to travel between

buildings.

Long-term needs are addressed. An acceleration policy

should provide guidance for issues in the long term, which

include, but are not limited to:

• providing guidance throughout K-12 to make

sure that students will be allowed to maintain

their accelerated standing,

• working with the district to discuss distance

learning options,

• indicating accelerated coursework on a stu-

dent’s transcript, and

• determining the student’s class rank.

A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2 253

Appendix C : Policy Guidelines

The process of awarding credit to students is speciﬁed. There

are multiple considerations when specifying how students

will be awarded credit, including:

• whether a middle school student receives mid-

dle school credit for courses taken at the high

school (or college level),

• whether a high school student receives high

school credit for courses taken at the college

level, and

• whether a student receives credit for demon-

stration of subject area competency outside

of or in combination with completing hours

of classroom instruction. Alternative credit

pathways may include, but are not limited to:

a. “Testing out” of a course or part of a course

by attaining an established minimum score

on an approved assessment instrument;

b. Demonstrating prior mastery through the

presentation of a portfolio of relevant stu-

dent work;

c. Successfully completing a program of inde-

pendent study based on an approved learning

contract;

d. Successfully completing a ﬂexibly paced dis-

tance learning program addressing content

comparable to the traditional course.

The policy provides guidelines for preventing non-aca-

demic barriers to the use of acceleration as an education-

al intervention. Speciﬁc recommended elements of a policy

that provides guidelines for preventing non-academic barri-

ers to the use of acceleration include the following:

Extracurricular opportunities, especially interscholastic

sports opportunities, should not be withheld or denied to

students who are accelerated. For example, a middle school

student who receives high school credit should not have any

reduction of sports eligibility. We recommend that a conver-

sation be initiated between gifted education experts in the

area of acceleration and the governing board for interscho-

lastic activities to review the impact of the current rules and

policies on students participating in subject acceleration.

Use of acceleration should not negatively aect school fund-

ing. The appropriate agency should review school funding

formulae to identify beneﬁts and disincentives to appropri-

ate use of academic acceleration.

The policy includes features that prevent unintended

consequences. Speciﬁc desirable elements of a policy that

proactively works to prevent unintended consequences in-

clude the following:

An appeals process should be speciﬁed for decisions made

at any step during the process. An appeals process, including

procedures for appealing decisions and the time limitations

on starting an appeal, should be speciﬁed. We recommend

that the appeals process is speciﬁed in writing and accessible.

The acceleration policy should be regularly evaluated on its

eectiveness. The acceleration policy should include rec-

ommendations for how to evaluate the eectiveness of the

policy itself and its eectiveness in successfully accelerating

students. The policy should provide recommendations for

the point at which the policy’s eectiveness is evaluated (for

example, a committee should be convened once a year to re-

view success of the policy as well as unintentional barriers to

the use of acceleration).

Conclusion

The members of the National Work Group on Acceleration

developed this document to assist schools in writing and mod-

ifying an acceleration policy that adheres to research-based

best practices and is suited to local needs. These guidelines for

policy development should encourage the systematic adop-

tion and practice of acceleration in schools across the nation.

There are many barriers to acceleration, some of which we

have reviewed in this document. For example, some states

and local education agencies have absolute age requirements

for entering school. Others have curriculum requirements

tied to speciﬁc grade levels, or prerequisites for certain

courses/programs that are so speciﬁc in policy that they tie

educators’ hands. Additionally, colleges and universities may

present barriers by arbitrarily limiting participation of accel-

erated students in dual enrollment programs. In some states,

students aren’t allowed to take a state graduation test until

the spring of the sophomore year. In these states, colleges

and universities require students to have passed the gradua-

tion test before enrolling in their dual enrollment programs.

In eect, this locks students out of college-level courses until

their junior year. When these barriers can be removed, stu-

dents are in a better position to receive the educational op-

portunities and experiences necessary for their personal and

academic growth.

254 A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2

Appendix C : Policy Guidelines

Table 1: Checklist for Developing an Academic Acceleration Policy

An ideal acceleration policy will have a “yes” answer to each question.

Is your acceleration policy characterized by accessibility equity

and openness? YES NO UNSURE

Is access to referral for consideration of acceleration open to all students regardless of gender,

race, ethnicity, disability status, socioeconomic status, English language proﬁciency, and school

building attended?

Are all student populations served, including ELL, at-risk, low socioeconomic status, profoundly

gifted, and twice-exceptional?

Is the process of student evaluation fair, objective, and systematic?

Do parents or legal guardians have open communication with school ofﬁcials about the

policy document?

Does the community have access to the policy document? Is the policy accessible in the languages

served by the school?

Does your acceleration policy provide guidelines for

implementing acceleration? YES NO UNSURE

Are both categories of acceleration (grade-based and content-based) speciﬁed?

Are the forms of acceleration (e.g., early admission to school, telescoping, AP) and types (where

appropriate) speciﬁed?

Is the process of obtaining acceleration services detailed (including referral & screening,

assessment & decision making, and planning)?

Does the policy specify that child study teams, not individuals, consider acceleration cases?

Does the policy specify the creation of a “Written Acceleration Plan”?

Does the policy specify a monitored transition period?

Does your acceleration policy provide guidelines on

administrative matters? YES NO UNSURE

Does the policy address short-term needs, such as...

• specifying which grade-level achievement test should the student take?

• clarifying transportation issues for students who need to travel between buildings?

• determining the student’s class rank?

Does the policy address long-term needs, such as...

• maintaining accelerated standing?

• assigning appropriate credit for accelerated coursework?

• indicating acceleration coursework on a transcript?

• specify the process of awarding course credit to students?

Does your acceleration policy provide guidelines for preventing non-

academic barriers? YES NO UNSURE

Are procedures in place to ensure participation in extracurricular activities, including sports?

Have funding formulae been reviewed to prevent unintended disincentives?

Does your acceleration policy include features that prevent unintended

consequences? YES NO UNSURE

Is an appeals process detailed?

Will the policy be regularly evaluated for its effectiveness?

A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2 255

Appendix C : Policy Guidelines

This reference list reﬂects the entire list in the 2009 document.

References

Assouline, S. G., Colangelo, N., Ihrig, D., Forstadt, L., Lipscomb, J., &

Lupkowski-Shoplik, A.E. (2003, November). e Iowa Acceleration

Scale: Two validation studies. Paper presented at the National Associa-

tion for Gifted Children Convention, Indianapolis, IN.

Assouline, S. G., Colangelo, N., Lupkowski-Shoplik, A. E., Lipscomb, J.,

Forstadt (2009). e Iowa Acceleration Scale Manual (3rd ed.). Scotts-

dale, AZ: Great Potential Press.

Colangelo, N., Assouline, S., & Gross, M. U. M. (2004). A Nation deceived:

How schools hold back America’s brightest students (V.I., V.II.). Iowa

City: University of Iowa, e Connie Belin and Jacqueline N. Blank

International Center for Gifted Education and Talent Development.

(Visit http://www.nationdeceived.org for a free download of A Nation

Deceived.)

Flannery, M. E. (2009, Jan/Feb.). Born in the U.S.A. And other things you

might not know about today’s English language learners. NEA Today,

24-29.

Kulik, J. A. (2004). Meta-analytic studies of acceleration. In N. Colangelo,

S. Assouline, & M. U. M. Gross (Eds.), A Nation deceived: How schools

hold back America’s brightest students (V.II., pp. 13-22). Iowa City: Uni-

versity of Iowa, e Connie Belin & Jacqueline N. Blank International

Center for Gifted Education and Talent Development.

Kulik, J. A., & Kulik, C. C. (1992). Meta-analytic ﬁndings on grouping

programs. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36, 73-77.

Lipscomb, J. M. (2003). A validity study of the Iowa Acceleration Scale.

Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Iowa.

Lubinski, D., Benbow, C. P., Webb, R. M., & Bleske-Rechek, A. (2006).

Tracking exceptional human capital over two decades. Psychological Sci-

ence, 17(3), 194-199.

Lubinski, D., Webb, R. M., Morelock, M. J., & Benbow, C. P. (2001). Top

1 in 10,000: A 10-year follow-up of the profoundly gifted. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 86(4), 718-729.

National Association for Gifted Children (NAGC). (2004). Acceleration

[Position Paper]. Washington, DC: Author.

Neihart, M. (2007). e socioaﬀective impact of acceleration and ability

grouping: Recommendations for best practice. Gifted Child Quarterly,

51(4), 330-341.

Pressey, S. L. (1949). Educational acceleration: Appraisals and basic prob-

lems (Ohio State University Studies, Bureau of Educational Research

Monograph No. 31). Columbus: Ohio State University Press.

Rogers, K. B. (2002). Re-forming gifted education: Matching the program to

the child. Scottsdale, AZ: Great Potential Press.

Rogers, K. B. (2004). e academic eﬀects of acceleration. In N. Colangelo,

S. Assouline, & M. U. M. Gross (Eds.), ANation deceived: How schools

hold back America’s brightest students (V.II., pp. 47-57). Iowa City: Uni-

versity of Iowa, e Connie Belin & Jacqueline N. Blank International

Center for Gifted Education and Talent Development.

Sayler, M. F., & Brookshire, W. K. (1993). Social, emotional, and behav-

ioral adjustment of accelerated students, students in gifted classes, and

regular students in eighth grade. Gifted Child Quarterly, 37(4), 150-154.

Schiever, S. W., & Maker, C. J. (2003). New directions in enrichment and

acceleration. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted

education (3rd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Southern, W. T., & Jones, E. D. (Eds.) (1991). e academic acceleration of

gifted children. New York: Teachers College Press.

Southern, W. T., & Jones, E. (2004a). Acceleration in Ohio: A summary of

ﬁndings from a statewide study of district policies and practices. Retrieved

July 29, 2008, from http://www.ode.state.oh.us/GD/Templates/Pag-

es/ODE/ODEDetail.aspx?page=3&TopicRelationID=964&Con-

tentID=6163&Content=41228.

Southern, W. T., & Jones, E. D. (2004b). Types of acceleration: Dimen-

sions and issues. In N. Colangelo, S. Assouline, & M. U. M. Gross

(Eds.), A Nation deceived: How schools hold back America’s brightest stu-

dents (V.II., pp. 5-12). Iowa City: University of Iowa, e Connie Belin

& Jacqueline N. Blank International Center for Gifted Education and

Talent Development.

Wells, R., Lohman, D. F., & Marron, M. A. (2009). What factors are asso-

ciated with grade acceleration? An analysis and comparison of two U.S.

databases. Journal of Advanced Academics, 20(2), 248-273.

Muratori, M. C. (2007). Early entrance to college: A guide to success. Waco,

TX: Prufrock Press.

National Association for Gifted Children & e Council of State Direc-

tors of Programs for the Gifted (2009). State of the states in gifted educa-

tion 2008-2009. Washington, DC: Author.

Plucker, J. A., & Callahan, C. M. (Eds.). (2008). Critical issues and practices

in gifted education: What the research says. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

Robinson, A., Shore, B. M., & Enersen, D. L. (2007). Best practices in gifted

education: An evidence-based guide. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

Smutny, J. F., Walker, S. Y., & Meckstroth, E. A. (2007). Acceleration for

gifted learners, K-5. ousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

VanTassel-Baska, J. (2003). Curriculum policy development for gifted

programs: Converting issues in the ﬁeld to coherent practice. In J. H.

Borland (Ed.), Rethinking gifted education (pp. 173-185). New York:

Teachers College Press

256 A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2

Appendix C : Policy Guidelines

A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2 257

Appendix D : About the Belin-Blank Center and the Acceleration Institute

The Connie Belin and Jacqueline N.

Blank Center for Gifted Education

and Talent Development (Belin-Blank

Center): www.belinblank.org

The Belin-Blank Center (BBC) is a comprehensive center

focused on nurturing potential and inspiring excellence

through myriad programs and services. The mission of the

Belin-Blank Center is to empower and serve the internation-

al gifted community through exemplary leadership in pro-

grams, research, and advocacy.

The Belin-Blank Center:

• Identiﬁes gifted, talented, and artistic learners;

• Oers specialized educational opportunities

for students;

• Increases awareness and use of acceleration to

enhance learning;

• Provides assessment, counseling, and consulta-

tion services;

• Develops curriculum resources and materials;

• Facilitates the professional development of

educators;

• Disseminates information through conferences

and publications;

• Leads in local, national, and international poli-

cy formation;

• Enhances educational opportunities through

technology;

• Collaborates with the worldwide gifted com-

munity; and

• Promotes access, diversity, and equity in devel-

oping talent.

The Belin-Blank Center supports the development of gift-

ed education programs throughout the world. Our interna-

tional eorts include the Templeton International Fellows

program. The administrative faculty and sta have conduct-

ed professional development programs for educators from

South Korea and Russia. Students from other countries, es-

pecially China and Hong Kong, are regular participants in

our summer programs.

Housed at the Belin-Blank Center, the Wallace Research

and Assessment Clinic is home to the National Institute for

Twice-Exceptionality (NITE). Twice-exceptionality refers

to gifted students who have learning, behavioral, and/or so-

cial-emotional diculties. NITE provides a clearinghouse

for resources related to the topic of twice-exceptionality. The

NITE team of licensed psychologists and researchers has

actively researched this topic and abstracts of several recent

research publications are available on the Assessment and

Counseling Clinic webpage, www.belinblank.org/clinic.

Acceleration Institute:

www.accelerationinstitute.org

The Belin-Blank Center’s Acceleration Institute was origi-

nally established under the name, “Institute for Research and

Policy on Acceleration” in 2006through the generous sup-

port (2006-2012) of the John Templeton Foundation. The

Acceleration Institute is dedicated to the study of curricular

acceleration for academically talented children.

The primary purposes of the Acceleration Institute are:

• Conducting research on the cognitive and

aective characteristics that moderate stu-

dents’ success with dierent forms of academic

acceleration;

• Synthesizing current research on acceleration

in ways that are useful to practitioners, policy

makers, and researchers; and

• Serving as an international clearinghouse for

research and policy on acceleration.

About the Belin-Blank Center

and the Acceleration Institute

258 A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2

Appendix D : About the Belin-Blank Center and the Acceleration Institute

Belin-Blank Center Staff

Directors

Susan G. Assouline, Ph.D., Myron and Jacqueline Blank Chair

in Gifted Education, Director

Nicholas Colangelo, Ph.D., Dean, College of Education,

Director Emeritus

Laurie Croft, Ph.D., Clinical Associate Professor, Associate

Director for Professional Development

Brian Douglas, M.B.A., Assistant Director for Finance,

Operations, and Technology

Megan Foley-Nicpon, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Coun-

seling Psychology, Associate Director for Research and Clinic

Jan Warren, M.A., Assistant Director for Student Services

Administrative Staff

Alissa Doobay, Ph.D., Supervisor of Psychological Services for

Wallace Assessment and Counseling Clinic

Kristin Flanary, M.A., Coordinator for Iowa Online Advanced

Placement Academy (IOAPA)

Joyce Goins, Ph.D., Licensed Psychologist, Assessment and Coun-

seling Clinic

Lori Ihrig, Ph.D., Supervisor for Curriculum and Instruction,

Program Director for STEM Excellence and Leadership

Joshua Jacobs, A.A.S., Network Administrator

Emily Ladendorf, B.A., Online Technology

Ann Lupkowski-Shoplik, Ph.D., Administrator, Acceleration

Institute; Adjunct Professor, Psychological and Quantitative

Foundations

Ashlee Van Fleet, M.A.T., Administrative Curriculum and

Instruction

Faculty Staff

Clar Baldus, Ph.D., Clinical Associate Professor for Art Edu-

cation, Consultant, Visual Arts Programs

Leslie Flynn, Ph.D., Clinical Associate Professor for Science

Education, Coordinator JSHS

Clerical Staff

Rachelle Blackwell

Lori Hudson

Melissa Keeling

Bridget Pauley

Nancy Whetstine

Graduate Assistants

Maggie Candler, B.S.

Chuck Cederberg, M.A., LMHC

Erica Damman, B.F.A., M.F.A

Staci Fosenburg, B.S.

Ellen Henning, S.S.P

Erin Lane, M.A.

Soeun Park, M.S.

Katie Schabilion, B.A.

Anne Sparks, B.A.

Kirstin Swenson, B.A.

Jiaju Wu, M.A.

Kristin Wurster, M.A.

Practicum Students

Staci Fosenburg (Clinic)

Jonny Goodwin (Clinic)

Michael Rieger (Honors Program)

LaNeisha Waller (Clinic)

Undergraduate Assistants

Aulburee Hawkins

Lara Shema

A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2 259

Appendix E : Resources

Centers for Gifted Education

and Talent Searches

Academic Talent Search

California State University, Sacramento CA

http://www.csus.edu/coe/ats/

The Belin-Blank International Center for Gifted Edu-

cation and Talent Development

University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA

http://www.belinblank.org

Center for Bright Kids

http://www.centerforbrightkids.org

Center for Gifted Education

College of William & Mary, Williamsburg, VA

http://education.wm.edu/centers/cfge/

Center for Gifted Studies

Western Kentucky University, Bowling Green, KY

http://www.wku.edu/gifted/

Center for Talent Development

Northwestern University, Evanston, IL

http://www.ctd.northwestern.edu

Center for Talented Youth

Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD

http://cty.jhu.edu

Davidson Institute for Talent Development

Reno, NV

http://www.davidsongifted.org

Frances A. Karnes Center for Gifted Studies

University of Southern Mississippi, Hattiesburg, MS

http://www.usm.edu/karnes-gifted

Gifted Development Center

Denver, CO

http://www.gifteddevelopment.com

Gifted Education Research Resource and

Information Center

University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia

https://education.arts.unsw.edu.au/about-us/gerric/

Gifted Education Resource Institute

Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN

http://www.geri.education.purdue.edu

Gifted Students Institute

Southern Methodist University, Dallas, TX

http://www.smu.edu/gsi/

Jodie Mahony Center for Gifted Education

University of Arkansas at Little Rock

http://ualr.edu/gifted/

Neag Center for Gifted Education and Talent Development

University of Connecticut, Mansﬁeld, CT

http://www.gifted.uconn.edu

Oce of Precollegiate Programs for Talented and Gift-

ed (OPPTAG)

Iowa State University, Ames, IA

https://www.opptag.iastate.edu/

Robinson Center for Young Scholars

University of Washington, Seattle, WA

https://robinsoncenter.uw.edu/

Talent Identiﬁcation Program

Duke University, Durham, NC

http://tip.duke.edu

University of Minnesota Talented Youth Mathematics

Program (UMTYMP)

University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN

http://mathcep.umn.edu/umtymp/

Wisconsin Center for Academically Talented Youth

Madison, WI

http://www.wcaty.org

This appendix offers resources that may be useful for parents and educators of gifted and talented students. The entries in each category

below serve as a representative sample, rather than an exhaustive list, of available resources.

Resources for Parents

and Educators

260 A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2

Appendix E : Resources

Contests and Competitions

American Mathematics Competitions

http://www.maa.org/math-competitions

Oers a series of competitions, including American Mathe-

matics Contest 8, 10, and 12; American Invitational Math-

ematics Exam; United States of America Mathematical

Olympiad (USAMO).

American Model United Nations International

http://www.amun.org/

American Regions Mathematics League (ARML)

http://www.arml.com

ARML is a national mathematics competition for high

school students.

American History Essay Contests

http://www.dar.org/national-society/education/essay-contests

Destination Imagination (DI) Challenge Program

http://www.destinationimagination.org/challenge-program

Teams work together to solve their chosen challenge, and

team solutions are assessed at regional, state, or country

tournaments.

Future Problem Solving Program International (FPSPI)

http://www.fpsp.org

FPSPI oers competitive and non-competitive activities in

creative problem solving.

Intel Science Talent Search (Intel STS)

https://student.societyforscience.org/intel-sts

Intel STS is the nation’s most prestigious science research

competition for high school seniors. Students submit

independent research projects and winners receive college

scholarships.

Junior Science and Humanities Symposia

http://jshs.org/

JSHS is designed to challenge and engage students (Grades

9-12) in science, technology, engineering or mathematics

(STEM). Individual students compete for scholarships

and recognition by presenting the results of their original

research eorts before a panel of judges and an audience of

their peers. Opportunities for hands-on workshops, panel

discussions, career exploration, research lab visits and net-

working are provided.

MATHCOUNTS

http://www.mathcounts.org

MATHCOUNTS is a national competitive mathematics

program for middle school students. Students can win schol-

arships and other prizes.

Math Day at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln (UNL)

http://www.math.unl.edu/programs/mathday

UNL Math Day invites Nebraska high school students to

participate in one individual and two team math competi-

tions. Top prizes include scholarships to UNL.

The Universi-

ty of Nebraska Lincoln also sponsors the

All Girls/All Math Summer Camp

http://www.math.unl.edu/programs/agam

for high school girls who have completed geometry.

Math League Contests

http://www.mathleague.com

The Math League oers contests for students in grades four

through 12.

Math Olympiads for Elementary and Middle Schools

(MOEMS)

http://www.moems.org/

The Olympiad Program includes a series of math problem

solving contests for school-based teams of up to 35 students

in grades four through eight. School math clubs can meet

year-round to explore math topics and prepare for contests,

which are oered monthly from November to March.

National Academic Quiz Tournaments (NAQT)

http://www.naqt.com/index.html

NAQT organizes middle school, high school, community

college and college national quiz bowl championships and

provides a format for independent tournaments.

National Geographic Bee

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/geobee/

The National Geographic Bee is open to schools with stu-

dents in grades four through eight. School champions may

qualify to participate in their state Bee, and state champions

attend the national championship, where prizes include

scholarships.

National History Day (NHD)

http://www.nationalhistoryday.org

Students select an historical topic, conduct research, and

develop a project representing their knowledge. Projects can

be entered for judging at local, regional, state and national

levels, and prizes include scholarships and internships.

National Merit Scholarship Program

http://www.nationalmerit.org/nmsp.php

High school students who take the Preliminary SAT/Nation-

al Merit Scholarship Qualifying Test (PSAT/NMSQT) and

meet published eligibility criteria are entered in the Nation-

al Merit Program. Winners receive college scholarships.

A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2 261

Appendix E : Resources

National Science Bowl

http://science.energy.gov/wdts/nsb/

The National Science Bowl is an academic competition that

tests students’ science and math knowledge. Regional cham-

pions in middle school and high school divisions advance to

the national championship.

Odyssey of the Mind

http://www.odysseyofthemind.com

Odyssey of the Mind invites students from kindergarten

through college to form teams and solve a wide variety of

creative problems. Competitions occur at local, state, and

world levels.

Science Olympiad

http://soinc.org/

Science Olympiad oers programs for students in kindergar-

ten through grade twelve. Competitions occur at regional,

state, and national levels.

Scholastic Art and Writing Awards

http://www.artandwriting.org/

The nation’s longest-running, most prestigious recognition

initiative for creative teens, and the largest source of schol-

arships for young artists and writers.

Scripps National Spelling Bee

http://www.spellingbee.com

The Scripps National Spelling Bee program oers opportu-

nities for schools to enroll in the program, develop and hold

local contests, and send winners to the next levels of compe-

tition, culminating yearly in the National Spelling Bee.

Tests of Engineering Aptitude, Mathematics and

Science (TEAMS)

http://teams.tsaweb.org

TEAMS is an annual one-day competition in which middle

and high school students can apply their math and science

knowledge to solve real-world engineering challenges.

U.S. National Chemistry Olympiad (UNSCO)

http://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/education/students/high-

school/olympiad.html

The USNCO is a chemistry competition for high school

students. The local competitions are open to all high school

students, and nominees are selected to take the national

exam. Top performers on the exam go on to the study camp,

and four students are selected to represent the U.S. at the

International Chemistry Olympiad.

U.S. Physics Team

http://www.aapt.org/physicsteam/

The American Association of Physics Teachers recruits,

selects, and trains teams to compete in the International

Physics Olympiad Competition. Schools can register high

school students to participate in the local exam, and top

scorers go on to take the USA Physics Olympiad Exam.

U.S.A Mathematical Talent Search (USAMTS)

http://www.usamts.org

The USAMTS is a free math contest open to all U.S. middle

and high school students. The competition aspect of the

program is secondary to the development of problem solv-

ing and math reasoning skills.

United States Academic Decathlon (UASD)

http://usad.org/

The USAD is a scholastic competition for teams of high

school students. Teams are made up of three “Honor”

students (3.75-4.00 GPA), three “Scholastic” students (3.00-

3.749 GPA) and three “Varsity” students (0.00-2.999 GPA).

Distance Learning

Advanced Placement (AP) Program

http://apcentral.collegeboard.com

AP courses are oered in many high schools nationwide.

National examinations are given each May, and high scores

earn college credit. Many states sponsor grants to pay for

online AP courses if they are not oered in person.

CTYOnline

Center for Talented Youth, Johns Hopkins University

http://cty.jhu.edu/ctyonline/index.html

CTYOnline oers challenging courses for eligible students

in grades Pre-K to 12. These courses are available year-round,

and each student receives guidance, feedback, and evalua-

tion from a CTY faculty member.

GIFTEDANDTALENTED.COM

(formerly the Education Program for Gifted Youth [EPGY]

at Stanford University)

http://giftedandtalented.com

Computer-based courses designed to meet the needs of

advanced learners in grade K-12.

Gifted LearningLinks

Center for Talent Development, Northwestern University

http://www.ctd.northwestern.edu/gll/

GLL oers challenging online courses for gifted and talent-

ed students in kindergarten through grade 12.

262 A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2

Appendix E : Resources

Iowa Online Advanced Placement Academy (IOAPA)

Belin-Blank Center, University of Iowa

http://www.iowaapacademy.org

Since 2001, IOAPA has oered access to Advanced Place-

ment (AP) courses to all Iowa high school students, especial-

ly those in small and rural schools. The Belin-Blank Center

has recently begin expanding the online AP learning pro-

gram to schools outside of Iowa.

University of Nebraska High School

University of Nebraska

http://highschool.nebraska.edu

The University of Nebraska High School (UNHS) is

an accredited school oering ﬂexible, self-based online

coursework. Students in any location may choose to enroll

at UNHS full-time to earn a UNHS diploma, or they may

transfer credits earned through UNHS to their local school.

Early Entrance to

College Programs

Below is a sample of early entrance to college programs.

More information can be found in the Brody and Mura-

tori chapter in A Nation Empowered (Vol. 2) and at http://

www.accelerationinstitute.org/Resources/early_college.aspx

and http://www.hoagiesgifted.org/early_college.htm.

Organizations marked with an * are members of the National Con-

sortium of Early College Entrance Programs.

Accelerated College Entrance

California State University, Sacramento

http://www.csus.edu/coe/ace/

For students in grades 11 and 12

Advanced Academy of Georgia*

University of West Georgia

http://www.westga.edu/~academy/

For students in grades 11 and 12

Bard College at Simon’s Rock*

http://www.simons-rock.edu/

For students who have completed 10

grade

Boston University Academy*

http://www.buacademy.org

For students in grades nine through 12

The Clarkson School*

Clarkson University

http://www.clarkson.edu/tcs/

For students who have completed 11

grade

The Davidson Academy of Nevada

http://www.davidsonacademy.unr.edu/

For students under the age of 18 who meet the Qualiﬁcation

Criteria

The Early College

Guilford College

http://ecg.gcsnc.com/pages/Early_College_At_Guilford

For students in grades nine through 12

Early Entrance Program*

California State University, Los Angeles

http://web.calstatela.edu/academic/eep/

For qualiﬁed students 11 to 18 years old

Early Entrance Program*

Belin-Blank Center, University of Iowa

http://www.belinblank.org/academy

Formerly the National Academy of Arts, Science,

and Engineering

Massachusetts Academy of Math and Science

http://www.massacademy.org/

For students in grades 11 and 12

Program for the Exceptionally Gifted*

Mary Baldwin College

http://www.mbc.edu/early_college/peg/

For girls between the ages of 13 and 15

Robinson Center for Young Scholars*

University of Washington

https://robinsoncenter.uw.edu/

For students who have completed at least sixth grade and

are younger than 15 years old

Texas Academy of Mathematics and Science*

Denton, TX

https://tams.unt.edu/

For Texas students in grades 11 and 12 who are interested in

math and science

A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2 263

Appendix E : Resources

Organizations

Most states have an organization to promote advocacy for

gifted and talented students at the state and local level; pro-

vide pre-service and in-service training in gifted education;

and support parent/community awareness, education, and

involvement. See the NAGC website for speciﬁc informa-

tion by state.

National Association for Gifted Children (NAGC)

http://www.nagc.org

NAGC is a non-proﬁt organization dedicated to serving par-

ents, educators, community leaders, and other professionals

who work on behalf of gifted children. It hosts an annual

convention and publishes several periodicals. In addition,

most states have an NAGC-aliated state organization, and

the NAGC website oers state-speciﬁc policies and infor-

mation.

American Psychological Association (APA) Center for

Gifted Education Policy (CGEP)

http://www.apa.org/ed/schools/gifted/index.aspx

The mission of the CGEP is to generate public awareness,

advocacy, clinical applications, and cutting-edge research

ideas that will enhance the achievement and performance of

children and adolescents with special gifted and talents.

The Association for the Gifted (TAG)

http://cectag.com/

TAG is a special interest division of the Council for Excep-

tional Children (CEC). It promotes the welfare and educa-

tion of children and youth with gifts, talents, high potential,

and those who are twice-exceptional.

Supporting Emotional Needs of the Gifted (SENG):

http://sengifted.org/

The mission of SENG is to foster environments in which all

gifted children and adults can understand and accept them-

selves and be understood, valued, and supported by others.

Periodicals

Connecting for High Potential

http://www.nagc.org/resources-publications/nagc-

publications/connecting-high-potential

This publication from the National Association for Gifted

Children is designed to bridge the gaps between parents

and teachers of gifted children and to oer opportunities to

examine each perspective.

Gied Child Quarterly (GCQ): http://www.nagc.org/re-

sources-publications/nagc-publications/gifted-child-quar-

terly GCQ is the scholarly journal of the National Associa-

tion for Gifted Children. It contains articles of interest to

professionals and those with some experience in the ﬁeld of

gifted education.

Gied Child Today (GCT)

http://gct.sagepub.com/

GCT provides practical advice about teaching and parenting

gifted and talented children. Articles cover topics relevant

for parents, teachers, and administrators of gifted students.

Imagine

http://cty.jhu.edu/imagine/index.html

Imagine is written for students in grades 7-12, and is

published by the Johns Hopkins University Center for

Talented Youth.

Journal for the Education of the Gied (JEG)

http://jeg.sagepub.com/

JEG is the ocial publication of The Association for the

Gifted (a division of the Council for Exceptional Children).

It presents information and research on the educational and

psychological needs of gifted and talented children.

Parenting for High Potential

http://www.nagc.org/resources-publications/nagc-

publications/parenting-high-potential

This magazine is published by NAGC and designed for

parents.

Roeper Review

http://www.roeper.org/Roeper-Review

This publication is designed for professionals and includes

articles that are research-based and often deal with both

theoretical and practical issues.

Understanding Our Gied

http://www.ourgifted.com/

This online journal is published quarterly, and each issue

focuses on a dierent gifted education topic.

Vision

http://www.belinblank.org/newsletter

Vision is the monthly newsletter from the Connie Belin & Jac-

queline N. Blank International Center for Gifted Education

and Talent Development.

264 A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2

Appendix E : Resources

Web and Print Resources

The Acceleration Institute

(formerly the Institute for Research and Policy on Acceler-

ation), a project of the Belin-Blank Center for Gifted and

Talented Education, the University of Iowa

http://www.accelerationinstitute.org

This website is home to many resources that are useful for

making acceleration decisions, developing acceleration

policies, and examining speciﬁc forms of acceleration. The

watershed publication on acceleration, A Nation Deceived:

How Schools Hold Back America’s Brightest Students, can be

downloaded for free. A PowerPoint presentation discussing

acceleration is available for download. The Policy section

provides information about state legislation regarding accel-

eration for all 50 U.S. states that can inform parents and edu-

cators interested in acceleration. The downloadable Guide-

lines for Developing an Academic Acceleration Policy may be of

assistance to school personnel who are considering creating

a policy. Also found on this website are acceleration stories:

personal anecdotes from parents, teachers and students who

have had experiences with acceleration.

Academic Earth

http://academicearth.org/

A collection of free online college courses from many univer-

sities. Courses include biology, chemistry, computer science,

engineering, mathematics, physics, and psychology.

ALEKS

http://www.aleks.com

Web-based assessment and learning system that uses adap-

tive questioning to determine what a student knows and

doesn’t know in a course. ALEKS then instructs the student

on the topics he or she is most ready to learn.

Cogito

https://cogito.cty.jhu.edu/

Sponsored by the Center for Talented Youth at Johns

Hopkins University, this website connects exceptional stu-

dents from around the world who love science, technology,

engineering and math. Students canparticipate in online

interviews with mathematicians and scientists; view science

and math-related news articles, essays, videos and blogs;

and access a database of academic programs and math and

science competitions. Cogito also includes members-only

discussion forums.

Davidson Gifted Database

http://www.davidsongifted.org/db/

This database features an online article library, searchable

resources for and about gifted students, gifted education

state policy information, and a gifted issues discussion

forum.

Developing Math Talent: A Comprehensive Guide to Math

Education for Gied Students in Elementary and Middle

School (2

ed.)

By Assouline, S., and Lupkowski-Shoplik, A. (2011). Pub-

lished by Prufrock Press (Waco, TX). This handbook inte-

grates the unique roles of educators and parents in respond-

ing to the exceptional needs of mathematically talented

students.

Educational Opportunity Guide

https://eog.tip.duke.edu/guide/search

This guide is updated annually by Duke University’s Talent

Identiﬁcation Program (TIP). It lists many summer and

school-year programs throughout the country.

Federal Registry for Educational Excellence (FREE)

http://free.ed.gov/

The FREE website compiles digital teaching and learning

resources.

Genius Denied

http://www.geniusdenied.com

By Davidson, J., & Davidson, B. (2004). Published by Simon

and Schuster (New York). Additional resources, blogs, news,

and other information are listed on the website.

The Hoagies Gifted Education Page

http://www.hoagiesgifted.org

This website hosts a wide variety of resources for parents of

gifted students, educators and professionals working with

gifted students, and gifted kids and teens.

IDEAL Solutions for STEM Acceleration

http://www.idealsolutionnsstem.com

This is an online tool that assists parents and educators in

making decisions about academically talented students.

Teachers can gain research-supported recommendations

regarding students’ readiness for acceleration in STEM

subjects. Recommendations are aligned with national stan-

dards. The goal is to assist school personnel with accelerated

placement in STEM subjects so they can feel conﬁdent that

their placement decisions are supported by research.

Iowa Acceleration Scale, 3rd Edition

http://accelerationinstitute.org/Resources/IAS.aspx

Developed by Susan Assouline, Nicholas Colangelo,

Ann Lupkowski-Shoplik, Jonathan Lipscomb, and Leslie

Forstadt (2009). Published by Great Potential Press (Scotts-

dale, AZ). This instrument provides a systematic and thor-

ough method of decision-making for educators and parents

A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2 265

Appendix E : Resources

who are considering whole-grade acceleration for students

in kindergarten through eighth grade.

Khan Academy

https://www.khanacademy.org/

Provides practice exercises, instructional videos, and a

personalized learning dashboard that empower learners to

study at their own pace in and outside of the classroom. Sub-

jects include math, science, computer programming, history,

art history, economics, and others.

Listservs

Belin-Blank Center Listserv

The Gifted Teachers email list provides a way for educators

around the world interested in gifted education to interact.

Nearly 1,000 educators currently participate. To subscribe

to the list, send an email message to listser[email protected].

Leave the subject line blank. In the text of your message,

write: SUBSCRIBE GIFTED-TEACHERS First-Name

Last-Name.

Center for Gifted Education Policy (CGEP) Listserv

The CGEP Listserv is a forum of over 400 subscribers from

around the world that engenders communication among

researchers in giftedness studies and education. It provides

opportunities for researchers and graduate students to

discuss issues, exchange information, and generate potential

collaborations. See http://www.apa.org/ed/schools/gifted/

listserv/index.aspx for instructions on how to subscribe.

Hoagies Gifted Education Page

The Hoagies Gifted website contains a listing of many dif-

ferent email lists, Facebook groups, blogs, and other online

communities for individuals interested in gifted education.

Visit http://www.hoagiesgifted.org/on-line_support.htm.

A N E:

S M

For current information about A Nation Empowered, visit

www.nationempowered.org, follow @BelinBlank on Twitter,

or read the Belin-Blank Center blog at

https://belinblank.wordpress.com/.

266 A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2

Appendix E : Resources

A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2 267

Index

Abbott 101, 109, 191, 197

Ablard 117, 120

Achter 172, 178, 179

ACT 132, 134

Adams 33, 98, 107, 109

Adams-Byers 37, 40

Adelman 184, 187

Adelson 101, 109

Alderdice 4, 137, 243

Aljughaiman 221

Allmon 189, 197

Allport 75

Almarode 116, 121, 138, 143, 150

Almeida 211, 215, 216, 219, 221

Ambrose 42

Ambroson 29, 70, 120

Amend 192, 197

American Institutes for Research 156, 165

American Psychiatric Association 189, 196

American Psychological Association 74, 76, 80, 150

American School Counselor Association 90, 96

An Act to Extend and Amend Expiring Elementary

and Secondary Education Programs, and for Other

Purposes 190, 196

Andersen 31, 132, 134, 243

Andersson 186, 187

Andree 96

Ansley 133, 135

Archambault 127, 134

Arjmand 118, 120, 228, 239

Arndt 163, 166, 199, 207, 226, 240

Arrigoni 220

ASCA See alsoAmerican School Counselor Associ-

ation

Ashton 227, 240

Assouline 1, 9, 14, 17, 18, 19, 20, 29, 34, 40, 41, 42, 48,

51, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 59, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 69, 70,

71, 74, 75, 78, 81, 82, 83, 88, 91, 94, 96, 99, 106,

108, 109, 111, 113, 115, 119, 120, 123, 126, 130,

131, 133, 134, 154, 161, 162, 165, 166, 177, 179,

180, 183, 187, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195,

196, 197, 202, 207, 208, 209, 219, 221, 223, 228,

239, 240, 243, 246, 250, 255, 258

Australian Government 225, 239

Avery 47, 51, 101, 109

Ayres 226, 227, 240

Bai 98, 101, 109

Bailey 227, 239

Baker 33, 40, 44, 51

Bakler 212, 214, 217, 221

Balchin 211, 221, 222, 223

Balestrini 210, 213, 223

Banilower 129, 134

Barkley 195, 197

Barnett 117, 118, 119

Barnette 34, 40

Bartkovich 116, 119

Bass 37, 41

Baum 189, 191, 194, 195, 196, 197

Bauman 97

Bazeley 227, 239

Bean 109

Beck 172, 179

Beilke 185, 187

Bell 190, 197

Bembry 162, 166

Benbow 27, 29, 33, 40, 44, 51, 54, 70, 74, 75, 77, 78, 79,

81, 82, 83, 99, 109, 111, 112, 114, 115, 116, 117,

118, 119, 120, 121, 125, 126, 134, 135, 138, 151,

154, 161, 165, 166, 167, 171, 172, 173, 178, 179,

180, 203, 208, 226, 228, 239, 240, 250, 255

Benedict 93, 96

Benyhe 213, 221

Berninger 101, 109, 191, 197

Besnoy 63, 69, 93, 96

Bettini 96

Betts 101, 109

Birman 88, 89, 97

Bitner 97

Black 14, 17, 54, 62, 69, 70

Bleske-Rechek 44, 51, 77, 82, 112, 120, 226, 239, 255

Bloom 59, 69, 161, 165, 201, 207

Board of Studies NSW 226, 239

Boazman 34, 36, 40, 163, 164, 165

Bonora 215, 223

Boogaard 216, 217, 218, 221

Boothe 155, 162, 165, 166, 228, 240

Borko 88, 92, 96

Borland 51, 255

Boston 59, 69

Bouwman 219, 223

Bozeman 173, 179

Bracken 98

Branson 91, 96

Bray 195, 197

Bridger 33, 40

Brighton 129, 134

Britner 37, 41

Brody 4, 13, 17, 19, 29, 54, 61, 69, 70, 101, 104, 106,

109, 111, 116, 117, 119, 120, 153, 154, 161, 163,

165, 200, 201, 203, 207, 226, 228, 238, 239, 243

Brookby 34, 37, 40

Brooks 96

Brookshire 33, 42, 255

Broughton 156, 165

Brown 44, 51, 98, 134

Brownell 96

Brush 120

Bryant 97

Buese 89, 91, 98

Burkam 185, 187

Burke 189, 197

Burlingame 38, 40

Burney 148, 150, 185, 187, 196, 198

Burns 195, 197

Burov 211, 221

Burroughs 182, 188

Busse 101, 109

Byers 33

Caena 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 96

Calhoun 91, 97

Callahan 40, 48, 51, 89, 96, 98, 120, 207, 240, 247, 255

Calvert 69

Cameron 91, 96

Campbell 75, 82, 134

Caplan 164, 165

Capurro 69

Carey 89, 96

Carlon 227, 240

Carnoy 44, 51

Carpenter 92, 96

Carroll 101, 109

Carter 166

Casa 101, 109

Caskey 92, 96

Castellano 17, 69, 197

CCSSO See also Council of Chief State School Of-

ﬁcers

Ceci 75, 82

CEC-TAG 89

Cederberg 5, 189, 243

Chamberlin 186, 187

Chan 166, 195, 197, 199, 207, 240

Chang 124, 134

Chapel 166

Charlton 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 207

Chessor 41

Childers 162, 166, 199, 207, 240

Chipman 120

Chow 166, 199, 207, 240

Chung 13, 17, 81, 82, 162, 166, 199, 200, 202, 203,

204, 205, 206, 207

Cigrand 60, 71, 88, 98

Clarenbach 186, 188

Clarke 93, 96

Clinkenbeard 17, 69, 201, 207

Cobb 172, 179

Coe 22, 29

Cofer 145, 150

Cognitive Abilities Test (CogAT) 47

Cohn 41, 165

Colangelo 1, 9, 14, 17, 18, 19, 20, 29, 34, 40, 41, 42, 51,

53, 54, 55, 59, 60, 62, 69, 70, 71, 74, 75, 78, 81, 82,

83, 88, 91, 93, 94, 96, 98, 99, 106, 108, 109, 120,

123, 162, 166, 172, 177, 179, 180, 183, 184, 185,

187, 189, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 202, 207,

208, 209, 210, 219, 221, 223, 228, 240, 243, 246,

250, 255, 258

Coleman 36, 37, 40, 88, 96, 138, 148, 150, 151

Coleman-Jensen 181, 182, 187

Coles 190, 197

Colgate 155, 165

College Board 82, 184, 187

Colorado Department of Education 64

Colorado Department of Education Gifted Education

Unit 69

Comes Nolla 211, 213, 221

Compton 145, 151

Conger 184, 187

Connell 34, 41, 163, 166

Cook 75, 82

Cooper 89, 96

Corbett 132, 134

Cornell 216, 221

Corwith 112, 120

Cotabish 107, 109

Council for Exceptional Children 48

Council for Exceptional Children, e Association for

the Gifted 97

Council of Chief State School Oﬃcers 99, 100, 102,

104, 106, 109, 126, 127, 129, 130, 135.

Council of Europe 221

Council of State Directors of Programs for the Gifted

19, 29, 43, 45, 46, 51, 61, 62, 64, 69, 88, 89, 96, 97,

251, 255, 267

Cox 59, 60, 61, 62, 69, 172, 179, 199, 201, 207

Coyne 101, 109

Craven 32, 41, 118, 120

Creps 54, 55, 59, 60, 70

Creswell 227, 239

Cretu 214, 217, 220

Crim 190, 194, 197

Croft 3, 48, 87, 88, 93, 96, 98, 178, 244, 258

Cronbach 154, 165

Cronin 91, 98

Cross, J. R. 120

Cross, T. L. 31, 34, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 42, 120, 138, 142,

Author Index

268 A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2

Index

143, 144, 148, 150, 151, 178, 185, 187, 244

Crowe 116, 121, 138, 143, 150

CSDPG See also Council of State Directors of Pro-

grams for the Gifted

Csikszentmihalyi 59, 60, 69, 195, 198, 237, 239

Cuﬂey 166

Cukierkorn 63, 69

Cunningham 34, 37, 41, 98

Curland 166

Curry 154, 165

Cvetkovic-Lay 219, 220

Czermely 219, 221

Dahlin 91, 98

Dai 32, 41, 118, 120, 162, 165, 200, 201, 202, 203,

204, 207

Daily 166

Danforth 198

Daniel 59, 69

Darling-Hammond 90, 96

Daurio 32, 41, 154, 161, 163, 165

Davidson 165, 198

Davis 41, 56, 69, 70, 75, 82, 96, 120, 180, 210, 221, 255

DeBoer 134

De Corte 219, 221

Degner 4, 123, 244

Delaubier 214, 221

DeNavas-Walt 181, 187

Denessen 217, 223

Dennis 173, 179

Desimone 88, 89, 90, 97

Dettmer 88, 97

DeWard 44, 51

Dexter 88, 91, 92, 97

Díaz Pareja 211, 221

Dietz 173, 179

Diezmann 60, 69

Dimitriadis 128, 129, 131, 134

Dimmitt 89, 96

Dixon 88, 97, 144, 150, 195, 197

Dobyns 34, 41, 163, 166

Dockery 192, 196

Doobay 258

Dorsel 142, 151

Dougali 212, 213, 222

Douglas 258

Dounay 44, 51

Doyle 225, 239

Druex 215, 223

Drummond 162, 163, 166, 202, 203, 204, 207, 228,

240

DuCette 60, 71

Duncan 88, 98

Durant 91, 98

Durden 117, 118, 119

Dweck 124, 132, 134, 179, 194, 195, 197

Eagan 124, 134

Earl 212, 222

Eckert 101, 109

Education Resource Strategies 89, 91, 97

Eftekhari-Sanjani 75, 78, 83, 112, 120, 173, 178, 179

Eggett 97

Eisenberg 32, 41

Elmore 44, 51

Emmett 172, 179

Emmons 134

Endepohls-Ulpe 217, 221

Enersen 255

Engström 221

Enström 214

Erickson 78, 82

Ernst 195, 198

ERS See alsoEducation Resource Strategies

Espeland 61, 70

Esping 247

European Agency 214, 221

European Agency for Development in Special Needs

Education 210, 211, 212, 221

Eurydice 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 221

Eurypedia 221

Evans 33, 40, 91, 97

Falls 143, 151

Fan 126, 135

Farrell 34, 35, 36, 41

Federow 166, 199, 207, 240

Feldhusen 14, 17, 33, 41, 54, 55, 56, 62, 69, 70, 141,

151

Feldman 64, 70

Feldstein 177, 179

Feng 48, 51, 98, 101, 109

Ferrando 215, 222

Fidell 174

Fields 138, 151

Finn 137, 141, 151

Fiscus 13, 18, 59, 71, 178, 180

Fishman 88, 97

Flanary 258

Flannery 255

Fleming 142, 151, 164, 165

Flett 131, 134

Foley Nicpon 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 196, 197,

258

Foley-Nicpon 5, 189, 244

Ford 44, 51

Forstadt 20, 29, 51, 53, 54, 69, 81, 94, 96, 177, 179,

194, 195, 196, 219, 221, 246, 255

Fort Brennan 240

Forzani 187

Fosenburg 192, 197

Fox 60, 69, 117, 120

Frazier 138, 142, 143, 150, 197

Freeman 209, 211, 212, 215, 217, 219, 221

French 98

Frenzel 37, 41

Friedman-Nimz 44, 51

Fugate 191, 197

Fullan 227, 240

Fults 37, 40

Fund for the Advancement of Education 154, 161,

163, 165

Fuszek 214, 220

Gage 82

Gagné 32, 38, 39, 41, 62, 69, 93, 97

Gagnier 32, 38, 39, 41, 62, 69

Gal 127, 135

Gál 210, 221

Gallagher 44, 49, 50, 51, 56, 57, 69, 75, 82, 88, 96, 97,

148, 151

Galton 199, 201, 207

Gambrell 130, 134

Garet 88, 89, 90, 97

Gari 213, 220

Gasiewski 124, 134

Gavin 101, 104, 109

General Social Survey 175

Gentry 191, 197

George 32, 41, 165

Gerber 185, 187

Gillham 195, 198

Gilmore 92, 97

Gintiliene 220

Glascock 89, 96

Glass 22, 29

Goﬀ 185, 187

Goins 258

Goldring 37, 41

Götz 37, 41

Grant 118, 120

Gray 89, 97, 154, 161, 165

Green 209, 210, 221

Greene 172, 179

Gregory 181, 187, 204, 207

Griﬃth 124, 131, 134

Grisdale 90, 98

Gronlund 55, 69

Gronostaj 214, 215, 219, 221

Gross 5, 9, 13, 17, 18, 19, 29, 33, 34, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42,

53, 63, 65, 69, 70, 71, 74, 82, 83, 88, 91, 96, 99, 106,

109, 123, 173, 177, 179, 180, 183, 187, 189, 197,

199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208,

209, 221, 223, 225, 226, 227, 237, 238, 239, 240,

244, 250, 255

Grossenbacher 211, 213, 218, 221

Grskovic 191, 197, 198

GSS See alsoGeneral Social Survey

Guilland 166

Guisepi 209, 210, 222

Gunderson 162, 166, 199, 207

Guskey 88, 91, 93, 97

Györi 209, 212, 215, 222

Hagan 172, 179

Hagen 47, 51

Hahn 66

Hall 191, 197, 198

Hallmark 134

Halstead 109

Halsted 102

Haltiwanger 186, 187

Halvorson 78, 83

Hannaway 43, 51

Hannigan 101, 109

Hansen 166, 184, 187, 239, 240

Harder 210, 213, 214, 215, 219, 220, 221, 222, 223

Hardesty 182, 186, 187, 188

Hardin 88, 97

Harris 5, 44, 51, 181, 184, 187, 244

Harsin 238, 240

Hartel 211, 223

Harter 33, 41

Harwell 182, 187

Hau 37, 41, 118, 120

Hawkins 190, 197

Hebeler 179

Hébert 185, 187, 191, 197, 237, 238, 240

Hedges 22, 29, 184, 187

Heilbronner 34, 35, 41, 163, 166

Heinbokel 209, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220, 222

Heinzig 166

Heller 18, 74, 82, 83, 180, 215, 222, 223, 240

Henderson, C. E. 164, 165

Henderson, D. L. 142, 151

Henderson, J. 142, 151, 164, 165

Henry 97

Herlihy 89, 97

Hernandez 215, 222

Hertzog 13, 17, 81, 82, 162, 166, 199, 200, 202, 203,

204, 205, 206, 207

Hessel Oosterbeek 185, 187

Hewitt 131, 134

Higher Education Research Institute at UCLA 151

Hill 132, 134, 220

Himpe 213, 215, 216, 222

Hobbs 75, 83

Hobson 32, 41

Hockett 137, 141, 151

Hodge 175, 180

Hoekman 6, 225, 237, 240, 245

Holdren 123, 124, 134

Hollingsworth 93, 96

Hollingworth 55, 69, 75, 83

Holmes 201, 207

Hong 172, 180

Hoogeveen 5, 178, 179, 209, 211, 213, 214, 215, 216,

217, 219, 222, 223, 245

Hoover 166, 239, 240

Horgan 190, 198

Hornyák 209, 212, 217, 222

Horowitz 83

Housand 91, 92, 97

A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2 269

Index

Houston 63, 69

Howell 89, 90, 97

Hoyt 172, 179

Hu 62, 69

Hubbard 17

Huber 191, 196

Huberman 227, 240

Hughes 101, 166, 195, 197, 207

Hughes-Lynch 99, 101, 109

Humphreys 82, 83

Hurtado 124, 134

Hymer 221, 222, 223

Iacus 174, 179

Iatarola 184, 187

Ihrig 4, 54, 69, 123, 195, 196, 245, 255, 258

Illinois Mathematics and Science Academy 151

Imbeau 98

Impara 55, 70

Institute for Research and Policy on Acceleration 17,

45, 46, 48, 51, 62, 69, 96, 97

Iowa Testing Programs 56, 69

IRPA See alsoInstitute for Research and Policy on Ac-

celeration

Jackson 57, 62, 63, 69, 70

Jacobs 101, 109

Janos, B. M. 166

Janos, P. M. 13, 17, 18, 162, 163, 166, 171, 173, 177,

179, 199, 200, 202, 203, 204, 205, 207, 208

Januszyk 127, 134

Jarwan 141, 151

Job 88, 96

Johnsen 3, 16, 48, 51, 58, 89, 97, 99, 101, 102, 104,

109, 113, 126, 127, 134, 245

Johnson 47, 51, 104, 190, 197

Jones 1, 9, 11, 12, 13, 17, 18, 23, 31, 46, 53, 59, 60, 61,

69, 70, 71, 73, 74, 83, 88, 91, 92, 97, 129, 133, 141,

142, 143, 144, 151, 156, 162, 165, 178, 180, 195,

207, 213, 215, 223, 239, 245, 250, 255

Joyce 91, 97

Jung 5, 13, 172, 179, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205,

206, 207, 225, 240, 245

Juratowitch 225, 239

Juriševič 211, 217, 220, 222

Kain 186, 187

Kanevsky 101, 109

Kaniuka 156, 166

Karnes 37, 41, 44, 51, 63, 69, 88, 93, 97, 109

Karp 172, 180

Katsiyannis 44, 51

Kay 240

Kearney 37, 41

Keating 125, 134, 210, 222

Kehl 166

Kehle 195, 197

Kell 82, 83, 172, 179

Keller 134

Kelly 172, 179

Kennedy 187

Kent 21, 27, 29

Kettler 99, 109, 127, 134

Kevereski 220

Keys 154, 166

King 174, 179

Kitano 185, 187

Klein 57, 69

Kleva 210, 221

Kneebone 182, 186, 187

Knight 239

Ko 127, 135

Kolberg 212, 220

Kolitch 106, 109, 116, 117, 120

Köller 215, 216, 223

Kolloﬀ 34, 37, 41, 201, 207

Konstantopoulos 184, 187

Krasney 116, 120

Kretschmann 214, 217, 222

Kulieke 116, 120

Kulik, C. C. 13, 17, 21, 29, 33, 37, 41, 44, 51, 61, 69,

74, 83, 255

Kulik, J. A. 13, 17, 21, 29, 33, 37, 41, 44, 51, 61, 69, 74,

83, 183,187, 255

Kuo 62, 63, 69, 184, 187

Kutzbach 186, 187

Kyed 220

Lakin 47, 51, 130, 134

Lambert 38, 40

Lander 123, 124, 134

Landrum 44, 51, 88, 97

Laugen 151

Lauterbach 96

LeBeau 182, 187

Ledwith 216, 217, 222

Lee 33, 36, 37, 38, 41, 88, 98, 101, 104, 109, 118, 119,

120, 127, 131, 134, 138, 143, 150, 151, 185, 187

Leeb 172, 180

Lefstein 78, 82

Leroux 33, 37, 42

Leu 186, 187

Leuven 185, 187

Levy 90, 97

Lewis 62, 63, 69, 185, 187

Ley Orgánica 213, 222

Lindahl 185, 187

Lindeman 151

Linkins 195, 198

Linn 55, 69

Lipscomb 20, 29, 51, 53, 54, 57, 69, 81, 94, 96, 177,

194, 196, 219, 221, 246, 255

Litle 148, 151

Little 16, 18, 37, 41, 48, 59, 70, 91, 92, 94, 97, 98, 101,

109

Liu 126, 135

Lochbihler 210, 221

Loeb 44, 51

Lohman 29, 47, 51, 54, 56, 69, 71, 130, 131, 134, 174,

180, 184, 187, 192, 193, 198, 255

Lohrﬁnk 246

Long 6, 184, 187, 225, 240, 246

Lord 201, 207

Louis 62, 63, 69

Lovett 92, 97, 190, 197

Lu 166

Lubart 214, 216, 219, 222

Lubinski 19, 27, 29, 44, 51, 57, 70, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78,

79, 81, 82, 83, 99, 109, 112, 114, 115, 116, 117,

118, 120, 121, 125, 126, 134, 135, 138, 151, 161,

165, 166, 171, 172, 173, 178, 179, 180, 203, 208,

226, 228, 239, 240, 250, 255

Lüdtke 214, 222

Lundgren 151

Lunneborg 162, 166, 199, 207

Lupkowski, A 63, 70, 154, 161, 162, 163, 165, 166

Lupkowski-Shoplik 1, 14, 17, 19, 20, 29, 51, 53, 54, 56,

62, 63, 69, 70, 75, 78, 81, 94, 96, 106, 108, 109, 111,

113, 115, 119, 120, 123, 130, 131, 133, 134, 177,

179, 194, 196, 209, 219, 221, 243, 246, 255, 258

Luque de la Rosa 211, 221

Luykx 131, 134

Lynch 116, 117, 120, 125, 126, 134

MacDonald 154, 165

Maddox 238, 240

Maddux 37, 41, 62, 70

Mahon 214, 220

Maine 238, 240

Makel 118, 120, 126, 134

Maker 61, 62, 69, 70, 255

Malek 69

Maltese 126, 135

Malzahn 134

Mammadov 31, 210, 222, 246

Mammes 221

Mann 101, 109

Manning 63, 69

Manor-Bullock 37

Markwardt 63, 70

Marolf 199, 207

Marron 17, 29, 34, 40, 54, 69, 71, 174, 180, 192, 193,

198, 255

Marsh 32, 34, 37, 39, 41, 118, 120

Marshall 147, 151

Martin 213

Martins 222

Maruish 40

Mason 90, 97

Matarazzo 55, 70

Mather 63, 70

Matheson 225, 239

Mathiesen 214, 222

Matsagouras 212, 213, 222

Matthews 119, 120, 221, 222, 223

Maxwell 212, 222

Maykel 187

McBee 138, 151, 201, 207, 237, 238, 240

McCain 32, 35, 36, 37, 41

McCall 184, 187

McCallum 190, 197

McCarthy 119, 120, 156, 166

McClarty 5, 81, 171, 174, 179, 246

McCoach 59, 70, 93, 97, 101, 109, 195, 197

McCollum 89, 97

McConnell 88, 97

McCormick 237, 240

McDonald 34, 35, 36, 41

McDonnell 44, 51

McGaw 22, 29

McGill 161, 167

McGowan 98

McGrew 63, 70

McGuire 195, 197

McIntire 44, 51

McKinnon 148, 151

McQuilkin 37, 41

McWilliams 186, 187

Meckstroth 255

Medina 65

Merrotsy 227, 240

Mezynski 116, 119

Miles 227, 240

Milgram 172, 180

Miller, E. C. 127, 134

Miller, E. M. 93. 97

Miller, K. A. 138, 151, 190, 197

Miller, M. 97

Miller, T. N. 88

Mills 117, 120

Ministère Éducation Nationale Enseignement

Supérieur Recherche 215, 222

Ministry of Education and Science of the Republic of

Lithuania 214, 222

Ministry of Education, Bureau for European Aﬀairs

and International Relations 213, 222

Ministry of Education, Culture and Science 213, 222

Ministry of the Flemish Community, Department Ed-

ucation 222

Ministry of the Flemish Society 213

Minor 172, 179

Modi 184, 187

Mönks 18, 74, 82, 83, 180, 209, 222, 223, 240

Moon 20, 21, 29, 33, 34, 37, 40, 41, 42, 44, 51, 70, 97,

189, 190, 191, 196, 197, 198, 209, 223, 237, 240

Moore 34, 37, 41, 182

Morelock 64, 70, 75, 83, 226, 240, 255

Morgan 154, 165, 172, 180

Morrison 184, 188, 190, 198

Mueller-Oppliger 213, 222

270 A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2

Index

Mukhopadhyay 101, 109

Mulholland 91, 96

Muratori 4, 19, 29, 54, 153, 155, 162, 163, 164, 166,

199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 206, 207, 228, 238,

240, 246, 255

Murphy 55, 70

Myran 92, 98

Nadeau 93, 97

NAGC See alsoNational Association for Gifted Chil-

dren

Nagy 212, 215, 222

Nakao 175, 180

National Academy of Sciences 123, 134

National Association for Gifted Children 29, 43, 44,

45, 46, 48, 51, 59, 61, 62, 64, 69, 88, 89, 96, 97, 99,

101, 109, 127, 129, 133, 134, 186, 188, 255

National Center for Education Statistics 129, 134,

135, 143, 151, 174, 180, 190, 198

National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Educa-

tion 48

National Governors Association 99, 100, 102, 104,

106, 109, 126, 127, 129, 130

National Governors Association Center for Best Prac-

tices 109, 126, 135

National Mathematics Advisory Panel 73, 83, 125

National Opinion Research Center 175. See

alsoNORC

National School Reform Faculty 92. See alsoNSRF

National Science Board 123, 133, 135, 138, 151

National Science Foundation 151

National Work Group on Acceleration 14, 17

NCATE See also National Council for Accreditation

of Teacher Education

NCES See also National Center for Education Sta-

tistics

NCLB See also No Child Left Behind Act

Neihart 34, 37, 38, 39, 41, 63, 70, 195, 197, 237, 239,

240, 255

Nelson 33, 41

Nespor 93, 97

Neu 195, 197

Ng, J. 199, 207

Ng, L. 199, 207

NGA See also National Governors Association

NGSS 127, 128

NGSS Lead States 128, 129, 135

Nicholson 163, 166, 199, 207, 226, 240

Noble 120, 162, 163, 166, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203,

204, 205, 206, 207, 226, 228, 238, 240

No Child Left Behind Act 90, 97

Nolan 148

NORC 175

Nowlin 138, 150

NSB 138

NSF 144

NSRF 92

Nusche 212, 222

Oakes 33, 41

O’Brian 83

Oden 56, 71, 154, 167, 172, 180

OECD See alsoOrganization for Economic Coopera-

tion and Development

Ohio Department of Education 65, 70

Olenchak 190, 195, 197

Oliveira 211, 213, 215, 216, 219, 221, 222

Olkin 22, 29, 195, 197

Olszewski-Kubilius 3, 10, 12, 33, 36, 41, 47, 54, 56,

59, 69, 70, 71, 75, 99, 101, 104, 109, 111, 112, 116,

118, 119, 120, 132, 133, 138, 151, 161, 163, 166,

172, 173, 180, 186, 188, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204,

205, 206, 207, 226, 238, 239, 240, 246

O’Neill 101, 109

Oostindie 219, 223

Opfer 90, 97

Ophanos 96

O’Reilly 214, 220

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Develop-

ment 88, 97

Ortega Tudela 211, 221

Ottink 219, 223

Overstreet 138, 151

Owen 191, 195, 197

Page 90, 98, 197

Pajares 41, 93, 97

Palchyk 210, 222

Pareira-Fradin 219

Park 74, 79, 81, 83, 96, 114, 120, 125, 138, 151, 161,

166, 171, 173, 174, 180

Parker 34, 37, 41

Partnership for 21st Century 99, 109

Passow 18, 43, 44, 51, 83, 166, 180

Paterson 75, 83

Patrick Nolan 151

PCAST See alsoPresident Obama’s Council of Advi-

sors on Science and Technology

Pedder 90, 97

Penk 215, 216, 223

Penuel 88, 90, 97

Pereira 213, 220

Pereira-Fradin 214, 216, 222

Perera-Diltz 90, 97

Perez 220

Perkins 116, 117, 120

Perrone 172, 180

Persson 212, 218, 222

Peternel 36, 41, 101, 104, 109, 118, 119, 120

Peters 201, 207

Peterson 88, 97

Pfeiﬀer 138, 141, 151, 189, 195, 197

Pﬂüger 209, 222

Phillipson 211, 223

Piaget 125, 135

Piercy 33, 41

Piper 54, 55, 59, 60, 70

Pizzat-Tinnin 98

Plake 55, 70

Plucker 5, 40, 48, 51, 90, 97, 120, 181, 182, 183, 184,

186, 187, 188, 207, 240, 247, 255

Pollakowski 186, 187

Pollins 163, 166, 202, 207

Pool 197

Porro 174, 179

Porter 88, 89, 97

Portman 60, 71, 88, 98

Poulli 213

Preckel 37, 41

President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Tech-

nology 143, 151

Pressey 1, 9, 17, 74, 75, 81, 83, 161, 166, 171, 180, 255

Proctor 14, 17, 54, 62, 69, 70, 181, 187

Purcell 44, 51

Putallaz 118, 120, 126, 134

Quek 98, 101, 109

Racherbäumer 221

Raﬀan 209, 211, 213, 214, 215, 221

Rambo 59, 70

Ramsay 163,166

Rand Corporation 44, 51

Rankin 227, 240

Rasmussen 223

Rathunde 59, 69, 237, 239

Reed 92, 98

Rehabilitation Act of 1973 197

Reimann 215, 222

Reis 34, 41, 70, 88, 98, 101, 109, 163, 166, 189, 190,

195, 196, 197, 237, 240

Reivich 195, 198

Renzulli 69, 83, 172, 180, 190, 195, 196, 197, 198

Resch 211, 215, 223

Rhoads 187

Rhodes 164, 166

Rhyne-Winkler 90, 98

Ricci 107, 109

Richards 55, 70, 192, 197

Richardson 96, 120

Rickels 192, 197

Rimm 56, 69

Rin 201, 207

Rinn 32, 34, 37, 41, 118, 120, 238, 240

Rizza 196, 197

Roberts, J. L. 4, 14, 91, 98, 126, 137, 138, 142, 151,

186, 188, 247

Roberts R. A. 91, 98

Robinson, A. 44, 51, 69, 255

Robinson, H. B. 62, 70, 155, 164, 166

Robinson, J. 92, 93, 98

Robinson, N. M. 13, 17, 18, 19, 29, 31, 33, 38, 39, 41,

56, 60, 61, 62, 63, 70, 101, 109, 155, 162, 163, 164,

166, 177, 178, 180, 197, 199, 200, 202, 204, 205,

207, 208, 237, 238, 239, 240

Robson 240

Roche 41

Roedell 62, 63, 64, 70

Rogers 6, 9, 13, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25, 27, 29,

31, 32, 33, 34, 37, 38, 39, 41, 42, 44, 46, 48, 51, 53,

54, 57, 61, 62, 69, 70, 73, 74, 78, 83, 101, 125, 126,

135, 174, 202, 225, 226, 227, 228, 238, 240, 247,

250, 255

Roid 63, 70

Rollins 34, 36, 37, 38, 39, 42, 138, 151

Roncoroni 215, 220

Ruban 190, 197

Rudnitski 43, 44, 51

Ruokonen 212, 223

Russo 44, 51

Rutkowski, D. 182, 188

Rutkowski, L. 182, 188

Ryser 99, 109, 126, 134

Rysiew 172, 180

Sak 217, 218, 221

Sakijeva 213, 220

Salkind 223

Samhaber 211, 223

Sanborn 172, 180

Sanﬁlippo 162, 166, 204, 207

Sankar-DeLeeuw 61, 62, 70

Sattler 55, 70

Saunders 61, 70

Sawyer 97

Sayler 33, 34, 36, 40, 42, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 226,

228, 238, 240, 255

Sayman 143, 151

Scarloss 88, 98

Schader 191, 197

Schaefer 134

Schaﬀer 125

Scheicher 37, 41

Schiever 61, 70, 255

Schiltz 214, 220

Schilz 217

Schoen 133, 135

Scholarship America, Inc. 202, 208

Schraml 217, 218, 219, 220

Schrank 63, 70

Schuler 192, 197

Schultz 190, 191, 192, 194, 196, 198

Schumacker 162, 166

Schunk 125, 135

Seashore 75, 83

Segers 211, 223

Seidman 228, 240

Seligman 195, 198

Sepp 211, 213, 220

Sethna 155, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 228, 238, 240

Shallenberger 33, 41

Shannon 227, 240

Shapiro 151

Shapley 88, 98

A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2 271

Index

Sharratt 227, 240

Shaunessy 43, 44, 51, 93, 97

Shaunessy-Dedrick 99, 109

Shavinna 51, 223

Shayshon 127, 135

Shea 75, 78, 83, 112, 120, 173, 179

Sheﬃeld 99, 101, 104, 109, 127

Sherry 166

Shewbridge 212, 222

Shore 172, 180, 255

Shymansky 22, 29

Sieck 189, 197

Siegle 59, 60, 70, 93, 94, 96, 97, 98, 195, 197

Siegler 55, 70

Silverman 31, 42, 63, 64, 70, 237, 240

Simonton 172, 173, 180

Singh 181, 187

Slavin 33, 42

Sletten 163, 166, 199, 207, 226, 240

Smeets 173, 178, 180, 218, 220

Smith 17, 22, 29, 69, 134, 181, 187

Smutny 255

Smyth 162, 163, 166, 199, 200, 202, 203, 204, 205,

207

Snow 57, 70

Solow 164, 166

Song 182, 188

Soodak 196, 198

Sosniak 59, 70

Southern 1, 9, 11, 12, 13, 15, 17, 18, 23, 31, 46, 53, 59,

60, 61, 69, 70, 71, 73, 74, 83, 129, 133, 165, 178,

180, 195, 207, 213, 215, 223, 239, 247, 250, 255

Sparks 190, 197

Speirs Neumeister 196, 198

Spinelli 109

Splete 90, 98

Sriram 195, 198

Stack 213, 214, 215, 221, 223

Stambaugh 16, 17, 18, 44, 51, 98, 101, 109

Stanle 18

Stanley 9, 12, 13, 17, 18, 19, 29, 33, 40, 41, 56, 71, 74,

75, 82, 83, 116, 117, 120, 132, 135, 140, 144, 151,

154, 155, 156, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167,

173, 180, 199, 200, 201, 203, 207, 208, 226, 228,

239, 240

Steen 96

Steenbergen-Hu 20, 21, 29, 34, 37, 42, 162, 165, 200,

201, 202, 203, 204, 207, 209, 223

Steiger 74, 79, 83, 112, 116, 118, 121, 126, 135, 138,

151, 203, 208

Steinberg 187

STEM 112

Stephens 44, 51, 88, 97

Sternberg 42, 70, 74, 82, 165, 198, 223, 240

Stevens-Long 204, 207

Stewart 172, 180

Stinson 189, 197

Stoeger 210, 213, 221, 223

Stoloﬀ 166

Stormont 191, 197

Strauss 92, 98

Stoeger 195, 198

St Rose 132, 134

Strube 22, 29

Studer 89, 90, 98

Su 62, 69

Subotnik 74, 82, 116, 120, 121, 138, 143, 150, 172,

180, 223, 240

Suchy 117, 120

Sue, D. W. 90, 98

Sue D. 90, 98

Sutherland 213, 214, 215, 221, 223

Sutton 90, 98

Swiatek 34, 36, 38, 39, 40, 106, 109, 117, 118, 121,

125, 126, 135, 226, 228, 240, 250

Swift 33, 41

Szymanski 93, 98

Tabachnick 174

Taﬀ 198

Tai 116, 121, 126, 135, 138, 143, 145, 150, 151

Takkula 210, 221

Tannenbaum 172, 180, 209, 223

Tao, B. 199, 207

Tao, T. 199, 207

Tardrew 101, 109

Terman 56, 71, 74, 75, 81, 83, 154, 167, 171, 172, 173,

174, 179, 180

Tesler 127, 135

eaker 91, 98

e American Psychological Association 143

e Commonwealth of Australia 226, 240

e Council for Exceptional Children, e Association

for the Gifted 89

e Rhodes Trust 202, 208

e School Redesign Network at Stanford University

e University of New South Wales 202, 208

ill 101, 109

omas 151

omson 33, 41, 112, 116, 120

orndike 75, 83, 210, 223

Tieso 101, 104, 109

Timbrell 187

Tirri 212, 223

Tobias 124, 135

Tobin 117, 120

Tomchin 98

Tomlinson 88, 98, 128, 135

Torrance 185, 187, 188

Touron 213, 220

Treas 175, 180

Tremblay 201, 207

Trost 238, 240

Tyler 75, 83

UNESCO 210, 223

UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre 181, 188

Urdan 41

Urquhart 225, 239

U.S. Department of Education 44, 51, 124, 131, 135,

174, 180, 190, 198

Valli 89, 91, 98

Van Fleet 258

van Hell 178, 179, 214, 216, 217, 219, 222

Van Steen 216, 217, 223

VanTassel-Baska 1, 3, 16, 17, 18, 43, 44, 47, 48, 51, 57,

58, 59, 66, 70, 71, 75, 83, 88, 92, 98, 99, 101, 109,

126, 127, 135, 151, 209, 211, 223, 247, 250, 255

van Vliet 6, 38, 39, 41, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204,

207, 225, 238, 240, 247

Vaughan 162, 166, 199, 207, 240

Verhoeven 178, 179, 214, 216, 217, 219, 222

Verlinden 219, 223

Vialle 215, 222, 227, 240

Vickers 156, 166

Vock 214, 215, 216, 219, 220, 221, 222, 223

Vögeli-Mantovani 211, 213, 218, 221

Vrignaud 214, 215, 216, 223

Vygotsky 128, 135

Wachter Morris 88, 97

Wagenaar 217, 223

Wages 142, 151

Wagner 145, 151

Wai 3, 73, 74, 75, 79, 80, 81, 83, 112, 115, 116, 118,

121, 123, 126, 135, 138, 151, 173, 186, 203, 208,

248

Walker 255

Wallace 148, 151

Ward 132, 134, 161, 165

Warren 258

Warwick 209, 211, 215, 221

Washington 164

Waterman 201, 207

Watters 60, 69

Webb 75, 76, 83, 112, 120, 226, 240, 255

Webbink 185, 187

Weber 190, 198

Wechsler 57, 63, 71

Wei 96

Weilguny 211, 223

Weimer 56, 60, 61, 62, 63, 70

Weinberg 186, 187

Weis 134

Weiss 134

Wells 38, 40, 54, 71, 174, 180, 192, 193, 198, 255

Welsh Assembly Government. Department for Chil-

dren, Education, Lifelong Learning and Skills 211,

223

Westberg 88, 98, 134

Wetter 214, 221

Whalen 59, 69, 237, 239

Wherry 37, 41

Whiteman 190, 191, 193, 197

Whitlock 60, 71

Whitmore 163, 166

Whitsell 33, 40

Whorton 88, 97

Wickstrom 162, 166, 228, 240

Willard-Holt 190, 192, 198

Williams 96

Willis 116, 120

Wilson 59, 70, 94, 98, 120, 148, 151

Wise 166

Witty 83

Wolfsberger 220

Wood 3, 17, 48, 60, 71, 87, 88, 98, 172, 178, 180, 248

Woodroﬀe 43, 51

Woodworth 22, 29

Woolen 90, 98

Worchester 32, 42

Worley 98

Worrell 172, 180

Wright 33, 37, 42

Wyss 145, 151

Xiang 91, 98

Yalow 57, 70

Yamaguchi 88, 97

Yates 90, 91, 98

Yeung 118, 120

Yin 227, 228, 240

Yoon 88, 89, 90, 97, 98

Young 6, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 207, 208, 225,

226, 227, 240, 248

Yssel 88, 97, 196, 198

Ysseldyke 101, 109

Yuen 88, 93, 98

Zaﬀrann 180

Zamora 163, 166, 199, 207, 226, 240

Zeldin 201, 207

Zentall 191, 197, 198

Zhang 134

Ziegler 195, 198, 210, 211, 213, 215, 219, 222, 223

Zirkel 45, 51

Zsilavecz 222

Zuo 101, 109

272 A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2

Index

Subject Index

504 Accommodation Plans 193, 196

A Nation Deceived 1, 2, 9, 17, 18, 19, 29, 31, 41, 42,

59, 69, 70, 71, 82, 83, 93, 95, 96, 108, 180, 184, 185,

187, 189, 197, 208, 219, 221, 223, 250, 255, 264,

Ability 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 15, 16, 19, 21, 24, 27, 29, 33, 34, 35,

37, 38, 39, 41, 42, 43, 47, 48, 51, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57,

58, 60, 62, 63, 65, 66, 67, 69, 70, 74, 75, 77, 78, 81,

82, 83, 92, 93, 94, 96, 98, 101, 103, 104, 105, 106,

111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 119, 120, 121,

123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132,

133, 134, 135, 148, 150, 151, 163, 167, 171, 172,

173, 174, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 185, 186, 187,

188, 189, 190, 192, 194, 195, 197, 200, 201, 204,

205, 206, 210, 211, 212, 216, 219, 221, 222, 223,

226, 231, 232, 233, 236, 239, 240, 243, 244, 245,

246, 247, 249, 250, 251, 255

Above-level testing 3, 4, 24, 47, 48, 56, 57, 58, 75, 102,

104, 105, 106, 112, 113, 132, 133, 172, 178

Academic Identity 35, 36, 41

Acceleration

Acceleration, deﬁnition 1, 9, 73, 74

Acceleration, dimensions of 1, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 59

Acceleration, in college 10, 11, 14

Acceleration, types 1, 9, 10, 12, 14, 16, 17, 31, 46,

47, 50,74, 78, 89, 91, 92, 93, 94, 96, 112, 133,

137, 184, 215, 252, 254

Acceleration Institute 5, 20, 46, 59, 66, 67, 92, 94, 95,

96, 219, 246, 257, 258, 264

Acting Black 35

Acting White 35, 37

ADHD 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 197, 198, 244,

Administrative Units (AUs) 64

Admissions process 138, 142

Advanced Academy of Georgia 154, 155, 157, 162,

163, 164, 166, 240, 262

Advanced degrees 11, 79, 106, 114, 173

Advanced Placement (AP)

10, 11, 12, 23, 26, 27, 35, 44,

4, 51, 53, 73, 77, 82, 91, 95, 106, 107, 117, 125, 126,

128, 133, 137, 140, 141, 144, 149, 153, 165, 184,

187, 191, 196, 198, 199, 215, 249, 258, 261, 262

Alaska Paciﬁc University 158

American College Testing Program (ACT) 4, 24, 75,

82, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 118, 132, 134,

141, 142, 267

American School Counselor Association (ASCA) 90,

American Statistical Association 104, 179

Appropriate developmental placement 77, 81, 82

Assessment 10, 15, 16, 38, 39, 40, 43, 48, 51, 55, 56,

58, 63, 64, 66, 67, 69, 70, 75, 82, 90, 91, 98, 99, 100,

102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 108, 111, 117, 119, 129,

130, 131, 134, 142, 166, 172, 173, 174, 178, 179,

183, 186, 192, 193, 205, 206, 207, 212, 218, 222,

225, 227, 239, 243, 244, 245, 246, 249, 250, 252,

253, 254, 257, 264

Assessment and Counseling Clinic (ACC) 192, 257, 258

Assessment of Ability 55, 58, 67

Assessment of Aptitude 55, 56, 58, 67

Assessment of Achievement 55, 56, 58, 67

Asynchronous Development 31, 42, 64, 70, 237

Australia 3, 6, 41, 69, 111, 173, 199, 200, 203, 205,

207, 208, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230, 231, 232,

233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240, 244, 245,

247, 250, 259, 267, 270

Bard College 155, 157, 262

Bard High School Early College program 155, 156, 157

Belin-Blank Center 17, 18, 20, 29, 41, 42, 54, 66, 69,

70, 71, 82, 83, 92, 95, 96, 97, 108, 111, 126, 133,

159, 180, 187, 192, 193, 194, 195, 197, 208, 221,

223, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 250, 251, 255,

257, 258, 259, 262, 263, 264, 265

Benchmark Testing 16

Best practice 5, 13, 27, 41, 43, 44, 70, 90, 109, 126, 134,

135, 147, 148, 190, 196, 197, 219, 222, 240, 249,

252, 253, 255, 269

Big-ﬁsh-little-pond eﬀect 32, 37, 41, 118, 120

Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation 156

BOSTES 225

Boston University 157

Boston University Academy 155, 157, 262

California State University Los Angeles 155, 158, 259,

262

Cambridge 69, 7, 82, 97, 129, 134, 135, 165, 187, 198,

239

Canada 111

Career decisions and outcomes 171, 172, 173, 174,

176, 177, 178, 179, 203

Career planning 77, 82, 173, 179

Case studies 21, 66, 185, 197, 200, 202, 204, 227, 240

CCSSO (Council of Chief State School Oﬃcers) 99,

100, 102, 104, 106, 109, 126, 127, 129, 130, 135,

267

Center for Talent Development 38, 111, 115, 211, 240,

246, 247, 259, 261

Center for Talented Youth (CTY) 111, 133, 213, 243,

246, 248, 259, 261, 263, 264

China 111, 162, 165, 200, 201, 203, 205, 207, 210, 257

Chronological Peers 9, 13

Clarkson School Bridging Year Program 155, 157, 262

Clarkson University 155, 157, 262

CLEP (College Level Examination Program) 11,

Cognitive Abilities Test (CogAT) 47, 51, 56, 69, 130,

267

College Board 11, 75, 82, 144, 154, 184, 187,

267

College Board Achievement Tests (SAT-II)

117

College of William and Mary 43, 51, 99, 243, 246, 247,

248

College-In-e-Schools program 23

Colorado Department of Education 64, 65, 69,

267

Combination classes 24

Combined classes 10, 87, 88, 215

Common Core State Standards (CCSS) 1, 3, 4, 1, 46,

99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108,

109, 124, 126, 127, 129, 130, 134, 135, 245

Complexity 16, 48, 89, 102, 103, 107, 138

Concurrent enrollment 9, 11, 14, 20, 25, 27

Content acceleration 3, 13, 14, 91, 99, 100, 101,

107

Continuous progress 9, 10, 11, 12, 17, 24, 66, 91, 252

Core curriculum 146, 149, 157, 158

Correspondence courses 10, 24

Cost beneﬁts 43

Cost eﬀective 2, 3, 5, 43, 140

Council for Exceptional Children (CEC) 48, 89, 97,

247, 263, 267

Counseling 13, 15, 19, 37, 48, 50, 69, 70, 89, 90, 96,

97, 98, 112, 115, 157, 158, 164, 179, 180, 192, 196,

204, 206, 219, 232, 235, 240, 243, 244, 245, 248,

257, 258

Creativity 47, 48, 99, 103, 107, 108, 120, 121, 128,

166, 180, 185, 190, 191, 197, 244, 246

Credit by examination 10, 11, 23, 249

CSDPG (Council of State Directors of Programs for

the Gifted) 19, 29, 43, 45, 46, 51, 61, 62,

64, 69, 88, 89, 96, 97, 251, 255, 267

Cultural Diversity 249

Curriculum compacting 10, 12, 14, 15, 17, 25, 27, 53,

87, 88, 91, 111, 115, 119, 195, 197, 214, 252

Davidson Institute for Talent Development 92, 95,

240, 259

Diagnostic Testing -> Prescription Instruction model

4, 132, 133, 135

Diﬀerentiation 3, 12, 14, 44, 45, 47, 48, 88, 91, 95, 100,

101, 102, 104, 105, 107, 108, 127, 128, 129, 130,

172, 213, 225, 247

Digital learning 4, 147, 148, 149, 150

Distance learning 4, 10, 11, 12, 23, 59, 114, 115, 133,

148, 149, 150, 151, 252, 253, 261

Dual credit 35, 144

Dual enrollment 4, 10, 11, 13, 15, 17, 23, 26, 27, 34, 49,

89, 91, 102, 106, 107, 115, 116, 119, 141, 156, 166,

184, 185, 199, 201, 206, 215, 216, 217, 226, 227,

228, 229, 231, 234, 253

Duke University 73, 111, 248, 259, 264

Early College High School (ECHS) 34, 36, 39, 41,

156, 166

Early College Program 4, 13, 17, 34, 35, 40, 41, 82,

142, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161,

162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 199, 200, 203, 204, 207,

240, 246, 249, 262

Early Entrance Program (EEP) 2, 126, 154, 155, 156,

157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166,

167, 202, 204, 207, 230, 238, 240, 249, 262

Early entrance/admission 2, 4, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13,

14, 15, 16, 17, 21, 24, 25, 26, 27, 29, 31, 32, 33,

34, 38, 39, 41, 48, 53, 54, 57, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63,

64, 65, 66, 68, 69, 70, 75, 76, 81, 87, 88, 89,

106, 109, 111, 112, 115, 118, 119, 126, 153,

154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162,

163, 164, 165, 166, 174, 185, 199, 200, 201,

202, 214, 215, 217, 225, 226, 227, 228, 231,

232, 233, 234, 237, 238, 239, 240, 248, 249,

254, 255, 262

Early entrance/admission, college/university

4, 6,

9, 10, 11, 17, 24, 25, 26, 27, 29, 31, 34, 38, 41,

48, 54, 75, 76, 81, 106, 109, 111, 112, 115, 118,

126, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160,

161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 199, 200, 201,

202, 217, 225, 226, 227, 228, 231, 232, 233,

234, 237, 238, 239, 240, 248, 249, 255, 262

Early entrance/admission, ﬁrst grade 2, 9, 10, 14,

24, 25, 26, 32, 33, 53, 54, 60, 61, 62, 64, 65, 66,

70, 201, 215, 217

Early entrance/admission, high school 10, 11, 14,

48, 68, 112, 115, 201

Early entrance/admission, kindergarten 2, 9, 10,

20, 24, 25, 26, 31, 32, 33, 46, 48, 53, 60, 61, 62,

63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 70, 87, 88, 89, 174, 185, 201,

215, 217, 229, 234, 249

Early entrance/admission,

middle school 10, 11,

14, 48, 115, 201, 215

Early graduation 11, 14, 66, 230, 231

Early Honors Program 158

Early University Admissions See also Early entrance/

admission, college

European Council for High Ability (ECHA) 219, 220,

221, 222, 223, 245

Economically vulnerable students 5, 181, 182, 183,

184, 185, 186, 187

Educational dose 73, 74, 75, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 116,

119, 121, 126, 135, 151, 208

Educational interventions 73, 74, 199, 200, 205, 206,

212, 251

Educational planning 77, 82

Eﬀect size 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 32, 34,

37, 38

Egalitarianism 12

Elementary and Secondary Student-Education Act 1

Elitism 12, 212

A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2 273

Index

Equity 40, 41, 51, 82, 109, 127, 134, 138, 164, 182,

187, 194, 197, 244, 251, 254, 257

Europe

5, 96, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216,

217, 218, 219, 220, 221, 222, 223, 245, 267, 268, 269

Evaluation of programs and services 43, 44, 46, 222

Excellence gap 182, 183, 185, 186, 187, 188, 247

EXPLORE 113, 114

Extracurricular activities/programs

10, 11, 14, 15, 21,

32, 38, 39, 77, 104, 118, 124, 140, 144, 157, 165,

185, 187, 200, 203, 204, 206, 210, 236, 249, 253, 254

FIRST Robotics 145

Flexible Pacing 6, 225, 226, 227, 237, 239

Ford Foundation for the Advancement of Education

154, 161, 163, 165

Fund for the Advancement of Education 154, 161,

163, 165, 268

Georgia Academy of Mathematics, Engineering, & Sci-

ence 139, 159

Gifted education policy 2, 43, 44, 45, 50, 263, 265

Governor’s Schools 11, 14, 23, 139, 149, 248

Grade-based acceleration 2, 19, 22, 23, 25, 28, 53, 54,

79, 82

Grade-skipping 2, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 20, 21, 24,

25, 26, 31, 32, 34, 40, 53, 54, 55, 60, 61, 66, 76,

78, 79, 81, 83, 91, 93, 107, 108, 115, 161, 166, 176,

180, 184, 187, 199, 201, 214, 215, 216, 219, 222,

227, 228, 243, 249

Great Britain 215

Guidelines for Accelerated Progression 226, 239

Guidelines for Developing an Academic Acceleration

Policy 14, 17, 66, 69, 96, 97, 251, 264

Guilford College 262

Harter’s Self-Perception Proﬁle of Adolescents 33, 41

Heterogeneous Classes 32

Heterogeneous grouping 33, 38, 40, 189

High Achieving Students in the Era of NCLB 1

Hoagies’ Gifted Education Page 92, 95, 262, 264, 265

Homeschooling 24, 25, 26, 28, 201

Homogeneous classes 38

Homogeneous grouping 12, 33, 37, 40, 77, 93, 104

Honors classes 10, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 77, 141

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)

45, 190, 197

IDEAL Solutions 4, 66, 94, 95, 133, 264

Identiﬁcation 3, 4, 5, 43, 44, 46, 47, 48, 49, 51, 69, 70,

71, 73, 82, 92, 93, 111, 119, 130, 131, 134, 140,

141, 184, 186, 190, 193, 197, 206, 210, 211, 212,

243, 246, 247, 248, 259, 264

Identiﬁcation Policy 47, 49

Individual education plan (IEP) 9, 45, 189, 190, 192,

193, 196, 201

Illinois Mathematics and Science Academy 11, 139,

146, 147, 151, 156, 268

Inclusion 46, 111, 143, 213, 218

Independent Learning 3, 87, 91, 92, 93, 97

Independent study 11, 24, 59, 144, 249, 253

Individualization 119

Information Management Model 36

Integration 27, 33, 59, 62, 100, 102, 103, 104, 210,

212, 213, 217

Intel Science Talent Search 145, 260

Institute for Research and Policy on Acceleration

(IRPA) 17, 20, 22, 45, 46, 48, 51, 62, 66, 69, 96,

97, 219, 257, 264, 268

Intelligence Quotient (IQ) 5, 34, 39, 40, 55, 56, 57,

58, 69, 70, 75, 172, 173, 179, 180, 197, 205, 210,

214, 231, 240

International Baccalaureate (IB) 3, 4, 9, 10, 11, 16, 24,

25, 26, 27, 44, 49, 50, 106, 115, 153, 154, 160, 184,

191, 218, 227, 228, 249

Interpersonal Ability 34

Iowa Acceleration Scale (IAS) 2, 20, 29, 48, 51, 53, 54,

55, 56, 57, 59, 60, 62, 63, 66, 67, 69, 82, 94, 95, 96,

179, 194, 196, 221, 243, 246, 255, 264

Iowa Algebra Aptitude Test (IAAT) 133, 135

Iowa Online Advanced Placement Academy (IOAPA)

126, 133, 258, 262

Iowa Tests of Basic Skills (ITBS) 56, 69

Ireland 111, 214, 216, 217, 220, 222

Jack Kent Cooke Foundation 181, 186

Javits Project 192, 193, 194

Johns Hopkins University 41, 111, 120, 153, 154, 155,

165, 166, 167, 173, 180, 201, 207, 243, 246, 248,

250, 259, 261, 263, 264

Khan Academy 81, 161, 265

Lamar University 155, 160

Learning disabilities 5, 190, 191, 192, 197

Legal issues 64

Legislation 44, 45, 51, 140, 156, 166, 196, 210, 213,

221, 264

Local education agencies (LEA) 43, 46, 64, 89, 253

longitudinal study 34, 37, 38, 39, 40, 54, 73, 74, 75,

78, 79, 81, 83, 97, 120, 121, 13, 134, 135, 138, 151,

174, 180, 184, 193, 199, 203, 204, 208, 227, 239,

250

Long-term eﬀects 3, 29, 39, 70, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78,

79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 117, 120, 173

Mandates 2, 44, 45, 46

Mary Baldwin College 155, 158, 159, 164, 262

Massive online open courses (MOOC) 81, 95,

161

Math acceleration 133

Maturity 22, 27, 33, 34, 35, 38, 39, 62, 74, 141, 163,

164, 172, 179, 204, 206, 230

Measures of Academic Progress (MAP) 130

Mentor 10, 11, 76, 104, 106, 115, 126, 138, 143, 144,

145, 148, 157, 164, 172, 199, 206, 232, 238, 246

Mentoring 10, 37, 41, 53, 108, 149, 150, 187, 191, 213,

246

Mentorship 4, 11, 24, 25, 26, 28, 41, 59, 144, 179, 185,

200

Meta-analysis 20, 22, 27, 28, 29, 31, 32, 42, 62, 223,

247

Middle Georgia College 139, 159

Midwest Academic Talent Search 114, 115

Missouri Academy of Science, Mathematics, and

Computing 139, 155, 159

Monitoring 45, 46, 65, 68, 105, 201, 206, 250

Motor skills 63,

Multiple Perspectives Process Model (MPPM) 191

Multipotentiality 172, 178, 179, 180

NAGC Pre K-Grade 12 Gifted Program Standards

48, 97, 109, 245

National Academy of Arts, Science, and Engineering

(NAASE) 126, 154, 155, 159, 162, 163, 164, 262

National Academy of Sciences 123, 134, 269

National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)

129, 182, 183

National Association for Gifted Children (NAGC)

18, 19, 29, 43, 44, 45, 46, 48, 51, 59, 61, 62, 64, 69,

88, 89, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 101, 109, 127, 134, 181,

186, 188, 207, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 249, 250,

251, 255, 263, 269

National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) 129,

134, 135, 143, 151, 174, 175, 180, 190, 198, 269

National Consortium of Secondary STEM Schools

(NCSSS) 147

National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Educa-

tion (NCATE) 48, 269

National Education Longitudinal Study (NELS) 28,

54, 174, 175, 176, 177, 180, 184, 193

National Governors Association (NGA) 99, 100, 102,

104, 106, 109, 126, 127, 129, 130, 135, 269

National Merit 162, 260

National Science Board 123, 133, 135, 138, 151, 269

National Science Bowl 145, 261

National Work Group on Acceleration 14, 17, 251, 253

New South Wales Gifted and Talented Association 231

Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) 3, 4, 107,

108, 124, 126, 127, 128, 129, 134, 135, 243, 269

No Child Left Behind (NCLB) 1, 44, 90, 97, 134, 269

North Carolina School of Science and Mathematics

137, 138, 139, 144, 148, 156

Northwestern University 111, 114, 115, 240, 246, 247,

259, 261

Ohio Department of Education 65, 66, 67, 70, 71, 269

Ohio State University 17, 83, 166, 255

Online Courses 1, 13, 23, 132, 160, 161, 261

Optimal Match 47, 164, 166, 237

Oxford 83, 180, 198, 223

Pacing 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 15, 16, 17, 82, 101, 113, 114,

115, 117, 118, 119, 128, 131, 133, 225, 226, 227,

237, 239

Partial acceleration 10

Pathways to Acceleration 66, 67

Peabody Individual Achievement Test 63, 70

Peers 5, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 17, 21, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37,

38, 39, 56, 57, 59, 61, 62, 65, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 97,

101, 117, 118, 126, 127, 132, 138, 141, 142, 143,

144, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 153, 154, 155, 156,

159, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 171, 172, 173, 174,

175, 176, 177, 178, 181, 183, 185, 186, 191, 195,

202, 203, 205, 213, 214, 216, 217, 221, 225, 228,

231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 238, 239, 251, 260

Performance-based assessment 47, 147

Personalized learning 4, 157, 215, 265

Personnel preparation 43, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 97

Physical disabilities 191

Policy 2, 9, 12, 14, 17, 20, 40, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48,

49, 50, 51, 65, 66, 67, 69, 75, 77, 82, 83, 89, 90, 91,

93, 94, 96, 97, 125, 134, 179, 182, 187, 188, 196,

201, 209, 212, 216, 219, 221, 222, 223, 226, 231,

243, 246, 247, 251, 252, 253, 254, 255, 257, 263,

264, 265, 268

Poverty 18, 109, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188

Pre-assessment 10, 93, 105

Precocity 9, 69, 70, 120, 166, 171, 173, 207, 239

Prescriptive Instruction 4, 132, 133, 135

Productivity 4, 5, 79, 82, 161, 166, 171, 172, 173, 174,

176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 189, 198, 250

Professional Development (PD) 3, 6, 48, 50, 87, 88, 89,

90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 124, 137, 147, 148,

157, 194, 196, 205, 244, 248, 257, 258

Professional development plan 89, 93, 97

Professional learning communities (PLC) 3, 87, 89, 92

Programs and Services 3, 45, 46, 47, 48, 119, 151, 250,

257

Program development 50, 250

Program for the Exceptionally Gifted 155, 159, 164,

262

Program implementation 5

Program Management 47, 49

Project Excite 36, 119

Psychological adjustment 2, 18, 25, 27, 31, 32, 34, 37,

38, 39, 166, 207, 208, 225, 227

Public policy 40, 51, 82, 83, 134, 196, 231

Radboud University 209, 220, 222, 223, 245

Radical Acceleration 5, 9, 13, 17, 24, 25, 26, 27, 31,

41, 69, 115, 154, 166, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204,

205, 206, 207, 208, 226, 237, 239, 240

Resident Honors Program 155, 160

Residential Academy (RA)

35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 42

Resilience 32, 37, 38, 187

Salience 11, 12, 14, 17

Satisfaction 3, 5, 27, 36, 76, 78, 81, 82, 91, 96, 117, 164,

165, 171, 174, 175, 176, 177, 197, 233

Scholastic Assessment/Aptitude Test (SAT) 4, 24, 74,

75, 80, 81, 82, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 118,

120, 141, 142, 230, 260

Science Olympiad 145, 261

Scope and sequence 16, 46, 99, 102, 131

Self-direction 227, 230, 237, 239

274 A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 2

Index

Self-eﬃcacy 25, 27, 36, 40, 132, 185, 196

Self-acceptance 21, 27

Self-concept 27, 32, 34, 37, 39, 40, 41, 42, 118, 120,

164, 185, 190, 191, 197, 216, 217, 222

Self-Description Questionnaire II 34, 41

Self-esteem 33, 34, 37, 40, 118, 166, 185, 196, 197,

203, 227

Self-paced instruction 9, 10, 12, 14, 16, 91, 101, 105,

108, 116

Sex diﬀerences/gender diﬀerences 33, 134, 216

Shimer College 155, 158

Siemens Competition in Math, Science, and Technol-

ogy 145

Single-subject acceleration 24, 25, 27, 33, 53, 54, 57,

58, 59, 193, 194, 228

Speciﬁc Learning Disability (SLD) 5, 190, 192, 193

Social Adjustment 25, 27, 31, 32, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38,

39, 62, 163, 164, 165, 228, 231

Social development 38, 77, 82, 150

Social-emotional 1, 2, 13, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 29, 31,

32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 48, 54,

62, 63, 65, 70, 75, 77, 91, 115, 120, 141, 142, 145,

153, 164, 180, 191, 195, 199, 202, 203, 204, 206,

208, 216, 217, 218, 219, 222, 239, 246, 249, 250,

255, 257

Socio-aﬀective 5, 41, 69, 200, 202, 203, 205, 207, 244

Socio-emotional See also Social Emotional

Socioeconomic Status (SES) 35, 37, 143, 174, 175,

182, 184, 185, 187, 206, 251, 254

Spain 111, 211, 213, 215, 220, 222

Special classes 33, 34, 39, 47, 74, 79, 155, 212, 249

Special education 50, 51, 67, 190, 192, 193, 194, 196,

198, 210, 212, 213, 245, 247

Stakeholders 44, 45, 49, 94, 96, 147, 150, 205,

226

Standards 1, 3, 4, 16, 43, 47, 48, 51, 89, 90, 91, 95,

97, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107,

108, 109, 123, 124, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130,

131, 133, 134, 135, 192, 201, 218, 223, 245, 250,

264

Stanford Binet 63, 69

Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales 70, 210

State of the States Report 19, 29, 45, 46, 51, 69, 88,

89, 97, 255

Science Technology Engineering and Mathematics

(STEM) 4, 50, 66, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 94, 95,

106, 112, 114, 115, 116, 118, 121, 123, 124, 125,

126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135,

137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146,

147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 158, 159, 166, 173,

180, 208, 243, 244, 245, 247, 258, 260, 264, 270

STEM residential schools 4, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141,

142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151

Study of Mathematically Precocious Youth (SMPY)

3, 73, 74, 83, 108, 109, 120, 121, 123, 125, 134,

154, 161, 167, 173, 180, 201, 240, 248

Subject matter acceleration 10, 12, 13, 68, 91, 199,

201, 215

Subject-based acceleration 19, 22, 25, 28, 53

Summative Assessment 16, 105

Summer programs 10, 13, 14, 34, 37, 40, 41, 50, 95,

112, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 144, 147, 148, 153,

154, 165, 201, 257

Support system 64, 65, 137, 232, 233, 238

Talent development 3, 29, 42, 70, 90, 91, 111, 112,

115, 119, 120, 121, 141, 147, 151, 106, 174, 187,

188, 189, 190, 191, 195, 207, 210, 221, 238, 239,

240, 245, 246, 247

Talent search 3, 4, 10, 11, 12, 24, 25, 27, 47, 70, 75, 77,

78, 79, 80, 95, 104, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116,

117, 118, 119, 120, 132, 133, 145, 150, 154, 160,

173, 174, 249, 259

Talent Search Model 3, 4, 54, 69, 75, 82, 111, 116,

119, 120, 132, 133

Teacher attitudes 70, 93, 179, 217, 219, 222

Telescoping curriculum 10, 14, 21, 91, 112, 119, 254

Texas Academy of Leadership in the Humanities 155,

160

Texas Academy of Math and Science 11, 139, 140,

154, 155, 156, 160, 162, 163, 164, 166, 262

e Association for the Gifted (TAG) 89, 97, 247,

263, 267

omas B. Fordham Institute 1, 98

omas Jeﬀerson High School 11

Timing 11, 12, 14, 17, 59, 173, 187, 192

Torrance Creative Scholars Program 34, 41

Trajectories 4, 106, 129, 153, 172, 195

Transition School 155, 158

Twice-exceptional 5, 48, 49, 142, 189, 190, 191, 192,

193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 243, 244, 247, 251,

254, 257, 263

Ungraded classes 213, 215, 218

University of Chicago 154, 161, 166

University of Iowa 1, 20, 53, 66, 69, 87, 95, 96, 97, 108,

111, 123, 126, 133, 154, 159, 162, 166, 189, 219,

240, 243, 244, 246, 248, 255, 259, 262, 264

University of New South Wales 199, 202, 204, 208,

225, 230, 238, 240, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 259,

270

University of North Texas 139, 140, 154, 160

University of Southern California 155, 160

University of Washington 13, 17, 31, 82, 155, 158,

160, 162, 163, 164, 166, 200, 202, 203, 204, 238,

259, 262

Wechsler Individual Achievement Test (WIAT-III)

58, 63, 71

Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (WISC-IV)

57, 58, 63, 71

Whole-Grade Acceleration 2, 9, 12, 29, 33, 48, 53, 54,

55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68,

69, 70, 71, 78, 87, 88, 93, 94, 95, 111, 115, 129,

154, 192, 193, 194, 265

Woodcock-Johnson III Tests of Achievement 63, 70

Written Acceleration Plan (WAP) 66, 67, 251, 252,

254