Passow, A.
Intellectual Talent: Psychometric and Social Issues, pp. 93-98
The Johns Hopkins University Press
1996
This article is a book chapter excerpted from Intellectual Talent. In it, author A. Harry Passow takes a look at academic acceleration and how it has been attained through the years. There are a variety of different types of acceleration practices that have been supported and popular through the years. The author explains each of these and discusses the effects they had on the students.
The first large-scale program of acceleration for academically able youngsters has been attributed to the efforts in 1868 of William T. Harris, superintendent of the St. Louis public schools. Under Harris's system, students were promoted first on a semiannual, then on a quarterly, and finally on a five-week basis. The strength of the short-interval promotion, Harris argues, is that it tends to "hold bright pupils up to the rate at which they are capable and keeps them from acquiring habits of carelessness and listlessness" (Henry, 1920, p. 12).
Similar administrative procedures, adapted to the learning rates of both bright and "dull" pupils, were soon established in other school systems across the country, notably in Elizabeth, New Jersey, Cambridge, Massachusetts, and Santa Barbara, California. At first, the Cambridge Double-Track Plan permitted rapid learners to complete grades three to eight in four years rather than six; later on, such learners could complete the first eight grades in six years, with special teachers assigned to work with the brighter pupils. By the turn of the century, acceleration in the form of flexible promotions characterized the provisions made for academically able students.
More than seventy years ago, the introduction to the Nineteenth Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education (Henry, 1920) began as follows:
One of the most significant of modern tendencies in educational administration is revealed in the widespread attempts which are being made to adjust the subject matter and methods of the school to the varying needs and capabilities of the children whom it is the purpose of the school to serve. Instead of holding to a rigid scheme of gradation, adjusted to the theoretical "average child," to which all children must be made to conform, those who are in charge of public school systems are coming to see the advisability of making a more flexible arrangement and a more careful adjustment to the varying aptitudes and capacities of the members of the school population. In other words, there is going on something which has been termed the "psychologizing" of school organization. (p. 7)
The first chapter, entitled "Flexible Promotion Schemes as Related to the School Progress of Gifted Children," provides a survey of a variety of flexible promotion procedures, including rapid promotion, double promotion, and grade skipping. Henry concludes that such provisions enable students "to do more work than ordinary pupils in the same time," "to do a different kind or type of work with no gain in time," or "to do the same work, or work differing only slightly from it, but in less time" (p. 26).
In an NSSE yearbook that was published just four years later (Whipple, 1924), a chapter is devoted to two studies: one entitled "Academic Records of Accelerated Students" and another entitled "A Study of the Subsequent Standing of Specially Promoted Pupils." Haney and Uhl (1924), the authors of the first study, begin with a quote from Lewis Terman urging early admission to university for able high school students. They define an "accelerated student" as one "who at age sixteen and one-half years has qualified fully to enter the University of Wisconsin" (p. 323). Seventy-four such students entered the College of Letters and Science of the University of Wisconsin as regular students between 1918 and 1921, and all did well academically. In the second study, "special promotion" was defined as "skipping of a half-grade of the elementary school course" (p. 333). Among children with IQs higher than 120 who had skipped two half-grades, there were no failures, leading the researcher to conclude that "continued success is almost certain to follow special promotions of pupils of very superior intelligence" (Martin, 1924, p. 351).
In their twenty-five-year follow-up of the Stanford sample, Terman and Oden devote a chapter to what they call the "problem of school acceleration":
At one extreme is the opinion that the gifted child should be given a grade placement corresponding to his mental age; at the other extreme are those who would base promotions on the calendar without regard to mental ability. Neither of these extreme views has many advocates, though the latter is perhaps more commonly held than the former. The fact remains, however, that many educators believe considerable acceleration is desirable, whereas many others are opposed to it.(1947, p.264)
Terman and Oden have little use for the alternative of "special classes with an enriched curriculum for the gifted," noting that "so-called enrichment often amounts to little more than a quantitative increase of work on the usual level. This may keep the gifted child out of mischief, but it is hardly educational" (p. 264). The controversy over the pros and cons of acceleration hinges on "the relative weight that should be given to intellectual and social values in the educative process." They believe that their subjects are "caught in the lock-step and held to school work two or three full grades below the level on which they could have functioned successfully" (pp. 279-280). Terman and Oden conclude that "children of 135 IQ or higher should be promoted sufficiently to permit college entrance by the age of seventeen at the latest, and a majority in this group would be better off to enter at sixteen" (p. 281). They see acceleration as especially desirable for students who plan to go on to graduate studies for professional careers, citing studies by Keys (1939) and Pressey (1949) for additional support. In their report on the thirty-five-year follow-up, Terman and Oden (1959) reiterate their beliefs about the need for, importance of, and efficacy of acceleration.
The scholar whose name came to be synonymous with acceleration, S. L. Pressey, defines the process as "progress through an educational program at rates faster or ages younger than conventional" (1949, p. 2). In still another NSSE yearbook on the gifted, I write that "any modification of a regular program can be considered acceleration if it enables the student to progress more rapidly and to complete a program in less time or at an earlier age than is normal" (Passow, 1958, p. 212). Students may be accelerated as individuals or in groups: "Points of acceleration have ranged from early entrance to kindergarten through early graduation from college. Acceleration methods include: combining two years' work into one (three into two, eight into seven) either for a subject or for a grade; skipping a course or a grade; taking extra courses for additional credit; attending summer sessions to shorten time; permitting credit by examination; or allowing early admission to advanced levels" (p. 212).
Over the years, each of these acceleration practices has gone through cycles of popularity and support. For example, grade skipping was quite a common practice for many years but is currently used only rarely. Since the mid-1950s, the Advanced Placement program has grown steadily while the Early Admission to College program has tended to wane; both programs were initially sponsored by the Ford Foundation. Early entrance to kindergarten or first grade has been drastically reduced by rigid age requirements for admission. The debate about the value of acceleration has often revolved around the negative emotional and social consequences ascribed to the practice.
Lately, we have begun to sort the various means of acceleration into two overlapping categories--administrative and instructional--and begun to look at the consequences of each differently. These category labels are not exact, but they are helpful in separating the procedures. Some forms of acceleration as grade skipping and early admission, can be considered administrative in that they often involve no curricular changes--that is, the student experiences the usual curriculum but at an earlier age. In those settings, the gifted student may find himself or herself in a class with older children, following a lockstep curriculum at a pace geared to the older members of the class. The gifted child may engage in those experiences at an earlier age than is usual and finish them in a shorter time, but his or her needs are not necessarily being met optimally. Instructional acceleration, on the other hand, involves curricular changes--changes in the content, nature, and pace of instruction.
Historically, the curricular and instructional issues have been posed in terms of acceleration versus enrichment. Stanley (1977) writes critically of enrichment in any of four forms: "busy work, irrelevant academic, cultural, and relevant academic" (p. 90). He argues that "any kind of enrichment except perhaps the cultural sort will, without acceleration, tend to harm the brilliant student" (p. 93). What he and the staff of the Study of Mathematically Precocious Youth advocate is "a varied assortment of accelerative possibility [from which the gifted student could] choose an optimum combination... to suit the individual's situation" (p. 95). Moreover, Stanley argues for homogeneously grouped, fast-paced classes in which intellectual peers can stimulate one another.
On the basis of what I see as an emerging rethinking or reconceptualization of the notions of acceleration and enrichment, I have argued for restating the perennial issue of acceleration versus enrichment instead as a question of acceleration vis-a-vis enrichment. I do not think this is simply a semantic issue. As I have argued elsewhere:
At the simplest level, acceleration enables the student to deal with more advanced concepts at higher cognitive levels, and this represents an enriching experience. At another level, acceleration in one area provides opportunities for more advanced study in that area or for more experiences in another area or areas. Enrichment involves breadth and/or depth--learning experiences that enable the student to probe more broadly or more intensively. It uses advanced resources aimed at enabling gifted individuals to attain higher levels of insight, understanding, performance, or product development. Both enrichment and acceleration have qualitative as well as quantitative dimensions; both enable the individual to pursue differential experiences through a greater variety of opportunities and engagements.
Given this view of acceleration and enrichment as alternative and complementary approaches to learning opportunities for the gifted, the question becomes one of when it is more appropriate to alter the tempo or pace of instruction and when it is more appropriate to alter the breadth or depth of experience. Some experiences require time for the incubation of ideas, for reflection, for "playing around" with knowledge and ideas, for pursuit in depth employing a wide range of resources if they are to result in optimal learning. Some experiences focus on the acquisition of knowledge and skills which, once mastered, are the basis for further learning. Some disciplines lend themselves to acceleration because gifted youngsters can acquire or master the knowledge and skills rapidly. Other learning must mature, and rapid acquisition is not sufficient by itself. Some disciplines, such as mathematics and foreign languages, lend themselves to acceleration, whereas other disciplines, such as literature and history, lend themselves to study in depth and breadth as well as creative reflection. (Passow, 1985, pp. 37-38)
Leaving aside the "Mickey Mouse" enrichment activities that Stanley criticized so ably, real enrichment in the sense of challenging and nurturing gifted students results from instructional acceleration, and instructional acceleration is an essential means for providing enrichment. Put another way, acceleration creates enrichment and enrichment is often best achieved through instructional acceleration.
I think Dishart (1980) puts the matter correctly and provides the appropriate challenge for curriculum designers:
There is a resultant difference between enriching or accelerating an inadequate and inappropriate curriculum and designing an adequate and appropriate curriculum in the first place.... An enrichment supplement does not really correct a curriculum that is weak, dull, or redundant for the learner. And such a curriculum pushed faster does not correct its faults even if the learner achieves content acceleration. There are curricula which are simplified enough and slow enough for handicapped learners. Why not develop curricula which are enriched enough and accelerated enough for gifted learners? (p. 26, emphasis added)
But I believe it was Marshall who once said: "If you don't like these ideas, I have others."
References
Dishart, M. (1980). [Review of Educational Researcher 9:25-26.
Haney, E. M., & Uhl, W. L. (1924). Academic records of accelerated students. In G. M. Whipple (Ed.), The education of gifted children (pp. 323-332). Twenty-third Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education (Part 1). Bloomington, Ill.: Public Schools Publishing.
Henry. T.H. (1920). Classroom problems in the education of gifted children. Nineteenth Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education (Part 2). Bloomington, Ill.: Public School Publishing.
Keys, N. (1939). The underage student in high school and college: Educational and social adjustment Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.
Martin, A. H. (1924). A study of the subsequent standing of specially promoted pupils. In G. M Whipple (Ed.), The education of gifted children (pp. 333-353). Twenty-third Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education (Part 1). Bloomington, Ill.: Public School Publishing.
Passow, A. H. (1958). Enrichment of education for the gifted. In N. B. Henry (Ed.), Education for the gifted (pp. 193-221). Fifty-seventh Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education (Part 2). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Passow, A. H. (1985). Intellectual development of the gifted. In F. R. Link (Ed.), Essays on the intellect (pp. 23-43). Alexandria, Va.: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Pressey, S. L. (1949). Educational acceleration: Appraisals and basic problems. Columbus: Ohio State University Press.
Stanley, J. C. (1977). Rationale of the Study of Mathematically Precocious Youth (SMPY) during its first five years of promoting educational acceleration. In J. C. Stanley, W. C. George, & C. H. Solano (Eds.), The gifted and the creative: A fifty-year perspective (pp. 75-112). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Stanley, J. C. (1978). Educational non-acceleration: An international tragedy. Gifted Child Today 1:2-5, 53-57, 60-63.
Stanley, J. C. (1989). A look back at "Educational non-acceleration: An international tragedy." Gifted Child Today 12:60-61.
Stanley, J. C. (1991). An academic model for educating the mathematically talented. Gifted Child Quarterly 35:36-42.
Stanley, J. C., & Benbow, C. P. (1982). Educating mathematically precocious youths: Twelve policy recommendations. Educational Researcher 11:4-9.
Terman, L. M., & Oden, M. (1947). The gifted child grows up. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Terman, L. M., & Oden, M. H. (1959). The gifted group at mid-life. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Whipple, G. M. (Ed.) (1924). The education of gifted children. Twenty-third Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education (Part 1). Bloomington, Ill.; Public School Publishing.
Permission Statement
|