Acceleration optimizes the challenges whereas enrichment spreads students sideways. There is no reason not to consider acceleration (master schedule building and other logistic problems are often blamed). Researchers have found that accelerated students surpass the performance of non-accelerated students of an equivalent age and intelligence by nearly one grade level. They have also found that accelerated students did just as well as the bright students in the grades into which they were moved and that the accelerated students generally had higher educational ambitions. Of importance is the finding that there are usually no negative social effects for accelerated students - especially if they are chosen well.
Articles in this section
- What are the impacts of acceleration on student learning?
- Does acceleration work?
- Do streaming (mixed ability versus similar ability grouping) and retention both have undesirable impacts on students?
- Is it better to have mixed ability classes or to ‘stream’ children for some subjects, whilst ensuring that teachers do still look at the needs of their individual students?
- Do ability-based streaming groups benefit students' learning?
- No doubt if class sizes were reduced but everything else was held constant, the effect size would be minimal. But, wouldn't smaller class sizes allow for more time and effort to be spent on the things that do make a difference?
- What are your thoughts about research that suggests that class size does not matter?
- Is there a number of disabled students (as a percent), who when added to a classroom, will negatively impact the overall achievement of the classroom as a whole?
- Is there any recent research that show any benefits to combination classrooms (two different grade levels and two sets of standards)?