Acceleration and Ability Grouping Among Academically Gifted Students - Report Example

Acceleration and ability grouping among academically gifted students Name Institution Date Introduction Exceptionally intelligent children are different qualitatively as compared to their peers and more often than not are under-challenged and socially isolated in the classroom. Studies on educational options for these gifted children indicate prevailing programs being effective. Little funds have been allocated on gifted children education and special program education distribution varies greatly, with places that are not urban and children who are disadvantaged being the least likely to benefit from special services and with the greatest known option being settled for being the weakest-the pullout program. Students who are exceptionally gifted face a number of challenges in an ordinary class. They are usually ostracized as being weird and unique in addition to being referred to as geeks and nerds. Moreover they face the imminence of boredom owing to absence of an appropriate level of challenge. According to Colangelo and Davis (2003), teachers in many occasions make very small accommodation to the exceptional gifted children needs, and may possess scant or no special training on how to teach such kind of children. An exceptionally gifted child when placed in a regular classroom he may not get the chance to learn with other children who have the same qualities. When such classrooms have been scrutinized it has been noted that the exceptionally gifted students generally have been inattentive and bored. Ability Grouping and Acceleration are two methods of intervention that possess benefit that is significant to students who are intellectually gifted, and are to great extent advocated for by research both from overseas and in Australia. Despite of the evidence that is overwhelming that supports the positive contribution of these procedures, both are underutilized in Australia basically due to the perception that is negative held by professionals in education and the community as a whole (Colangelo & Davis, 2003). Ability Grouping Ability grouping is the action of putting students into groups basing on comparable needs and skills, or similar capability in a specific activity or subject. Whereas acceleration moves the exceptional gifted child between otherwise classroom environment that are normal, Ability grouping entails the modification of the classroom itself with the purpose of meeting the exceptionally gifted child needs. Ability Grouping has elicited a mixture of emotions just as Acceleration. With an environment that is full of emotions, it is very likely to be forgotten that the techniques are extensively utilized: children are grouped together depending on their chronological age assuming that children who fall in the same age bracket possess similar ability (Vialle & Geake, 2002). This turns out to be a challenge when the mental age of the child is substantially below or above their respective chronological age. Vialle and Geake (2002) argue that an analogy is used of a planet where children are put into groups for instruction depending on their height; if it happens that one is very short he will most likely spend his entire school life in a classroom with people who may be several years younger that him. Some teachers are so scared at the possibility of a child being subjected to such a severe misplacement of grade, on such a criterion that is inappropriate, that they find it challenging to get involved in the task. It is surprising this is this is the same treatment that education system subjects to the intellectually gifted students on a daily basis. There exist many forms of Ability Grouping just like Acceleration. Some of them include XYZ grouping where students are separated into groups basing on performance in test but at the same time they continue to stick to the normal curriculum; withdrawal groups where students who are exceptionally gifted are taken out of regular classrooms for some hours each week for extension and enrichment work; Tracking and streaming where the curriculum is differentiated for these particular groups and the classifications are generally fixed or adaptive basing on performance respectively; vertical-timetabling where by progression by subjects is not limited by grade; Within-Class grouping in which the curriculum is differentiated in a single class; Fast-Paced Classes in which curriculum is covered and compacted at a quick pace; Cluster grouping where by students from several schools are brought together for enrichment that is short-term; selective schools where all of part of the school is set aside for the intellectually gifted students; Self-contained classes within schools that are normal; and Advanced Placement Programs where by material is written specifically for the exceptionally gifted students beyond the regular areas covered by the school. In Australia many of these methods are utilized, the common ones being Withdrawal programs, Self-Contained Opportunity Classes provided in years 6 and 5 in some of the primary schools, Selective High Schools where entrance into these schools is based on ability test that is very competitive. Streaming is also utilized in subjects such as Mathematics requirement that are compulsory for Schools Certificate can be completed at Advanced, Intermediate and Standard levels that are initially determined on primary school performance. Whereas Acceleration is a dichotomy between what is known and what is done brought about by ignorance mostly, Ability Grouping is far more emotive (Vialle& Geake, 2002). The attitude that is anti-intellectual that is common in the society of Australia is as a result of the penal history; the underlying hatred concerning inherited as opposed to being acquired, and moreover the perception of intellectual ability as being undeserved somehow. The New South Wales Federation of Teachers label ability groups as “daughters and sons of the middle class yuppies attempting to steal more privileges under the pretense of great abilities”. It is perturbing that such militant attitudes to the technique are not limited to Australia specifically; in the United States the states in the southern region commenced to expand funding for exceptionally gifted student programs immediately following the federal government outlawing segregation basing on race, and amazingly gifted classrooms tended to be composed of students who were white. Whatever is overlooked by these assertions is that intelligence has no respect for economic, cultural, racial or social boundaries. Being gifted does away with, as opposed to building up or erecting boundaries, and when in schools services are reduced for this group it is those who are economically disadvantaged who will be without a platform that is independent to aid themselves or else suffer in silence. These assertions demonstrate the passion that exists in the arguments that are against ability grouping. Ability Grouping is seen as being undemocratic, inflating egos of exceptionally gifted children, impacting on the self-concept of the other children and bringing about segregation of children along socio-economic and ethnic lines. Many practitioners furthermore argues that children with average ability benefit immensely from learning alongside children who are exceptionally gifted and hold them in high esteem as being role models, and that experiences happen in groups that are heterogeneous and therefore exceptionally gifted students should learn to cope with such circumstances (Halsted, 2009). Certainly Ability Grouping is not at all undemocratic-it is applied many times in educating children with physical and mental disabilities, for gifted musicians and gifted athletes. Placing deaf students in special groups for a teacher who is specially trained can hardly be viewed as undemocratic. It has previously been noted that identification of minds that are exceptionally fine and/or discovery of a brilliant talent and in the contrary be incapable of providing for their development is wasteful as well as denial of equal opportunity. Debatably it is undemocratic withholding services from the exceptionally gifted. A child that possesses high capability of learning should not be denied the chance to do so. Research has indicated that Ability Grouping is one among the effective ways of meeting the demands of children who are exceptionally gifted. When exceptionally gifted children were put in the same groups for the first time, they came across others who had the same capability as them. Far from being disoriented, children tend to be humbled when they find peers who have the same knowledge as much as they do. The achievement of average and low ability children has been noted to go down when students with high ability are withdrawn from the classroom. In many occasions as it has been demonstrated in research, individuals select role models as people they saw as successful and of the same ability as compared to their own, and in most circumstances students will not select a student who is gifted as a role model owing to the fact that he does not want to end up like the exceptionally gifted student or he does imagine it is possible for someone to be like that. The fact that real life experiences happen in settings that are heterogeneous is certainly a reality, on the contrary the perception that exceptionally gifted individuals do well in these setting does not hold any truth and it is in the real sense flawed. Children tend to amass social skills if they are put in a setting where they are surrounded by others with the same abilities and interests. Research indicates that exceptionally gifted children look for not only mental age peers compatibility, but more so children whose expectations and conceptions of friendship can be likened to their very own. Exceptionally gifted children are frequently bullied and teased, and it has been demonstrated that peer pressure was the basic impetus against achievement in academics for students who are exceptionally gifted (Keeves, 2003). Exceptionally gifted children are compelled to choose between intellectual simulation and acceptance. The real situation is that more often than not, settings that are heterogeneous are not socially conducive for the exceptionally gifted individuals. Research indicates that when exceptionally gifted children are put in the same group, they tend to be more tolerant to others who possess lesser ability compared to their own when they are returned to settings that are heterogeneous. A child who is disturbed by his peers may employ his intellect as a weapon but these behavior usually vanish when the exceptionally gifted student encounter others like himself. Ability Grouping gives exceptionally gifted children the chance to develop at their own rate as opposed to holding them back and gives them the opportunity to interact with other children who possess abilities, interests and needs that are similar. The presented material is largely more suited to their degree of interest and ability, which extends and challenges them in a situation where they come across competition that is more realistic. Research demonstrates that the higher the intervention degree, the greater the gain. Studies have shown that there exists no evidence that exceptionally gifted students admitted in selective high schools experience a severe decline in their self-esteem. Total self esteem in such environments tended to rise substantially, and the decline in academic self-esteem was also reported in the comparison group that was enrolled in comprehensive high schools that were normal. It is interesting to note that the most gains in self-esteem, and the only group not to register in academic self-esteem was a situation where Acceleration and Ability grouping where used alongside each other. Acceleration The negative perception that is directed towards acceleration to a large degree comes from its own semantics. According to Brody (2004), acceleration is defined in the setting of education as ‘containing principle duration of social improvement or of intellectual advancement’, and the word itself is the antonym of retardation, the extent to which something is delayed or held back. Nevertheless, acceleration also translates to the act of causing something to happen sooner than expected, bringing up the picture of pushing the student forward, as opposed to pushing their actual work forward to bring it up to their level, an enigmatic but crucial difference. Acceleration is also defined as simply deciding that competence as opposed to age should be the basis for deciding when an individual gets access to particular academic or curriculum experience. A conception that is most common is that Acceleration is a single tool. Practitioners in the education sector all types of acceleration, and widely commonly known as Grade skipping as Acceleration. Frydenberg and Leonora (2006) note that in practice there are a variety of acceleration tools available, including Early Entrance, both to university and school, grade skipping once they get in the school system, grade telescoping where by the sequence of grades is compressed, and curriculum compacting in which material is condensed and/or extended, grade acceleration in one or more specific subjects, enrolment that is concurrent like in tertiary study as well as the competition of high school requirement, awarding of grades basing on exam performance as opposed to demonstrated work and placement advanced program that are specialized. Mentorship which is placing a student in professional or expert areas for study is also other forms of Acceleration. These various methods can be used at different rates and in concert, for instance Rapid acceleration (Brenneman, 2007). Just like it is in the United States, in Australia there is no problem at all with Acceleration so long as it is used within the limits of the creative arts or athletics. Heller (2000) argues that the New South Wales Department of sports and Recreation assertively advertises its Sport and Science testing facility designed to optimize and develop the performance of the athlete, and Personal Best System, which is an Australian Software Company that develops popular coaching software, claims to provide methods for accelerating skill correction and development. Elijah who was intellectually gifted was made to repeat sixth grade three times owing to the fact that he could not be admitted to high school until he attained the age of eleven; there would have been an outburst if Elijah was a gifted pianist and made to repeat AMEB sixth grade under the same conditions (Hunter, 2002). Luckily, for individuals such as Elijah, commencing from 1991 Acceleration has been incorporated in the policy of the government in New South Wales, starting with reforms that relaxed the legal requirements for minimum years required for one to enter elementary school. Children who are exceptionally gifted can now get admission into elementary school and move on to high school earlier and moreover there is infrastructure to permit grade and subject acceleration. In the year 1994 the Advanced Placement Distinction Course Program was also brought on board to fill up the gap that resulted. In recent times the New South Wales Board of Studies has put up University Developed Board Endorsed Courses, Program of Concurrent Enrolment that allows an individual or groups of students who are exceptionally gifted to sit and earn credit for University level while at the same time completing their HSC (Brody, 2004). From the time these changes were put in place in New South Wales in 1991 about more than 9000 cases of Acceleration have happened in New South Wales alone. Acceleration in New South Wales has not been embraced fully. Whereas Acceleration was being adopted steadily in the era of reforms by the government from the year 1991, policy change after the 1996 state elections caused the trend to slacken with no clear projection over the future of Distinction Course program following the report, there still yet to be seen replacement Early Entry Scheme and fierce lobbying by teacher and parent groups adding their voice for calls for scaling back specialized services for the exceptionally intellectual gifted individuals (Karnes, 2005). Despite the support in the government policy, Acceleration is a practice that faces a lot of opposition, or viewed with an antagonistic perspective in Australia. Survey conducted on the attitudes of teachers towards acceleration in the United States indicated that academic growth was rated last as the most perceived risk faced by children when putting the technique into consideration of the technique; emotional and social adjustment, athletic ability, creativity and leadership where all rated higher. These results showing a 98 per cent rejection rate by principals in metropolitan New South Wales for Early Entry applications with respect for socialization reported as the justification that was the most common. In some incident where 7 children were accepted from 15 applicants, 4 from non-English speaking backgrounds, in a school in which the Deputy Principal was completing a doctorate in education for the gift ed. This confirms that educating teachers in the issues entailing education greatly improved both their ability to identify exceptionally gifted children and their tolerance towards Acceleration (Heller, 2000). The irony is that research has persistently demonstrated the lack of harmful effects of Acceleration including emotional and social development, when it is correctly monitored and implemented and in fact supports its effectiveness. Literature concerning the subject credits Acceleration with efficiency of increased learning, opportunity and effectiveness for academic exploration, exposure to peer groups which are more subtle, increased productivity and its economy. Acceleration carries little administrative overhead in vast cases involving merely moving the child from one classroom to another (Gross, 2004). In addition some research has suggested that there may be consequences which are negative if a student is denied being accelerated including boredom and frustration, underachievement, apathy concerning formal schooling, academic expectations that are low, motivation that is reduced, poor study habits and problems associating with peers. It has been noted that socio-emotional development of the accelerants are short-lived and minimal. According to Keeves (2003), many practitioners are opposed to Acceleration on the grounds of intellectual immaturity, indicating patterns of emotional outbursts as confirmation of the child unpreparedness. Research nevertheless indicates that intellectual maturity is greatly correlated to mental age as opposed to chronological age. It is vital to make the difference between emotional behavior and emotional maturity. Hunter (2002) observes that with immense antagonism directed toward Acceleration in Australia, it is surprising that in most circumstances being exceptionally gifted is not the determining factor in allowing children to commence school early. The shortages and rising cost in childcare make early admission to school a luring option to parents who are ever busy. Grouping children together basing on age is a concept that is relatively modern, that was introduced about eighty years ago as an administrative procedure to deal with the huge number of students attending school. Before this, progression by acceleration was a common, widely used and accepted procedure in system of education. It is surprising that society has adopted a negative attitude towards Acceleration given its prevalence in the historical times and the total lack of reliable research indicating its harm when it is applied (Karnes, 2005). Conclusion As it has been demonstrated through the exploration of literature and research in this paper, Ability Grouping and Acceleration possess substantial, demonstrated and supported gains to students who are intellectually gifted, both in concert and in isolation. In the contrary not one of these techniques is embraced in Australia and the methods that are applied do not benefit the gifted students at all. The techniques face a misunderstanding pattern in education circles and the community as a whole, caused by fears and myths that are unfounded. Surprisingly these interventional methods are readily accepted in creative arts and music pointing to the rejection lacking any facts. References Colangelo, N. and G. A. Davis (2003). Gifted education. Journal of Gifted Education . Vol. 45 (4) pp. 34-55 Gross, M.U.M. (2004). Exceptionally gifted children. Exceptional Children Journal. Vol. 5 (10) pp. 302-379. Vialle, W. & Geake, J. (2002). The Gifted Enigma. Cheltenham, Australia: Hawker Brownlow. Karnes, F.A. (2005). Profiles of influence in gifted education. Historical perspectives and future directions Journal. Educational Review, 79, 23–55. Hunter, W.S. (2002). Psychological abstracts, Volume 89. Washington D.C: American Psychological Association, Vol. 40 (13). 2461-2470. Brenneman, J.F. (2007). High IQ Kids: Collected Insights, Information, and Personal Stories from the Experts. High IQ Journal Vol.45 (5) pp.78-86. Heller, K. (2000). The international handbook of giftedness and talent. Gifted Talents Journal. Vol. 3 Issue No.6 pp.231-247. Brody, L. (2004). Grouping and acceleration practices in gifted education. Special Education Journal, Vol.56 (6) 561-571. Halsted, J.W. (2009). Some of My Best Friends Are Books: Guiding Gifted Readers from Preschool to High School. No.2 pp.142-150. Keeves, J.P. (2003). International handbook of educational research in the Asia-Pacific region. handbook of educational research. Vol. 2(8) pp. 201-271. Frydenberg, E. & Leonora, M.C. (2006). Coping for Capable Kids. Strategies for Parents, Teachers, and Students. Vol 14 (18) 1267-1299. Read More