Despite 100 years of research showing its effectiveness in boosting student outcomes and lifelong productivity, few schools are willing to allow students to take courses above their grade level.
A recent meta-analysis study that comprehensively reviewed almost 100 years of acceleration research, covering nearly 172 empirical studies, found that when high-ability students were accelerated they exceeded the academic achievement of their non-accelerated, but similar high-ability peers by nearly one-year on a grade-equivalent scale.
Data from the 40-plus year Study of Mathematically Precocious Youth show that a higher percentage of accelerated students achieved higher degrees of education, were published in more scholarly journals, and were awarded more patents at an earlier age than non-accelerated peers of similar ability.
A survey of school district gifted coordinators showed the limited availability of acceleration. Only 1.7 percent of elementary school districts provide subject acceleration and only .2 percent allow students to skip grades. Only 2.4 percent of middle school districts provide subject acceleration and only .3 percent allow students to skip grades. Only 6.6 percent of high school districts offer dual enrollment courses, 2.2 percent offer IB courses, and 40.4 percent offer AP courses. Many schools do not allow acceleration because their administrators and teachers believe it is harmful to a student’s social and emotional development, even though research shows the opposite.
Acceleration is often confused with tracking, but the two couldn’t be more different. Tracking happens when a student is assigned to a learning group early in their academic career and can never escape from it no more how well they do. Acceleration is a fluid policy, allowing students to move in and out of academic settings based on their ability to succeed. The most popular forms of acceleration are early entrance, subject-based acceleration, grade-skipping, and early graduation.