Michael J. Petrilli / The Fordham Institute

Let’s invent a game; it’s called “Rate This School!”

Start with some facts. Our school—let’s call it Jefferson—serves a high-poverty population of middle and high school students. Eighty-nine percent of them are eligible for a free or reduced-price lunch; 100 percent are African American or Hispanic. And on the most recent state assessment, less than a third of its students were proficient in reading or math. In some grades, fewer than 10 percent were proficient as gauged by current state standards.

Proficiency rates are terrible measures of school effectiveness. These rates mostly reflect a school’s demographics.

That school deserves a big ole F, right?

Now let me give you a little more information. According to a rigorous Harvard evaluation, every year Jefferson students gain two and a half times as much in math and five times as much in English as the average school in New York City’s relatively high-performing charter sector. Its gains over time are on par or better than those of uber-high performing charters like KIPP Lynn and Geoffrey Canada’s Promise Academy.

Jefferson is so successful, the Harvard researchers conclude, because it has “more instructional time, a relentless focus on academic achievement, and more parent outreach” than other schools.

Now how would you rate this school? How about an A?

***

My little thought experiment makes an obvious point, one that isn’t particularly novel: Proficiency rates are terrible measures of school effectiveness. As any graduate student will tell you, those rates mostly reflect a school’s demographics. What is more telling, in terms of the impact of a school on its students’ achievement and life chances, is how much growth the school helps its charges make over the course of a school year—what accountability-guru Rich Wenning aptly calls students’ “velocity.” This is doubly so in the Common Core era, as states (like New York) move to raise the bar and ask students to show their stuff against a college- and career-readiness standard.

To be sure, proficiency rates should be reported publicly, and parents should be told whether their children are on track for college or a well-paying career. (That’s one of the great benefits of a high standard like the Common Core.) But using these rates to evaluate schools will end up mislabeling many as failures that might in fact be doing incredible work at helping their students make progress over time.

Let’s go back to Jefferson. As a middle school, it welcomes children who enter several grade levels behind. Even if these students make incredible gains in their sixth-, seventh-, and eighth-grade years, they still won’t be at grade level, much less “proficient,” when they sit for the state test. Furthermore, unless the state gives an assessment that is sensitive enough to detect progress—ideally a computerized adaptive instrument that allows for “out of grade level” testing—it might not give Jefferson the credit for all the progress its students are making.

Here’s the rub: There are thousands of Jeffersons out there: Schools with low proficiency rates but strong growth scores. (See figure, borrowed from this Shanker Blog post, and notice in particular the many schools whose “growth percentile” is above 50 but whose percent proficient is below 50.)

This is particularly the case with middle schools and high schools, serving as they do students who might be four or five grade levels behind when they enter. Is it any surprise that middle schools and high schools are significantly more likely to be subject to interventions via the federal School Improvement Grants program? They are being punished for serving students who are coming to them way, way below grade level.

Again, none of this is particularly new or noteworthy. Others (especially reform critics) have made the same arguments countless times before. Yet an emphasis on proficiency rates over student growth is still entrenched in state and federal policy. Yes, Margaret Spellings allowed for a “growth model pilot” when she was secretary of education—but schools still had to get all students to proficiency within three years, an unrealistic standard in states with a meaningful (and rigorous) definition of proficiency. Arne Duncan has also espoused the wisdom of looking at progress over time, yet his ESEA waiver rules require state accountability systems to take proficiency rates into account—those are expected to be the drivers in identifying “focus” and “priority” schools. Nor are Democrats in Congress any better; their ESEA reauthorization bills would maintain No Child Left Behind’s reliance on “annual measurable objectives” driven by proficiency rates.

The charter sector is wedded to proficiency rates, too.  In New Orleans, for instance, the Recovery School District has shut down schools with low proficiency rates but strong individual student gains over time in the cause of boosting quality.* What it has really done, however, is closed schools worthy of replication, not extinction.

***

Have you figured out by now the true identity of our “Jefferson School”? It’s the highly-acclaimed Democracy Prep. According to the new Common Core–aligned New York test, it’s a low-proficiency-rate, high-growth school. Seth Andrew, Democracy Prep’s founder, explained to me,

Like the rest of New York, our Democracy Prep Public Schools saw dramatic drops in “proficiency rates.” In fact, we saw declines that were even greater than most. Why?

1) Entry Grade Level: Charters that enroll at the K-1 level did dramatically better than those (like Democracy Prep) who enroll in the middle school grades. This is potentially GREAT news for urban education because it means that if students don’t fall dramatically behind, they can get on grade level by grade 3, and stay on or above grade level over time. However, it is not even remotely reasonable to compare schools that randomly enroll in kindergarten to those that enroll in the sixth grade. One school has had seven years with a student while we’ve had nine months!

2) Growth Matters Most: The metric that no one has seen yet and that will be the most important to our teachers, administrators, students, and families at Democracy Prep is not “proficiency” but “value-added growth.” The reason we have operated only “A” rated schools every year since 2006 is primarily because 60 percent of that grade has been based on individual student growth, a metric on which our scholars and teachers post some of the most dramatic improvements year-over-year. In fact, even this year, our percent of “1’s” goes dramatically down in grade seven while our “2’s” go up, and by eighth grade we’ve dramatically reduced “1’s” and substantially increased “3’s and 4’s.”

My key point here is that NO ONE in this work, especially at Democracy Prep, makes so-called “miracle school claims” as reported by our critics. We believe, in fact we KNOW, that educating low-income students is incredibly hard work, compounded by the challenges of poverty, mobility, ELL status, and disability. These are not excuses; they are facts. To move our scholars from whatever grade or performance level they enter to be ready for success in the college of their choice and a life of active citizenship takes us at least five years. Given that time, our scholars consistently out-perform wealthy Westchester County on their Regents exams in nearly every subject and our first class of graduates outperformed white students on their SAT’s. Nearly 70 percent of our graduates met the NYC “aspirational performance measure” for college readiness compared to 22 percent across NYC and we require that our graduates earn an Advanced Regents Diploma because, as these new CCSS results prove, the old bar was far too low.

Is Democracy Prep an A school or an F school? The answer seems obvious to me—and should apply to any school with similar results, name brand or not, charter school or not. It’s time that policy caught up to common sense and put proficiency-rates-as-school-measures out of their misery once and for all.

* CORRECTION:  The school I had in mind is Pride College Prep; someone associated with the school had informed me that it had made strong student-level gains. But I’ve learned from Michael Stone, the Chief External Relations Officer at New Schools for New Orleans, that in fact data from CREDO showed the school’s gains to be among the weakest in the RSD. Furthermore, Michael wrote to me, “None of the charters BESE or the RSD closed would have been candidates for replication.” My apologies for the error.

reviewed by Brian D. Ray — January 10, 2014

Title: Homeschooling in America: Capturing and Assessing the Movement
Author(s): Joseph F. Murphy
Publisher: Corwin Press, Thousand Oaks
ISBN: 145220523X, Pages: 200, Year: 2012
Search for book at Amazon.com

Homeschooling in America gives insights to perhaps the most fascinating and aberrant movement of the past half-century in U.S. educational history. Murphy’s first chapter informs and engages both the newcomer and veteran regarding research-based information on the modern homeschooling movement. He properly gives definitions of homeschooling, provides statistics on the growth of the homeschooling population, and makes introductory comments on the overall state of knowledge about homeschooling. From the beginning of his book, Murphy cautions the reader with his judgment that “there is not an overabundance of solid empirical work on homeschooling,” (p. 3) and “ there is a nearly universal call for more research on homeschooling in the scholarly community, and increasingly for more sophisticated and stronger research designs” (p. 13). With these points in mind, Murphy launches into his very readable and reasonable summary of “the state of knowledge” (p. 12) in Chapters Two through Seven.

Regarding demographics, Murphy reports that homeschool families, on average, are solidly middle class, with that status relying on one wage earner, have parents who tend to be better educated than non-homeschool parents, have a high amount of marital cohesiveness among them, and are larger than the average U.S. family. The homeschool community is becoming somewhat more ethnically and racially diverse, while whites continue to be very overrepresented, and they are “overwhelmingly Christian, usually Protestant . . . tend to be socially and politically conservative, but not withdrawn from issues of the larger community in which they live” (p. 27).

Chapter Three provides a sweeping and fast-paced history of the movement and part way through the author asks, “How did homeschooling go from being on the fringe, and often a hostile venue on the fringe, to the mainstream?” (p. 37). Murphy focuses his answer on how the people involved in homeschooling created a robust, effective, and encouraging network of support groups and associations and worked for “the legalization of a practice that was on the margins of legality [in many states] only 30 years ago” (p. 39). In this chapter, as in all chapters, the author gives a succinct and useful chapter summary.

Murphy’s fourth chapter explores the “environmental conditions that foster homeschooling” and it is here that he weaves in much language and theory from some of his specialties, school improvement and leadership, education policy, and privatization (or not) of education. His sections on the social context related to homeschooling – “before homeschool (1800-1890),” “before homeschool (1890-1970),” and “homeschooling (1970 on)” are pithy and pointedly describe the competing forces of centralization and government control over children’s education versus local and/or parental control over education. Current forces supporting homeschooling are localization (decentralization, localism), more populist conceptions of democracy, “a rebalancing of the control equation in favor of lay citizens while diminishing the power of the state and educational professionals” (p. 69), the ideology of choice, and the rise of democratic professionalism in the political infrastructure of schooling and “the gradual decline of control by elite professionals” (e.g., professional managers, teacher unions).

The Calculus of Departure: Parent Motivations for Homeschooling” (Chapter Five) is a solid overview of the research and Murphy lays out a clear and parsimonious framework for understanding why parents choose homeschooling rather than institutional state or private schooling. The framework includes basic reasons most readers have probably already considered, such as those related to religion, family, school academics, and school social elements, but Murphy also includes the very important variable of parental control (rather than state or private institutional control) over a child’s rearing and, finally, the insight that there are things pushing families away from public schools and pulling them toward homeschooling

Chapter Six provides fascinating glimpses into the very wide diversity and rich array of how parents and children and local homeschool communities act out “homeschooling” on a daily and yearly basis. He allows the reader to see, in adequate detail, that curriculum materials, pedagogical approaches, social experiences, and daily educational and family practices are myriad and diverse across home-educating families.

For those who want to focus on whether homeschooling is “better,” “worse,” or “no different” for children and youth compared to institutional public or private schooling, Chapter Seven will be a key passage. Murphy addresses “the impact of homeschooling” (p. 121) on schools and school systems, on families, and on students, in terms of their academic achievement, social development, and relative success beyond secondary education. Regarding academic achievement, “… we know more than some analysts suggest we do,” “… we know a lot less than advocates of homeschooling would have us believe” (p. 140), there is a growing body of evidence that reveals homeschool students are performing above average on standardized tests, and “… there is a fair amount of suggestive evidence that homeschooling can tamp down the effects found in public schools of family socioeconomic variables” (p. 140).

Regarding the social development of the home educated, Murphy addresses (cf., Medlin, 2013) several hypotheses that critics of homeschooling especially promote. For example, they postulate that the home educated will be socially isolated and therefore have poor social skills; research, however, clearly shows these children are not socially isolated. Second, some hypothesize the homeschooled will have weaker self-concepts (variously defined and measured), but research shows that “home-based education appears at least as capable of nurturing self-concept as conventional schools” (p. 146). “They are generally a happy group… score about the same as conventionally schooled peers on measures of social acceptance ,” and “[overall], they demonstrate appropriate prosocial behavior and social responsibility” (p. 147). Further, research, although very limited in the number of studies to date, indicates that the long-term effects of homeschooling on its “graduates” (p. 148) are adequately positive.

Joseph Murphy’s creativity, systematic thinking, and ability to synthesize come through in his final chapter, “Hunches: Explanations for Positive Effects.” Again, he cautions the reader that the designs of research projects thus far notably limit what can be said about causation and “how [italics in original] homeschooling impacts student learning” (p. 154). Murphy then presents his instincts about the positive effects, and he gives a succinct and useful-to-researchers “logic model” of the “influence of homeschooling on student learning” in Figure 8.1 (p. 155).

“If there is a beginning point in the logic of action for homeschooling’s impact, it is most likely parental involvement” (p. 155) that is part of the warp and woof of homeschooling but cannot be to the same high level with institutional schooling. Second, Murphy points out, the high amounts of one-to-one instruction that homeschool students receive is good for their academic and social development and it is possible “that extensive one-to-one engagement is more important than pedagogical technique,” and might trump the educational expertise that certified teachers and professional systems might have (p. 156). He posits that the more efficient use of time and more customization in homeschooling have positive effects. Murphy mentions that a “variety of reviewers also suggest that homeschooling promotes academic and social learning by providing structures that encourage good instructional practices to flourish” (p. 158). Further, parent-led home-based education provides a safe and nourishing climate. “On the one hand, this means the development of a climate that is safe and orderly, a nonthreatening culture in which the academic work of school can unfold,” and it is also here that there “is the elimination of the negative peer culture sometimes seen in conventional schools” and instead “a supportive culture that grows from committed families and loving parents” (p. 159). Finally, the author discusses the personalization of homeschooling. Murphy deduces from research that “a positive learning environment is made possible by the nurturing relationships that seem to be more easily forged in homeschools” and homeschools “need not develop the institutional scaffolding and impersonality that define conventional schools” (p. 160). He nails down this concept with the following: “The key here is the development in homeschools of a highly personalized climate in which the child is known, cared for, and respected more deeply than is possible in models of collective schooling” (p. 160).

Murphy does several things well in his book that should be considered the best to date on the overall state of the homeschooling movement and theory explaining the effects of homeschooling. He does a fine job of covering nearly all the research to date on homeschooling, is generous in giving credit where it is due regarding the research done, is calm in his tone of reporting research and findings that might irritate or please historical critics or advocates of home-based education, and wraps up his book with an even-keeled, judicious, and enlightening proposed “logic of action for homeschooling’s impact” (p. 155). His theory is complementary to but an improved conceptual advancement over my (Ray, 1997, p. 85-102; 2000, p. 91-100) circumspect explanations of the positive impact of homeschooling on children, youth, and society.

Murphy will certainly annoy some (and please others) with his worldview and angle on interpreting educational/schooling history in Chapter Four on the “environmental conditions that foster homeschooling.” He points out that during the mid to late 1800s, “the key governance [over schools and education] issues were forged on the anvil of control” (pp. 55-56). One group pressed for more state schooling and more centralized control of it to implement the public school to mold citizens, give them the right knowledge, create productive workers, and create social harmony, and by 1970 public schooling was governed by a corporate bureaucratic model in a managerial state led by experts. The expansion of the “liberal democratic state brought activist government that assumed ever-expanding responsibility for social life” and “also diminished the influence of parents” (pp. 59-60). Murphy contends that homeschooling can be seen “as part of an ongoing debate about who should control the education of America’s children, government or parents” (p. 60). On this, Murphy is very correct, as many authors have explained. Murphy rightly posits that the homeschooling movement is against the liberal democratic state in that it is against “government domination of schooling and against the dominant role played by professional educators in the production known as schooling” (p. 60). Knowing the homeschool movement as intimately as I do, I think Murphy should have added to his preceding sentence “and against the production of knowledge and values that are transmitted to children and youth in places called school, whether state-controlled/public or private.”

I am not familiar with Joseph Murphy’s scholarship and writings but his conceptual framework seems to appear rather clearly in this same chapter. He talks about factors that account for discontent with the public sector and help “… fuel privatization initiatives such as homeschooling” (p. 61). He explains that some (he?) hold that (a) “the growth of the public sector contained the seeds of its own destruction” (p. 62), (b) “many of our social problems are in reality cratogenic—that is, created by the state” (p. 63), (c) perhaps public production (e.g., of education/schooling) is so inherently inefficient that it is worse than market failures it is supposed to correct, and (d) public employees (e.g., school teachers) are such direct beneficiaries of government spending that “they are likely to use the power of the ballot box to promote the objective of government growth” (p. 65) rather than the good of those they serve (e.g., students). One of Murphy’s points is that thinking in favor of less bureaucracy (and more grassroots), less of experts (and more of laypersons) being in charge, and less of state control (and more of parents) over individual and family life encourage and bolster the homeschooling movement. Regardless of whether the reader shares Murphy’s worldview or conceptual framework about society, economics, and schooling, he is correct about the overwhelming majority of homeschoolers thinking this way.

Homeschooling in America provides perhaps the most equable and yet insightful and engaging cohesive impression of the rising homeschooling movement (cf., Ray, 2013) proffered over the past decade. Joseph Murphy gives both an in-depth summary and evaluation of the research base on home education and offers a creative, yet reserved, theory that explains “the positive influence of homeschools on the academic and social learning of youngsters” (pp. 153-154). Every academic who studies or follows homeschooling in any nation will benefit from this treatise, and any layperson who is curious about or has an interest in parent-led home-based education will enjoy this book.

References

Medlin, R. G. (2013). Homeschooling and the question of socialization revisited. Peabody Journal of Education, 88(3), 284-297.

Ray, B. D. (1997). Strengths of their own. Salem, OR: National Home Education Research Institute.

Ray, B. D. (2000). Home Schooling: The ameliorator of negative influences on learning? Peabody Journal of Education, 75(1&2), 71-106

Ray, B. D. (2013). Homeschooling associated with beneficial learner and societal outcomes but educators do not promote it. Peabody Journal of Education, 88(3), 324-341.

BY Myung Hee Im, Jan N. Hughes, Qian Cao and Oi-Man Kwok

We investigated the effect of participating in two domains of extracurricular activities (sports and performance arts/clubs) in Grades 7 and 8 on Grade 9 academic motivation and letter grades, above baseline performance. Participants were 483 students (55% male; 33% Euro-American, 25% African American, and 39% Latino). Propensity score weighting controlled for potential confounders in all analyses. Delayed (Grade 8 only) and continuous participation (Grades 7 and 8) in sports predicted competence beliefs and valuing education; delayed and continuous participation in performance arts/clubs predicted teacher-rated engagement and letter grades. Benefits of participation were similar across gender and ethnicity; however, Latino youth were least likely to participate in extracurricular activities. Implications for reducing ethnic and income disparities in educational attainment are discussed.

• extracurricular participation
• adolescence
• academic achievement
• motivation
• propensity score analysis
• ethnicity

An extensive body of research conducted over the past 25 years has documented positive associations between adolescents’ participation in school-sponsored extracurricular activities and diverse benefits, including academic success and psychosocial well-being (for reviews, see Farb & Matjasko, 2012; Feldman & Matjasko, 2005). Despite a large body of research documenting benefits of participation, few studies have investigated the benefits of participating in extracurricular activities during the critical middle school years on academic outcomes (for exception, see Fredricks & Eccles, 2008). Furthermore, very few of these studies have used rigorous methods to control for the effect of differences between youth who participate and those who do not participate in extracurricular activities on variables measured prior to participation that predict both participation in extracurricular activities and outcomes. Thus, a finding of differences between participation groups may be due to these preexisting confounds rather than to participation. Drawing from bioecological theory and using propensity score analyses to control for potential confounds, the present study investigates the effects of participation in two broad domains of extracurricular activities (sports and performance arts and clubs) during middle school on academic motivation and achievement in Grade 9.

Previous SectionNext Section

Results

Descriptive Statistics

Table 2 presents the number and percentage of students participating in each broad activity domain for Grades 7 and 8 and the number of students in each duration pattern, separately by gender and ethnicity. Table 3 presents descriptive statistics for the outcomes in the hypothesized models. The variables were screened for non-normality and extreme values. None of the variables used in the analyses exhibited levels of skewness or kurtosis associated with problematic tests of fit or standard errors (West, Finch, & Curran, 1995). Each baseline score measured at Year 5 was predictive of the corresponding outcome at Grade 9 (range, .15–.29). All outcomes were positively correlated with each other. The associations between education belief and academic competence belief and between teacher-rated engagement and letter grade were strong (.52 and .65, respectively).

View this table:

• In this window
• In a new window

• Download to PowerPoint Slide

Table 2

Frequency of Extracurricular Participation Status by Gender and Ethnicity (N = 483)

View this table:

• In this window
• In a new window

• Download to PowerPoint Slide

Table 3

Correlations and Descriptive Statistics for Outcomes at Grade 9 and Baseline Variables of Outcomes at Grade 5 (N = 483)

Covariates Balance Across Participating and Nonparticipating Groups

The selected covariates cover a broad range of dimensions (demographics, performance, behavior, motivation, social, personality, parent involvement, and home-school relationship) and sources (archival, performance, student report, parent report, and teacher report). Figure 1 shows the balance measures before and after weighting the sample. After weighting by the odds method together with the random forests propensity scores, the balance improved the distributions of propensity scores and the distributions of the observed values of the covariates between the participating and nonparticipating students. Furthermore, after propensity score equating, the covariates had lower standard mean differences. Specifically, SMDs of covariates selected on the basis of high correlations with the outcomes ranged from 0 to 0.23, indicating good balance (Ho, Imai, King, & Stuart, 2007). Additional details on covariate balance are available from the corresponding author. We concluded that the weighting procedure successfully equated the participating and nonparticipating students on the set of 44 covariates measured in or prior to Year 5 (before any student had begun middle school).

View larger version:

• In this page
• In a new window

• Download to PowerPoint Slide

Figure 1.

The boxplots of propensity scores between participation and nonparticipation students before and after propensity score equating using the weighted odds method. parti = participation group; non-parti = nonparticipating group.

Gender and Ethnic Differences in Participation

In responding to our first hypothesis, we tested gender and ethnic differences in participation in sports and performance arts/clubs as well as in nonparticipation at either Grade 7 or Grade 8. Because results were similar across grades in terms of direction and magnitude, findings only for Grade 8 only are detailed here.

Gender Differences

As expected, girls were less likely to participate in sports than boys (z-ratio = −2.78, p = .006) but were more likely than boys to participate in performance art/clubs (z-ratio= 2.71, p = .007). Although boys and girls differed in what activity they selected, they did not differ in whether they were involved in any extracurricular activities or not.

Ethnic Differences

Also as expected, Latino students were less likely than African American (z-ratio = −2.14, p = .032) or Euro-American (z-ratio = −3.16, p = .002) students to participate in sports. African American and Euro-Americans did not differ in their rate of participation in sports. In the domain of performance arts/clubs, Latino students were less likely to participate than Euro-American students (z-ratio = −2.12, p = .034), whose participation was similar to that of African Americans. When considering ethnic differences in status as participating or not in any extracurricular activity, Latino were less likely to participate than African American (z-ratio = −2.07, p = .038) or Euro-American youth (z-ratio = −3.68, p < .001), who did not differ from each other.

Effect of Duration of Participation on Outcomes

First, at the school level we calculated the intraclass correlation for each Grade 9 outcome. The ICCs for competence belief, valuing of education, teacher-rated classroom engagement, and teacher-awarded letter grade were .07, .00, .03, and .04, respectively. Thus, all analyses took into account the nonindependent data structure (i.e., students nested within schools).

We then tested the effect of the different duration patterns across Grades 7 and 8 on outcomes at Grade 9, separately by the activity domain (i.e., sports or performance arts/clubs). The hypothesized ANCOVA models we examined with Mplus are the saturated path models (with degrees of freedom of zero) in the structural equation modeling (SEM) framework. Therefore, we do not report the fit indices due to perfect fit for all models in the study. Table 4 shows the standardized parameter estimates, corresponding standard error, and p value for each effect. Given that the reference group was the nonparticipation group, effects can be directly interpreted as differences in effects of each pattern of duration (i.e., continuous, delayed, and discontinued participation) relative to nonparticipation in that domain. Results for duration patterns will be presented separately for each activity category.

View this table:

• In this window
• In a new window

• Download to PowerPoint Slide

Table 4

Standardized Effect of Different Pattern of Duration by Activity Type During Middle School (Grades7 and 8) on Grade 9 Outcomes

Continuous participation in sports had a significant positive effect on Grade 9 academic competence beliefs (β = .14, SE = .04, p < .001) and valuing of education (β = .16, SE = .05, p = .003). A significant positive effect of delayed sports participation was found only for Grade 9 valuing of education (β = .15, SE = .05, p = .004). Finally, we found no effect of discontinued participation in sports relative to no participation.

Turning to performance arts/clubs, continuous participation had a significant positive effect on Grade 9 competence belief (β = .17, SE = .03, p < .001), teacher-rated classroom engagement (β = .21, SE = .05, p < .001), and teacher-awarded letter grades (β = .16, SE = .04, p < .001). Results of delayed performance arts/clubs’ participation parallel those for continuous participation, with effects found for Grade 9 competence belief (β = .10, SE = .04, p = .019), teacher-rated classroom engagement (β = .10, SE = .04, p = .020), and teacher-awarded letter grades (β = .06, SE = .03, p = .020). A significant positive effect was found for discontinued participation in performance arts/clubs relative to no participation in performance arts/clubs on academic competence beliefs only (β = .09, SE = .04, p = .040).

Gender and Ethnic Moderation of Effect of Duration Patterns

Using multiple group analysis, in separate analyses we tested the potential gender and ethnic moderating effects in the relation between the pattern of duration of participation and each Grade 9 outcome. We first allowed the relations between each pattern of participation and outcomes to vary across student gender and ethnicity (i.e., relaxed model) and then imposed equality constraints on these relations (i.e., constrained model), sequentially. We compared the two competing nested models (i.e., relaxed vs. constrained) at the significance of α ≤ .05 using Wald tests. The null hypothesis of the Wald test is that the constrained model (indicating no moderation effect) fits the data equally well as the relaxed model (indicating the existence of moderation effect). We tested all possible comparisons between groups (i.e., male vs. female for testing gender moderation; Euro-American vs. Latino; Euro-American vs. African American; Latino vs. African American for testing ethnicity moderation) on each outcome in two activity domains. Additional details on the results of Wald tests for testing gender and ethnicity moderation effect of duration patterns of participation on each of grade 9 outcomes are available from the corresponding author.

Gender moderation

According to Wald tests (with degrees of freedom of one for all Wald tests), one significant gender moderation effect in sport (χ² = 5.68, p = .017 for valuing of education) of the 12 tests and two significant gender moderation effects in performance arts/clubs (for teacher-rated classroom engagement, χ² = 12.10, p < .001; for teacher-awarded letter grade, χ² = 3.97, p = .046) of the 12 tests were found. Specifically, in sports, the effect of discontinued participation on valuing of education was positively significant only for girls (β = .16, SE = .08, p = .040). In performance arts/clubs, for teacher-rated classroom engagement, the effect of discontinued participation was positively significant only for boys (β = .12, SE = .03, p < .001). For teacher-awarded letter grades, the effect of delayed participation was positively significant only for boys (β = .18, SE = .07, p = .007).

Ethnic moderation

For ethnic moderation analyses, we tested 36 pairwise comparisons (4 outcomes × 3 pairwise among three ethnic groups × 3 duration patterns) in each activity domain. Based on Wald tests for testing ethnic moderation effect, one significant effect in sport (for teacher-awarded letter grades χ² = 10.76, p = .001) of the 36 tests and eight significant effects in performance arts/clubs (for simple presentation, these results of Wald tests were not reported here) of the 36 tests were found.

Turning to performance arts/clubs, for competence belief, the effect of discontinued participation was positively significant for Latino students (β = .14, SE = .06, p = .018) and African American students (β = .326, SE = .045, p < .001) while the effect of discontinued participation was negatively significant for Euro-American students (β = −.12, SE = .05, p = .017). For valuing of education, the effect of continuous participation was positive and significant only for Latino students (β = .10, SE = .03, p = .001) whereas the effect of discontinued participation was negative and significant only for Euro-American students (β = −.15, SE = .05, p = .004). For teacher-rated classroom engagement, the effect of discontinued participation was positive and significant only for African American students (β = .16, SE = .06, p = .009), whereas the effect of delayed participation was positively significant only for Latino students (β = .22, SE = .09, p = .011).

• Received March 10, 2015.
• Revision received June 8, 2016.
• Accepted July 30, 2016.

In spite of the well-documented academic benefits of Acceleration and peer ability grouping (Colangelo, Assouline, & Gross, 2004; Cornell, Callahan, Bassin, & Ramsay, 1991; Gagné & Gagnier, 2004; Gross, 1993, 2003; Kulik & Kulik, 1982, 1984, 1987, 1992; Lubinski, 2004; Lubinski, Webb, Morelock, & Benbow, 2001; Moon, Swift, & Shallenberger, 2002; Noble, Arndt, Nicholson, Sletten, & Zamora, 1999; Richardson & Benbow, 1990; Rogers, 2004; Southern & Jones, 1991; Swiatek & Benbow, 1991), there is ongoing resistance to increasing the use of either in many public schools. The reasons were given often have to do with concerns about the potential for social or emotional harm to students (Colangelo et al., 2004; Southern, Jones, & Fiscus, 1989). Parents express concern that acceleration will isolate their children or will be too stressful emotionally. Teachers and administrators hesitate over concerns about burnout and adjustment problems years down the road. What can we say in response? What do we know about the immediate and long-term socio-affective impact of acceleration on gifted students? Is there any research on the socio-affective impact of peer ability-grouping to guide us? What recommendations can we make for best practice?

Given that several comprehensive reviews of the research on acceleration and on peer ability grouping are available (Brody, Muratori, & Stanley, 2004; Cornell et al., 1991; Gross & van Vliet, 2005; Kulik & Kulik, 1982, 1984, 1992; Lubinski, 2004; Moon & Reis, 2004; Proctor, Black, & Feldhusen, 1986; Robinson, 2004; Rogers, 1992; Slavin, 1987; Southern & Jones, 1991), another review will not be offered here. Instead, the aim of this article is to pull from the research those findings that specifically address the socio-affective impact of acceleration and peer ability grouping and to make recommendations for best practice based on the evidence. The goal is to guide the practitioner in evidence-based decision making regarding the utilization of these two educational options for gifted students.

The Socioaffective Impact of Acceleration

Academic acceleration of high-ability youth is one of the most well-researched topics in education. The growing number of universities accepting younger students and the success of the talent search programs in identifying exceptional academic talent nationwide have made it easier to locate and assess accelerated students, resulting in an ever-growing body of research (Bower, 1990; Brody & Benbow, 1987; Gross, 1993, 2003; Heinbokel, 1997; Plucker & Taylor, 1998; Pollins, 1983; Prado & Scheibel, 1995; Richardson & Benbow, 1990; Swiatek & Benbow, 1991; Thomas, 1993). Although acceleration can take many forms, the three most commonly studied are the early entrance to the school, early entrance to college, and grade skipping. Studies of these forms of acceleration consistently fail to find evidence of any negative social or emotional effects for nearly all accelerants (Brody et al., 2004; Cornell et al., 1991; Gross, 1993, 2003; Gross & van Vliet, 2005; Robinson, 2004; Rogers, 1992), and numerous studies have identified social or emotional benefits. Table 1 lists the most common socio-affective benefits, along with samples of the empirical studies reporting them.

Although the majority of studies find that acceleration does no harm in either the short or long term, few studies find that it results in a socio-affective advantage for gifted students. In the most thorough analysis of the social and emotional effects of acceleration, Rogers (1992) reviewed 81 studies that investigated the social or emotional impact of acceleration and, using Slavin’s (1986, 1987) best-evidence synthesis technique, found positive effects in both social (mean effect size = 0.46) and emotional (mean effect size = 0.12) aspects. Social effects were typically examined via social maturity scores, teacher ratings of social skills, participation in extracurricular activities, and leadership positions held. Emotional effects typically referred to measures of self-concept or teacher or parent ratings of risk taking, independence, and creativity. Rogers (1992) noted significant emotional effects(effect size = .58) for subject-based acceleration in particular.

Several excellent longitudinal studies of accelerated gifted students have tracked the long-term effects of acceleration and found long-lasting social and emotional benefits (Gross, 1993, 2003; Lubinski, 2004; Lubinski et al., 2001). Among them, Gross’s (1993, 2003; Gross & van Vliet, 2005) study of 60 Australian children with an IQ of 160+ is noteworthy as the only comparison of children who were radically accelerated with those who were not. Of the 17 students in her study who were able to accelerate radically, there was not a single instance of harm or disadvantage as a result. In sharp contrast, however, was her finding that “the majority of children retained with age peers experienced significant and lasting difficulties in forming or maintaining friendships” (Gross & van Vliet, 2005, p. 159). Her study is unique in its demonstration that failure to accelerate was associated with significant adjustment problems.

Students who skip all or some of high school to enroll in college full time are the focus of a great many studies (Brody, Lupkowski, & Stanley, 1988; Brody & Stanley, 1991; Caplan, Henderson, Henderson, & Fleming, 2002; Ingersoll & Cornell, 1995; Janos et al., 1988; Janos, Sanfilippo, & Robinson, 1986; Lupkowski, Whitmore, & Ramsay, 1992; Muratori, Colangelo, & Assouline, 2003; Noble et al., 1999; Noble & Drummond, 1992; Olszweski-Kubilius, 1995; Robinson & Janos, 1986). These studies come to similar conclusions: Students who are carefully selected tend to do very well academically, socially, and emotionally. Early studies did observe negative social or emotional effects for some early entrants, but these were often ameliorated by a change in curriculum, a change in counseling support, or improved selection criteria.

Do any studies observe a negative socio-affective impact from acceleration? What about the common concerns that accelerated students will not fit in, that they will have problems making friends or be unhappy and have behavior problems? Among the hundreds of studies on acceleration, only three have observed negative emotional effects for accelerated children as a group. The negative effects noted are as follows: decline in academic self-concept (Marsh, Chessor, Craven, & Roche, 1995; Marsh & Hau, 2003; Zeidner & Schleyer, 1999), higher anxiety (Zeidner & Schleyer, 1999), and decline in grades (Zeidner & Schleyer, 1999).

Marsh and Hau’s (2003) ambitious, large-scale study of self-concept in a sample of more than 100,000 high school students in 26 countries from the Program of Student Assessment database for the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development deserves mention for the controversy it has stirred up. The authors used multilevel modeling to analyze the relationship between self-concept, individual achievement, and school average achievement. They found that students in academically challenging programs had significantly lower self-concepts than did those in non-selective schools. Marsh and Hau argued persuasively that the observed decline in academic self-concept was a serious concern given that academic self-concept mediates educational aspirations, effort, motivation, and coursework selection.

Critics, however, warned that it is difficult to interpret these findings (Dai, 2004; Plucker et al., 2004). Is a higher academic self-concept and less anxiety necessarily better? What if it means that students have a distorted view of their competence? Plucker et al. (2004) reasoned

Is it possible that self-concepts are reduced but remain high (i.e., a modesty effect)? If so, we see the implications of this study quite differently. Indeed, recent research on competence suggests that people who are not skilled at something tend to think of themselves as being highly skilled, often underestimating the abilities of others (Dunning, Johnson, Ehrlinger, & Kruger, 2003). Sternberg (1999) has proposed that this lack of realistic self-assessment prevents success in highly competitive fields: One needs a realistic view of one’s abilities in order to capitalize on personal strengths and compensate for weaknesses. For these reasons, being in the company of like-minded peers with whom one can relate, converse, and argue is a critical component of intellectual and social development that this study does not address, (p. 269)

In spite of the consistent evidence of socio-affective benefits for accelerants as a group, it is important to note that negative effects are occasionally observed for individuals. Some accelerated gifted students do exhibit problems with conduct or mood. Two examples will illustrate.

Richardson and Benbow (1990) asked more than 2,000 junior high students who scored high on the Scholastic Achievement Test (SAT)-Math from 1972 to 1974 to complete questionnaires at ages 18 and 23. By age 18, more than one half the sample had accelerated their education. Richardson and Benbow found no differences between accelerants and nonaccelerants with respect to self-esteem, the locus of control, social interactions, identity, self-acceptance, or social and emotional problems. They also found no gender differences. At age 23, however, 3% of the respondents did view the acceleration as having a negative impact on their life.

Gagné and Gagnier (2004) asked 78 Canadian teachers, each with at least one early entrant in his or her classroom, to judge all of their students on four indicators of adjustment: interest in academic achievement, maturity toward school tasks (attention, concentration, and perseverance), social integration, and conduct. To minimize raters’ tendency to exaggerate positive ratings, the authors asked the teachers to choose the five most well-adjusted students in their class and rank them from 1 to 5 and then to choose the five least well-adjusted students and rank them from A to E. In their quantitative analysis, Gagné and Gagnier found no differences in adjustment between early entrants and regularly admitted students, but in their qualitative analysis they observed that teachers rated almost 30% of the early entrants as below average on two or more dimensions of adjustment.

We should conclude that the oft-cited concern that academic acceleration will cause social or emotional harm to gifted children is not supported in the empirical literature. There is no evidence that accelerated gifted students as a group will have problems making friends or getting along with others or that they will become overly stressed, depressed, or suicidal. However, there are documented cases of individual accelerated students having significant adjustment problems. We, therefore, cannot conclude that all gifted students should grade skip or enter kindergarten or enroll in college early.

Although research shows no substantial positive or negative socialization or psychological differences for grade skipping, early admission to college, or early entrance to kindergarten, we cannot make similar claims for other accelerative options, because they are not as well researched. It is impossible to draw solid conclusions about the social or emotional impact of Advanced Placement (AP) or honors classes, magnet schools, independent study, and curriculum compacting, for instance, because studies do not distinguish one form of acceleration from another and there is too much-uncontrolled variability in how students are selected for these options (Cornell et al., 1991). We can predict that gifted students who are carefully selected for accelerative options should not only experience academic benefits, but may also experience some social or emotional benefits as well and that there may be circumstances in which it is not the best option for certain individuals. Risks can possibly be minimized by using a tool like the IowaAcceleration Scale (Assouline, Colangelo, Lupkowski-Shoplik, & Lipscomb, 2003) to select candidates carefully.

Given that there is little evidence to support the idea that gifted children who are accelerated manifest better social and emotional adjustment than those who are not accelerated, primarily because few studies compared gifted accelerated children with those who did not accelerate (e.g., see Gross, 2003), we do not have sufficient evidence to make the claim that gifted children who are accelerated do better socially or emotionally than do gifted children who are not accelerated.

The Socioaffective Impact of Peer Ability Grouping

There is ample evidence in the literature that grouping students of high ability together benefits their achievement (Brody & Benbow, 1987; Brody & Stanley, 1991; Gamoran & Berends, 1987; Isaacs & Duffus, 1995; Janos & Robinson, 1985; Kolloff, 1989; Kulik & Kulik, 1982, 1984, 1987, 1990; Louetal., 1996; Rogers, 1992, 1993, 2004; Slavin, 1990; Southern & Jones, 1991; Starko, 1988; Vaughn, Feldhusen, & Asher, 1991), but few have examined its socioaffective impact (AdamsByers, Whitsell, & Moon, 2004; Gross, 1993, 2003; Gross & van Vliet, 2005; Kulik & Kulik, 1982, 1987; Marsh et al., 1995; Marsh & Hau, 2003; Moon, Swift, & Shallenberger, 2002; Shields, 1995; Zentall, Moon, Hall, & Grskovic, 2001). How clear is it that such grouping provides social or emotional benefits? Is there empirical evidence that failure to group students by ability harms some gifted students? What socioaffective impact, if any, doesability grouping have?

The literature on the socioaffective effects of peer ability grouping is not nearly as extensive as it is on acceleration, and thedebate about ability grouping is often confounded by mixing of terms. Peer grouping is defined in the literature as any arrangement that attempts to place students with similar levels of ability in instructional groups. The most common form is between-class abilitygrouping in secondary schools, but forms of within-class ability grouping are also seen, especially at the primary level, wherestudents are often grouped by ability within class for reading and, less often, math. Tracking (or streaming, as it is called in Europe) is a hotly debated but pervasive form of ability grouping in secondary schools in which students are assigned on the basis of ability to a series of classes. Most commonly these include a college-prep track, a vocational track, and a special education track. Tracking is a full-scale, permanent grouping of students by ability, as measured by test scores or grades. Ability grouping includes tracking, but not all ability grouping is tracking.

The overall conclusion is that various forms of ability grouping have differential effects for gifted students. Peer ability grouping seems to have positive socio-affective effects for some gifted students, neutral effects for others, and detrimental effects on a few. Table 2 lists the socio-affective benefits associated with peer ability grouping along with the studies reporting the benefits.

Among the studies that examined the impact of ability grouping on self-concept, some reported a decline in self-concept (Gross, 2003; Kulik & Kulik, 1984; Shields, 1995), others reported again (McQuilkin, 1981), and some reported no change (Maddux, Scheicher, & Bass 1982; Vaughn et al., 1991). Even within studies, differential effects on self-concept are observed. For instance, Rogers’ (1992) best-evidence synthesis found differential effects on self-esteem for different grouping arrangements: small gains for nongraded classrooms and early entrance to college, small losses for subject acceleration, and no differences for AP.

Although some authors view a decline in self-concept as a serious concern (see, e.g., Marsh & Hau, 2003), others perceive the decline as simply an adjustment to a more realistic perception of one’s abilities (see, e.g., Plucker et al., 2004; Rogers, 2004) or a reflection of a new realization of the discrepancy between their ability and their achievement (Gross, 2003).

Studies that use student self-report measures to explore the socio-affective impact of ability grouping also report mixed findings. For instance, in their survey of gifted students’ perceptions of homogeneously and heterogeneously grouped classrooms, Adams-Byers et al. (2004) reported that their 44 subjects “perceived mixed-ability grouping to offer the greatest number of social/emotional advantages and high-ability grouping to offer the greatest number of academic advantages” (p. 10). However, 54% of the self-reported disadvantages of ability grouping were related to a decrease in achievement status due to the greater competition in such classrooms.

In another example, Shields (1995) used a questionnaire to assess the attitudes and perceptions of fifth- and eighth-grade gifted students in homogeneous and heterogeneous classrooms and came up with some unexpected results. First, both fifth- and eighth grade students in homogeneous classrooms reported more development of their career interests. Eighth grade students in heterogeneous classrooms demonstrated greater academic self-concept than those in homogeneous classrooms. No significant differences were noted in perceptions of autonomy, independent development, peer relations, enjoyment of school, or involvement in school activities.

A study noteworthy for its finding that heterogeneous grouping may have deleterious social and emotional effects on high-ability students is Farmer and Farmer’s (1996) comparison of social affiliations. They studied patterns of social affiliations in third- and fourth-grade gifted students, students with learning disabilities, and students with emotional or behavioral disorders in mixed-ability classrooms. They observed that students tended to form affiliations within only one cluster and that these affiliations were based on shared social or personal characteristics.

“[B]oys receiving AG [academically gifted] services seemed to thrive when there were enough of them in a classroom to allow them to form a core prosocial group. In the absence of this critical mass, though, the social positioning of boys with AG services was not nearly as positive” (p. 447).

The authors observed that gifted boys, in particular, tended to rely on antisocial behaviors and affiliations to gain a central social position in the classroom when the classroom lacked a “critical mass” of gifted boys.

The socio-affective impact of ability grouping is further illuminated by a few studies that investigated the academic and personal adjustment of talented minority students (Diaz, 1998; Fordham & Ogbu, 1986; Hebert, 1996, 2001; Isaacs & Duffus, 1995; Jones, 2003; Kuriloff & Reichert, 2003). These studies stressed the contribution of peer support networks to persistence with challenging curriculum and successfully transitioning to challenging postsecondary options. They provide limited empirical support that ability grouping facilitates satisfactory peer relationships that may be crucial to keeping students who face barriers to high achievement-like language, social isolation, and discrimination engaged in challenging coursework and in keeping motivation and aspirations high.

However, differential results are observed among them as well. For instance, Kuriloff and Reichert’s (2003) qualitative study of 27 high school boys in an elite prep school observed that talented Black students who formed a cohesive peer group were able to better negotiate the social geography of the school. Kuriloff and Reichert postulated that being surrounded by peers who were also thinking of going to college, who were also struggling with crossing economic, cultural, or racial borders, and with whom students could share strategies for negotiating the unique social terrain of the school may have reduced the attrition of talented minority students from challenging coursework. In contrast, Jones (2003) concluded in her study of 10 talented women from working-class backgrounds that participation in advanced classes sometimes intensified the experience of marginality and visibility experienced by working class, minority gifted students because in such classes they developed greater awareness of advantage and disadvantage, privilege and injustice, at an earlier age. The apparent contradiction between Jones’s findings and those of Kuriloff and Reichert may be due to the opportunities students had in their peer groups to discuss the affiliation conflicts they felt. It is not clear from Jones’s study whether her subjects had the opportunity to discuss or externalize the conflicts they experienced. It may be that for gifted minority students, peer grouping itself is not as important as having regular opportunities to explore the conflicts they feel regarding affiliation and achievement.

In contrast to those studies that report social or psychological benefits, several studies observed negative socio-affective effects of ability grouping (Adams-Byers et al., 2004; Marsh et al., 1995; Marsh & Hau, 2003; Zeidner & Schleyer, 1999; Zentall et al., 2001). The most common finding is a significant drop in self-concept among high-ability students who are homogeneously grouped, but Zeidner and Schleyer (1999) also observed higher levels of anxiety in homogeneously grouped children.

Highlighting the complexity of the variables involved is a study by Zentall et al. (2001). They conducted the only empirical study examining the socio-affective adjustment of accelerated gifted students with Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (AD/HD) in a self-contained classroom. They compared gifted AD/HD students in a self-contained accelerated classroom with gifted peers without AD/HD in the same classroom and average AD/HD students in a regular classroom and found that though the gifted AD/HD students did well academically, they had trouble with social relations. Zentall et al. concluded that “gifted students with AD/HD may be at risk for problems with social/emotional development if they are accelerated with their GT peers without further accommodations for their AD/HD disability” (as cited in Moon & Reis, 2004, p. 114).

Adding to our understanding of the socio-affective impact of ability grouping on gifted students are the results of two studies that observed a negative impact in mixed-ability classrooms. Gross (1989) observed social rejection and alienation, and Baker, Bridger, and Evans (1999) reported decreased motivation and disinterest in school.

Rogers (1993) aptly concludes:

What seems evident about the spotty research on socialization and psychological effects when grouping by ability is that no pattern of improvement or decline can be established. It is likely that there are many personal, environmental, family, and other extraneous variables that affect self-esteem and socialization more directly than the practice of grouping itself, (p. 10)

Best Practice Recommendations

Given the findings from the research and the limitations of the studies, what best practice recommendations can we make for acceleration and ability grouping in terms of the social and emotional benefits? Regarding acceleration, we can say the following:

* Acceleration should be routine for highly gifted children. All highly gifted children should be evaluated for grade skipping, in particular.

* Acceleration options should be available for capable students. No school district or school administrator should have a policy that prohibits accelerative options for students, including grade skipping.

* All school districts should have written policies or procedures in place to ensure that acceleration options (e.g., grade skipping, early entrance to kindergarten, and early admission to college) are available in all schools and to guide parents and teachers in the steps to follow for referral and evaluation of students.

* Students who are being considered for acceleration should be screened for social readiness, emotional maturity, and motivation for acceleration. A tool, such as The Iowa Acceleration Scale (Assouline et al., 2003), may help to select candidates for acceleration.

* When possible, students who are grade skipping or making an early entrance to college should do so as part of a cohort. There appear to be benefits to cohort acceleration that are more difficult to replicate when students go it alone.

* Young students considering early college entrance should begin taking one or more college-level classes to gain experience with the social, cognitive, and academic expectations of such classes before attending college full time.

* Similarly, candidates for early entrance to kindergarten should ideally have some experience with preschool before enrolling in kindergarten.

* In selecting candidates for acceleration, educators should consider the possibility that a student who demonstrates low motivation, social withdrawal or isolation, and negative attitudes toward school or academic work might, in fact, be a good candidate for acceleration options.

* All gifted students are not good candidates for grade skipping, early entrance to kindergarten, or early admission to college.

Given that few studies examined peer ability grouping for socialization or psychological effects, what recommendations can we make regarding peer ability grouping? We can suggest the following:

* The menu of grouping arrangements available to gifted students should be expanded so that we meet the diverse needs of this population. Ask “What grouping options do we currently not offer?” and strive to make it available.

* Although peer ability grouping is associated with strong achievement benefits, it appears to pose social or emotional challenges for some gifted children. Do not promote it as the panacea for all.

* It should be recognized that twice-exceptional children may face significant difficulties with social adjustment when ability grouped if accommodations are not made for their disabilities.

* One should keep in mind that students’ preference for mixed-ability grouping arrangements may be reflective of their desire to maintain their perceived achievement status, rather than an indication of any real difficulties with peer relations.

* Staff development should be made the highest priority so that every mixed-ability classroom has a teacher who can deliver accelerated instruction to high-ability students. It is well established that both academic and socio-affective gains are associated with the advanced instruction for gifted students.

We should also stress that any discussion about ability grouping must address the valid concern that grouping in the past has been associated with inequality of opportunity (Oakes, 1985; Pool & Page, 1995; Rosenbaum, 1980). Ability grouping has historically discriminated on the basis of class (Hochschild & Scovronick, 2003). Affluent children are three times as likely as disadvantaged children to be placed in high-ability groups, and even though scores of ability or achievement are the primary determinants of such placements, class-based factors come in second (Dauber, 1996; Hochschild & Scovronick, 2003). Peer ability grouping is also often viewed as a race issue, because accelerated or high-ability classes have traditionally been dominated by affluent White children, whereas lower ability classes and special education programs have been dominated by children of color from economically disadvantaged backgrounds. These are important issues that are not easily resolved. Indeed, they are the basis for some authorities’ insistence that the only satisfactory option for all children is placement in heterogeneous classrooms with differentiated instruction, even though research demonstrates that this option does not meet the needs of some children (Gamoran & Mare, 1989; Oakes, 1985).

Proponents of peer ability grouping for gifted children typically emphasize that they are not advocating for tracking, per se, but for flexible ability grouping. However, the reality is often not congruent with rhetoric, and in practice, peer ability grouping effectively becomes tracking in many schools in the United States, especially at the high school level. Our common neglect of this valid concern perpetuates the sometimes adversarial and vitriolic debates about the benefits of homogeneous grouping for high ability students. Given that peer grouping is about separation and divisions, any kind of ability grouping is anathema to those who believe that inclusion is the only way to guarantee equity. Within-class groups must be very flexible and provide opportunities for all students to change groups according to their abilities on specific skills. We must be prepared not only to address these concerns but also to work to ensure fair allocation of resources and quality instruction for all children.

Limitations of the Research

The body of literature on the social and emotional effects of acceleration and ability grouping has four serious limitations. The first is that most of it is descriptive or correlational by design. Well-controlled, randomized design studies are simply not undertaken for obvious reasons, so findings are always based on samples or methodologies that are flawed in some way.

A serious second limitation is that most studies rely on subjective perceptions of adjustment by students, parents, or teachers, rather than on objective measures of psychological indices that are known to be related to positive and negative adjustment. Future research that compares gifted students who are ability grouped or accelerated with those who are not on standardized, objective measures of adjustment would strengthen the empirical base for specific recommendations.

A third limitation is that the common methodology in research on grade-skipping and early entrance to college is ex post facto design, a methodology limited in that it does not control for preexisting group differences on outcome measures. Therefore, we must make caveats before making broad generalizations about the social or emotional impact of acceleration and ability grouping.

The fourth limitation is the voluntary nature of participation in most accelerated or ability-grouped programs. There may be significant differences between those students (and their families) who choose to accelerate learning, select homogenous grouping options, and even load up on advanced classes and their gifted classmates who do not pursue these options. It may be that students who make such choices are better adjusted and demonstrate greater social and emotional maturity than those who do not.

It is often impossible in the research to separate the effects of the accelerated content from the effects of peer ability grouping. When benefits are observed, was it the advanced curriculum that made the difference or the new access to true peers? Gross’s (Gross, 2003, 2004; Gross & van Vliet, 2005) analyses suggest that it was some of both.

Unanswered Questions

With the exception of Gross’s longitudinal study (1993, 2003; Gross & van Vliet, 2005) no studies examined the socio-affective impact of capable children who were eligible for accelerative options and remained in the regular classroom. Is there harm in not pursuing such options? Gross (1993, 2003) found significant negative effects for the highly gifted children in her sample. Similarly, what happens to students who are dissatisfied in the regular classroom and seek accelerative options to no avail? We do not have research to address that question either.

Few of the studies on early college admission compared early entrants with non-accelerants to help determine the extent to which acceleration contributes to the observed positive effects (Janos, Robinson, & Lunneborg, 1989; Noble, Robinson, & Gunderson, 1993; Robinson, 2004; Robinson & Janos, 1986). It is possible that students who choose early entrance to college are different from those who do not on some other variable that contributes to their success. Given that few studies compare matched samples of early entrants with students who choose to stay in high school, we do not know how much better or worse their adjustment is than that of students who enter college at age 18. Is the initial period of adjustment for freshman tougher if they are 16 or 14? What differences, if any, are there between gifted college students who enter college at 18 and those who enter at younger ages? What kinds of support, family history, or personal characteristics if any, make a difference for early entrants (Robinson, 2004)?

Although there is a large volume of research on the impact of ability grouping on academic outcomes, there is little research on its effects on social or emotional indicators, making it harder to draw unequivocal recommendations. Most of the earlier research on ability grouping focused on issues of equity or the differences in achievement outcomes of students assigned to different ability groups (Hoffer, 1992; Natriello, Pallas, & Alexander, 1989; Oakes, 1985, 1989; Slavin, 1990). Little of the research has explored the ways in which ability grouping affects objective indices of social or emotional functioning.

Future research should explore the antecedents of various effects, and we need more studies conducted with comparison groups that rely on recognized standard measures of adjustment. We do not know how ability grouping affects motivation, efficacy, or perceptions of ability in oneself and others. We also know surprisingly little about the friendship patterns of gifted adolescents who are accelerated and those who are not.

Summary

Given that feelings, perceptions, attitudes, and social relations can facilitate or hinder learning, it is essential that the socio-affective impact of various educational practices be assessed. Regarding acceleration, we have sufficient research to conclude confidently that accelerated gifted children, as a group, are no more at risk for social or emotional difficulties than are other children. At the same time, there is little evidence to support the claim that accelerated gifted children have a socio-affective advantage over gifted children who are not accelerated.

Although the research consistently finds no ill group effects, some accelerated gifted children do have adjustment difficulties (e.g., Gagné & Gagnier, 2004). Important individual differences in perceived social and emotional adjustment have been noted among accelerated gifted children in some studies. Proponents of acceleration must be careful to acknowledge this and to guard against giving the impression that there are never any problems when children are accelerated.

Peer ability grouping has differential socio-affective effects and seems to be more advantageous for some students than for others. In particular, the limited research evidence suggests homogeneous grouping arrangements are more strongly associated with positive adjustment outcomes among highly gifted children, although this connection is less clear with moderately gifted students. Gross and van Vliet’s (2005) research does suggest that failure to accelerate some highly gifted children can cause relationship problems that last well into adulthood.

There is some evidence to suggest that peer ability grouping may also be more strongly related to positive social and emotional outcomes for gifted minority students, but more research is needed to verify whether this relationship exists for larger numbers of such students.

When the negative effects of ability grouping are observed we must use caution in our interpretation of them. In some cases, authors have interpreted the data to support a favored viewpoint, rather than putting forth multiple interpretations for consideration. For instance, the finding in some studies that accelerated students spend less time in social activities may indicate a negative change in socialization patterns, or it may indicate that the child is now happily spending more time in talent development and has less time and interest for social activities. A decline in self-esteem may indicate a negative attitude, or it may reflect a more realistic appraisal of one’s abilities.

Although the research finds academic and achievement benefits for ability grouping for gifted students, the research does not support the claim of social or emotional benefits for such grouping arrangements. Although advantages in peer relations, motivation, career development, and attitudes toward school have been documented for some gifted students, there is evidence that heterogeneous grouping is an advantage for others as long as the challenging curriculum is provided.