Robinson, H. B. (1983). A case for radical acceleration: Programs of the Johns Hopkins University and the University of Washington. In C.P. Benbow and J. C. Stanley (Eds), Academic precocity: Aspects of its development (pp 139-59). Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Objective: To present common arguments for and against accelerated pacing. To describe programs that allow for radical acceleration at The Johns Hopkins University and the University of
Washington.
Design: Literature Review. Case studies.
Setting: Articles published from 1929 to 1981 concerning the education of intellectually precocious youth.
Assessment of Variables: Articles were reviewed to identify theory and research supporting radical educational acceleration, as well as arguments opposing this educational option. Literature
concerning programs for radical acceleration at the Johns Hopkins University and the University of Washington were reviewed for information about selection procedures, educational offerings and outcomes for students. Case studies of students enrolled in these programs were presented to illustrate the benefits that are possible for students who choose to radically accelerate their education.
Main Results: The pace of educational programs must be adapted to the capacities and knowledge of individual children. In a few instances, the appropriate fit of child and program calls for placement several levels above the child’s age-mates and is termed radical acceleration. The rationale for this position is grounded in theory within developmental psychology and is based on empirical evidence.
Developmental psychologists have shown that learning is a sequential, developmental process.
Research shows that, to be effective, teaching must involve a sensitive assessment of a student’s status in the learning process and the presentation of curriculum that slightly exceeds the level already mastered. Research also shows that there are substantial differences in learning status among
students of the same age. Despite these findings, schools continue to group children on the basis of
age rather than on the basis of abilities and pre-existing knowledge. Schools also expect all students to advance one grade each year in spite of differences in rates of learning. Individual teachers attempt to cater for differences in ability, knowledge and rate of learning by creating subgroups within a class and providing a program that allows for enrichment opportunities. Schools following the age-grade system of education do not support opportunities for educational acceleration.
The author argues that the age-graded system of education is a modern invention motivated by egalitarian goals. Historically, ability and achievement were used to determine access to curriculum.
The author quotes research to show that school classes, before World War II typically contained a mix of students of various ages. Neither is age used as a prerequisite across all domains. The author points to sport and music as being two fields where competence and talent are used in preference to age to determine learning experiences.
Arguments put forward in favour of the age-graded system of education focus primarily on concerns for a student’s social and emotional well-being. The author suggests that many people believe that grouping students of different ages should be avoided because it is detrimental for the social development of younger children. He quotes many studies that should allay these fears but makes the point that many people, including teachers, choose to disregard these studies.
A second objection to allowing academically advanced students to progress at their own pace is based on the fear that ‘quickening’ education can lead to gaps in a student’s knowledge. The author states that there is no empirical evidence to support this view but accepts that such an outcome could result if a substantial amount of the curriculum is skipped. He suggests that any program for
acceleration should be closely monitored to identify and address any knowledge gaps that might emerge. A final objection to allowing academically advanced students to progress at their own pace relates in some ways to the first but identifies missed opportunities for extra-curricular activities rather than gaps in academic experiences. The author suggests that this should not be of great concern because students can be encouraged to relate to others of a similar age in groups after school or during holidays. He quotes one study that found that underage students engaged in more extra-curricular activities than did their older age mates.
The author identifies other concerns regarding educational acceleration. Some people have expressed the view that, while a student may be academically advanced at one stage, it does not follow that this student will be similarly advanced at a later stage. Others assert that children who are
‘pushed ahead’ will be robbed of a carefree childhood and that they may ‘burn out’. There are also fears regarding the development of nongifted age peers. There is a concern that these children will be deprived of valuable role models if gifted students are allowed to progress through school at a faster pace. The author suggests that the available research evidence does not justify any of these concerns. He outlines relevant research findings to support his position.
Arguments are put forward for the benefits of what the author calls a competency-based system of education. He quotes research that has noted the boredom and frustration that gifted children suffer when they are forced to remain with same age peers. He subscribes to the view that a curriculum pitched too low and taught too slowly to gifted students can have the consequence of turning them away from formal education. These children may well underachieve or drop out of school. They may never experience the personal fulfilment of achievement in line with their ability, and society may never benefit from their possible contributions.
The author makes the case for competency-based education for its role in avoiding negative effects on social and emotional development. He quotes research that presents case studies of gifted children who end up isolated, lonely and unhappy due to their ill fit within classes of same age peers.
He also outlines the coping mechanisms these children may employ in the hope of achieving peer acceptance. These children tend to underachieve and may decide to take on the role of ‘class clown’.
These strategies tend to have detrimental effects on a student’s academic progress and their social/emotional health. Such risks for students’ social and emotional health are not present when competency-based educational strategies are employed.
The author outlines programs for radical acceleration in an effort to illustrate how competency-based education might work and what the outcomes might be. He argues that this option is appropriate for some gifted students and essentially mandatory for extraordinarily precocious students. Case studies of extraordinarily precocious students who chose to radically accelerate their education explain, by example, the importance of competency-based educational decisions for the academic and social development of such students.
Dr Julian Stanley founded the Study of Mathematically Precocious Youth (SMPY) in 1971 at the Johns Hopkins University. Dr Stanley subscribed to the benefits of radical acceleration for highly gifted youths as outlined in the first half of this paper. He set up a program whereby such youths could be identified and then assisted to radically accelerate their education. The author presents
numerous case studies to illustrate how the program works and the benefits of program interventions for highly gifted students. Cases are presented of students who entered college full-time at ages as young as 10 to 13 years. These students were shown to have achieved extraordinary academic gains at university. Many have since entered into graduate study. The author points out that many more male than female students have been identified and assisted by the staff at SMPY and suggests that this outcome needs further investigation.
Shortly after Professor Stanley established SMPY, Dr Halbert Robinson, the author of this paper guided the development of The Child Development Group at the University of Washington. This group was established to conduct extensive research into gifted education, to develop options for gifted preschool and elementary school students, and also to achieve similar goals to SMPY; to identify highly gifted youths and to assist them to radically accelerate their education. The Early Entrance Program at the University of Washington came into existence. Highly gifted students aged 14 years or less were identified and offered early entry to the University of Washington. The program offered substantial assistance in regard to developing habits consistent with college study and supplying social and emotional support.
The author outlines the selection procedures for the Early Entry Program at the University of Washington. These procedures assess social as well as academic variables and include results from ability and achievement tests, as well as lengthy interviews. Offerings of this program are outlined and include special counsellors, a ‘home lounge’ and specific teaching in the first year to ensure that all students have the requisite knowledge and skills for university study. The author points out that a particular challenge for many students is to develop the responsibility to structure their own lives as many have benefited, up until their early entry to college, from constant guidance and support from parents.
Case studies are presented in an attempt to illustrate how the program works and the overwhelmingly positive academic and social outcomes. One of the first students to enrol in the early entry program at the University of Washington was a female aged 12 years. She enrolled part-time in calculus and astronomy courses while attending a private middle school. She earned an ‘A’ in both courses and enjoyed attending the university campus. Part-time enrolment allowed her to experience university life and to make a decision regarding full-time enrolment. She enrolled full-time at the age of 13 in an undergraduate honors program and undertook a double major in physics and mathematics.
During her undergraduate study, she attained a grade point average of 3.72. She enjoyed the social
atmosphere at university. After graduating, this student wanted to enrich her knowledge and decided to pursuit studies in liberal arts.
Conclusion: A radically accelerated approach to education is both appropriate and successful for many highly gifted children. The two programs outlined in this article offer quite different experiences of radical acceleration yet both have led to great gains for many students. This is because, for every student, each program aims to provide the best match between learner and educational environment.
There are many more gifted students for whom radical acceleration may not be ideal but whose needs are being ill served by age-graded practices. If school systems permitted a significantly greater degree of flexibility then children might be allowed to progress on the basis of their competency and ability. Gifted children could then enjoy appropriate academic challenges and would have the opportunity to achieve positive outcomes in relation to school achievement and social/emotional development.
Commentary: This article allows for a thorough understanding of many aspects of radical educational acceleration. The author gives a detailed explanation of theory in support of radical acceleration. He quotes the research regarding radical acceleration and makes a strong case for the empirical support for acceleration options for gifted students. Of particular value is the author’s detailed discussion about the changing beliefs about education in the United States and the move from a competency-based school system to an age-competency-based system. He presents detailed arguments in support of both systems, but ultimately expresses a preference for a competency-based system.
43