The Social,
Emotional, and Academic Effects of Grade-Skipping on the Gifted
and Talented
Copyright © Adam Waxler
www.teaching-teacher.com
When Tanya was in
the fourth grade, it was apparent that she learned at a quicker pace
than her classmates did. Together, her family and school decided
the best option was to have her skip the fifth grade and go right
onto sixth grade, entering middle school one year earlier than many
of her friends. Six years later, Tanya found herself eagerly
awaiting her graduation from high school, not so she could go on to
the college of her choice, or to start a promising career, but
rather so she would never have to go to school again. At the age of
sixteen, Tanya was barely holding on to a “C” average and in
retrospect is surprised she graduated at all. Today, Tanya works as
a full-time nanny for two young boys in Amagansett, N.Y. She plays
an active role in both their academic and social lives. She runs
both the “tiger cubs” and the “boy scouts” using education and
psychology principles without ever reading a single text on the
subject. She has the undivided attention of, not only the children
she takes care of, but also the entire first and third grade at the
Amagansett School. Of all the people I have met in my life,
including professors and fellow education students, she would
undoubtedly make the best teacher. Unfortunately, at this point,
Tanya could not write this paper by the standards set by graduate or
even undergraduate work, nor could she pass the class it is being
written for, nor would she want to.
When looking back
at Tanya’s life one can not help but wonder how such a gifted child
could become so disinterested in school and if skipping a grade
could have led to social and/or emotional problems that might have
been the underlying factor in her antipathy. Granted, there was
probably an assortment of factors that led to Tanya’s aversion
towards school and she is just one of many children that have been
labeled “gifted and talented”, therefore I am not suggesting, based
on this one case, that grade- skipping should be abolished.
However, I believe that the inclusion of gifted and talented
students in the general education classroom will reduce the
likelihood that social and emotional problems will develop, while at
the same time, provide gifted students with a better quality
education than grade-skipping. Through innovative programs such as
cluster grouping, compacting curriculum, contracting, differentiated
instruction, and integrated curriculum, inclusion gives teachers the
opportunity to provide an education for the gifted and talented
students that is more elaborate, complex, and in-depth. An
education that is more likely to produce a higher level of cognitive
thinking with a more complete development of concepts and
principles.
Admittedly, in some
cases, accelerating a student to grades above his or her age group
may be the only choice, but this should be seen as a last option,
saved for when enrichment programs prove unsuccessful. My reason
for this is that I believe there is a greater chance for social and
emotional problems to develop when children are advanced ahead of
their same-age peers, and more importantly, their life-long
friends. However, while research suggests that gifted students are
at a greater risk for developing problems in their peer relations,
it seems to indicate that the effects from grade-advancement are
either small or trivial (Dauber, 1990; Rogers, 1991). Unfortunately
though, even the experts admit, the research is limited and weak
concerning the socialization and psychological effects of grade
skipping (Rogers, 1991. The problem is that many studies group
grade skipping with other acceleration programs in which gifted
students remain with their age-mates, often times making it
difficult to distinguish between the two. Therefore, we must
sometimes “read between the lines” when researching the social and
emotional effects of grade skipping.
First of all, there
is the labeling. Pulling students out of their class for gifted
education, whether it is for part of the day or in jumping ahead a
whole grade, clearly places a stigma on them. As adults we may see
this stigma as positive label, but as adolescents any label that
makes them feel different is unwanted. Labeling a student as
“gifted” and then having him or her skip a grade may lead to the
student being resented by old classmates and feared by new
classmates. Teachers need to develop ways to identify student’s
needs without overt labeling (Tomlinson, 1995).
Another possible
problem with grade skipping comes form what James T. Webb (1994)
describes as “uneven development”; when motor skills lag behind
cognitive abilities. I am not suggesting that uneven development is
a result of grade skipping, but rather that the problems associated
with uneven development are exaggerated when a student skips a
grade. While grade skipping is an attempt to deal with a student’s
superior cognitive ability, it often disregards the physical
maturity level of an individual. With uneven development a child
sees in their mind what they want to do, but their motor skills do
not allow them to do it, often times leading to intense frustration
and even emotional outbursts (Webb, 1994). If a child is
grade-advanced, yet lacks the motor skills of the older group, the
difference in physical ability will be even more apparent to both
the individual student and his or her peers and frustration can only
increase. Obviously, one can argue that a student with uneven
development should not be grade-advanced or if there were a problem
in the new grade then the student could always be returned to their
original grade. However, this is easier said then done. Since I.Q.
tests, which are based on nothing more than verbal ability, are
still the preferred means in which we label students as “gifted”, it
is often difficult to know for certain if there is uneven
development (Raebeck, 1998). As for returning a child back to their
original grade, I can only imagine the negative effect this can
have. The realization, not only by the student, but also of
everyone else, that he or she has failed to live up to
expectations. Returning a student back to their original grade
could have drastic ramifications. That is why I believe grade
skipping should be a last resort, only after all other options have
been tried. However, I must point out, that as schools become more
wary of I.Q. testing and become more accepting of alternative means
of assessment based on multiple intelligence theory (Gardner, 1995),
the process of placing students into gifted and talented programs
should become more accurate. Nevertheless, while placement and
labeling may become more accurate, that does not negate the fact
there may be social and emotional problems associated with grade
skipping.
Another emotional
factor that must be addressed is the stress that these students are
already under that, again, can only be increased through skipping
grades. Gifted and talented students have a heightened sensitivity
to events, ideas, and expectations. They are constantly striving to
live up to the expectations they place on themselves, as well as the
expectations of others (Kaplan, 1990). Trying to be the best at
everything is extremely stressful. With every new program or
placement these students have questions about achievement and
performance and the risk of being mediocre. This stress is
exacerbated when the expectations are unclear and having a child
skip a grade is not exactly providing the student with clear
expectations. Is the gifted student placed in a higher grade simply
supposed to learn more facts or is he or she supposed to perform
higher cognitive tasks?
Gifted and talented
students already feel somewhat different then their peers, and
taking them out of their grade and creating, what must seem as, a
drastic change in their lives, can only add to these uncomfortable
feelings. Separation from long time friends results in loneliness
and fewer opportunities to relieve stress and finding a new peer
group can be difficult (Kaplan, 1990). Furthermore, studies show
that students who skip a grade are less likely to participate in
extracurricular activities (Brody & Benbow, 1987). Unfortunately,
all of this can lead to the student not trying, or failing on
purpose in an effort to gain peer acceptance, or much worse, may
lead to alcohol and drug use for the same reason. Other severe
problems that may occur are eating disorders and sleep disorders in
an effort to gain recognition from their family (Kaplan, 1990).
Even Brody and Benbow (1987), whose in-depth studies of gifted and
talented students revealed little social and emotional problems from
grade skipping, did indicate one exception. In their study, those
students who skipped a grade were more likely to experiment socially
than the gifted students who remained with their age-mates. Since
their study took place in 1978, it is understandable that not much
attention was given to social experimentation. However, in today’s
day and age, with AIDS, the increase use of narcotics, and the
increase in violence, social experimentation can have drastic
effects.
Students that are
gifted need to develop social skills just like anyone else.
Skipping grades does not make their social adjustment any easier.
In fact, it is quite the contrary. That is not to say that gifted
students will not experience these social and emotional problems if
they remain with their age-mates, but the problems are exaggerated
through grade-skipping. It is easy for adults to think otherwise,
but we need to put ourselves in their position and remember that
despite their giftedness, they are still children and are still
developing emotionally. “Gifted youngsters are children first and
gifted second” (Kaplan, 1990, p.29).
Despite my strong
inclination that placing a gifted student with older students is a
mistake, much research seems to indicate otherwise. A survey by
Daniel and Cox (1988), of students in the Las Cruces Public Schools
showed that students welcomed the opportunity for early entry. They
viewed their years in accelerated classes as productive and
challenging. All of the thirty-seven students in the program said
if they had the choice to make over again, they would still choose
the accelerated curriculum. For each of them the advantages far
outweighed the disadvantages.
Many educators
agree, that while the most common worry amongst parents and teachers
are the social and emotional problems associated with a child
advancing a grade ahead of their age, that these worries are
unwarranted. Sharon J. Lynch (1996), a proponent of
grade-advancement, asserts that if a student is well adjusted
socially before being accelerated, they will adjust well after being
accelerated. She claims that the students will form two groups of
friends, one group with the older students and one group with the
same-age students. However, I see obvious flaws in this theory. If
the gifted students form two groups of friends, the friendships are
bound to be more superficial. Having more friends does not
necessarily lead to deeper friendships. The older group may
think of the gifted student as physically inferior and may actually
be threatened by his or her intelligence. The group of friends that
are the same age may feel resentment. The idea of two groups of
friends implies dividing up time between each group. Decreasing the
amount of time spent with the same-age peers, many of whom are
life-long friends, can only lead to less meaningful relationships.
Clearly, the more time spent together the deeper the friendship will
be.
Furthermore, many
gifted and talented students find it strange that the friends they
enjoy being with and find perfectly compatible socially are excluded
from them academically (Raebeck, 1998). Barry Raebeck (1998), an
educator who was also labeled “gifted and talented” as a child,
claims that gifted and talented students find many of their
“tracked” peers uninteresting socially and intellectually. The only
thing they have in common is their I.Q. score.
Still, there are
many educators who believe in pullout programs and acceleration for
students that are gifted and talented. John F. Feldhusen (1998),
author of “Programs for the Gifted Few or Talent Development for the
Many?”, suggests that the inclusion movement, whether it be for
students with learning disabilities or gifted and talented students,
has lead to a “one-size-fits-all” mentality to teaching. I am
shocked that a Professor of Education at Purdue University can make
such a statement. To say that the one-size-fits-all mentality is a
result or outgrowth of the inclusion movement is simply ludicrous.
I am not, nor is anyone that is in favor of inclusion, suggesting
that one-size-fits-all. In fact, it is quite the opposite. The
inclusion movement has promoted the fact that teachers need to take
the responsibility of using different teaching strategies to meet
the different learning needs of their students, whether they are
learning disabled, gifted and talented, or those who are
“non-labeled”. A one-size-fits-all mentality is an indication of
poor teaching and nothing more. Inclusionists or not, good teachers
all agree that, “those whose talents are at levels exceptionally
higher than those of their peers should have access to instructional
resources and activities that are commensurate with their talents”
(Feldhusen, 1998, p.739). The only difference is the method they
think this education should be provided and achieved.
The problem with
having students who excel intellectually skip a grade is that they
are simply being told to learn more facts. The idea is not to have
gifted and talented students learn more information, but rather to
have them engage in higher levels of cognitive thinking. Joseph S.
Renzulli (1998), director of The National Research Center on the
Gifted and Talented, states that one of the primary purposes of
gifted education is to, “increase society’s supply of persons who
will help to solve the problems of contemporary civilization by
becoming producers of knowledge and art rather than mere consumers
of existing information” (p 19). Gifted education needs to focus on
creative productivity rather than “lesson-learning”. Therefore,
gifted education models should focus on how our most able students
access and make use of information rather than merely on how they
accumulate it. By keeping students with their same-age peers and
implementing innovative teaching strategies, educators have the
opportunity to enhance higher cognitive thinking while reducing the
risk of social and emotional problems.
Furthermore, if a
student is to skip a grade there will undoubtedly be gaps in his or
her knowledge. These gaps make it harder for any student in that
they have less information in their memory to draw from when trying
to make connections with new material. Those who believe in grade
advancement feel that these gaps can be easily filled (Lynch, 1996),
but I find that hard to believe. Teachers and students will find it
substantially more difficult to fill the gap of an entire year of
algebra, chemistry, or history, than it would be for them to engage
in more productive, complex work in each of those subjects.
Actually, having student’s skip a grade is doing them a disservice.
Having student’s skip an entire year of U.S. History only to learn
World History is an insult to their intelligence. Much more
productive would be to have gifted students read biographies for
historical insight, or learn to apply the principles of economics,
or even to create futuristic societies and tell how they are
governed (Gallagher & Gallagher, 1994). Likewise, the use of
multimedia presentations would benefit not only the gifted student,
but the rest of the class as well. The same holds true for all the
subjects. For example, instead of having a gifted student skip a
level of science, have him or her work on projects that involve the
impact that science has on society, possibly integrating other
subjects into the project as well. We do not want our brightest
students bogged down with facts, but instead we want them to learn
how to apply those facts to the real world. The goal of any good
teacher for his or her students is lifelong learning, and to be able
to apply what they are learning to new and unfamiliar situations.
To have gifted students, or any students for that matter, judge and
question what they are learning or form new ideas and judge and
question their own ideas is infinitely more exciting for a teacher
and more valuable for a student. By taking students out of their
grade and advancing them in order to learn more facts is denying
them their right to the best education they can receive. The
emphasis should not be on the grades they are earning, but rather on
their understanding and application of what they are learning.
There are many ways
gifted and talented students can engage in more productive work
while remaining with their same-age peers and while remaining in the
general education classroom. Enrichment programs are one way
teachers can achieve the task of actively engaging their students by
providing them with information, materials, and assignments that
enable them to elaborate on concepts being presented as part of the
regular curriculum (Gallagher & Gallagher, 1994). Through
enrichment programs teachers can help gifted students examine the
principles that underlie the content being learned by the rest of
the class. For example, after pre-testing gifted students on
upcoming material, they can be given a choice of alternative
assignments for the material they have already mastered. Any
concepts not yet mastered, the students are required to participate
in. Students excused from lessons are expected to take the unit
tests with the rest of the class (Winebrenner, 1992). It is
important to note that such alternative assignments are in lieu of
other work instead of additional work, the idea is not to punish,
but rather to reward.
There are many other
methods of teaching gifted and talented students within the general
education classroom and I feel it is necessary to address some of
the more significant strategies in order to emphasize the positive
impact that teaching these students within the general education
classroom can have. Raebeck (1998) presents a unique idea on the
subject that involves enrichment experiences that would be open to
anyone based on interest. The program is called Additional
Experience Option, or AEO, and is offered during the day or after
school or both. The program would offer high level thinking
assignments that were integrated with the regular curriculum. Since
enrollment into the program is based on interest and open to anyone,
no one would be hurt through labeling and pullout procedures and
everyone has the opportunity to benefit, not just a select few.
Raebeck (1998) also
promotes cluster grouping, another innovative strategy that is
gaining more popularity among educators. Cluster grouping is a mix
of both acceleration and enrichment in which gifted students are
grouped by ability, but within the general education classroom,
while the other students are grouped by mixed-ability (Winebrenner
1992). Cluster grouping acknowledges the many benefits of
inclusion, but believes that gifted students benefit more from
learning together and therefore, need to be placed with similar
students in certain situations (Rogers, 1993). Cluster grouping
allows them to learn together while avoiding permanent grouping
arrangements. Proponents of cluster grouping believe gifted
students are more comfortable and are more willing to face
challenging tasks when there are other students just like them in
the class. Susan Winebrenner (1992), author of Teaching Gifted
Kids in the Regular Classroom, believes cluster grouping is
better than assigning gifted and talented students evenly to all
classes because it is extremely difficult to meet the diverse
learning needs of all students and extremely difficult to provide
adequately for everyone.
However, teachers
must meet the diverse learning needs of all their students even if
the gifted children are clustered into one group. By clustering
gifted students, it is suggesting to everyone that gifted education
is somehow more important, when actually, gifted education benefits
all students and should not be reserved for any single group.
Therefore, I believe cluster grouping must be done carefully and on
a limited basis only. I am not denying that gifted students need
consistent opportunities to learn at their zone of proximal
development, but so do all students. Gifted and talented students
can be provided with this education even in mixed-ability groups.
For example, cooperative lessons that are open-ended and require
critical thinking or Robert Slavin’s (1995) cooperative system
called Student Teams-Achievement Divisions, or STAD. In the STAD
cooperative system students are grouped by mixed-ability and gain
points for the group based on a comparison of their own test score
to their own individual learning expectation, or ILE (which
represents a student’s average level of performance). This way all
the students are competing against themselves and not each other.
Using a balance of cluster grouping by ability and mixed-ability
grouping seems to be the best alternative. Gifted and talented
students will be given the opportunity to work together, but not
exclusively, while still remaining in the general education
classroom.
Other strategies for
teaching the gifted and talented in the general education classroom
that do not involve grouping of any kind are compacting the
curriculum and contracting (Winebrenner, 1992). Compacting
curriculum was touched upon earlier and involves giving gifted
students more time with enrichment opportunities once they have
demonstrated mastery of new material. Contracts are written
agreements between teachers and students that outline what the
student will learn, how they will learn it, in what period of time,
and how they will be evaluated. Contracts allow gifted students to
actively engage in the decision making process about how they will
be educated (Winebrenner, 1992). One can not help, but notice the
striking similarities that contracting has to the Individualized
Education Program (IEP) which states the instructional services for
individual students with disabilities. Visionary leaders such Dr.
Rosanne Westagte (1999), head of special education at Southampton
Schools, believe one day all students, regardless of ability, will
have an IEP.
The final
instructional strategy involving teaching gifted children within the
general education classroom that I will discuss is differentiated
instruction. Differentiated instruction is simply the use of a
variety of teaching and learning strategies, some of which have been
mentioned in this paper, so that all students can explore,
understand, and demonstrate what they have learned (Tomlinson,
1995). The differentiated class is designed in such a way that
different learners receive different assignments. It is not just
varying the level of difficulty for certain students or grading some
students harder than others, and it is certainly not having advanced
learners do extra work after completing their “regular” work.
Asking students to do more of what they already know or giving them
extra work is counterproductive. Instead, differentiated
instruction suggests that lessons be focused on concepts and
principles (Tomlinson, 1995). In doing so, both struggling learners
and advanced learners, can grasp abstract principles. The
differentiated class stresses understanding rather than rote
memorization. In order to achieve this a teacher must use a variety
of approaches to teaching. It is important that teachers
continuously provide assessment, not only of student performance,
but also of student interest, providing support and adjusting
assignments as needed. Flexible grouping is consistently used with
students working alone, in pairs, and in both homogenous groups and
mixed-ability groups. Tasks are based on readiness, interest, and
learning style (Tomlinson, 1995). Differentiated instruction takes
the constructivist approach that students are active participants in
constructing their own knowledge and that the teacher works more as
a guide. By having the students work together with the teacher to
set their own goals, the students begin to take responsibility for
their own work (Tomlinson, 1995). By using an interest-based
approach and having students understand their own learning styles,
differentiated instruction gives teachers an opportunity to reach
more students, including those who are extremely advanced, while
keeping them within the general education classroom.
One cannot help but
notice that the advantages of inclusion for gifted and talented
students would also be advantageous to all the students. Many
people believe that certain individuals have been born with a
“golden chromosome that makes them gifted persons”, but in reality,
almost all human abilities can be developed (Renzulli, 1998). We
need to do away with the notion that that “regular” students are
incapable of high level thought and complex learning. By abandoning
teaching practices that encourage a one-size-fits-all approach to
teaching and replacing them with a differentiated approach to
teaching, educators have the chance to reach all students and
provide an education that produces a more complete development of
concepts and principles. Research indicates that within class
grouping produces substantial academic gains provided the
instruction is differentiated, while only moderate academic gains
were found for grade-skipping (Rogers, 1991). By combining
differentiated instruction with inclusion of gifted and talented
students in the general education classroom, we increase academic
gains, while at the same time, lower the risk of social and
emotional problems that may occur as a result of
grade-skipping.
There is a plethora
of information on inclusive, enrichment programs and other
innovative teaching techniques. Therefore, I do not favor pulling a
student out of their grade and placing them in a higher grade that
offers a less substantial education and risks social and emotional
damage to the child, unless, of course, these teaching strategies
are not being used. If the proper teaching strategies, that produce
higher cognitive skills, are not being used in the general education
classroom, then, I agree, keeping a student at their age level will
be counter productive. However, this is unfortunate and is a result
of poor and inadequate teaching. General education teachers should
all be able to use a variety of teaching techniques to meet the
varying needs of their students.
Intellectually
gifted and academically talented students are capable of learning
material quickly and deeply. Those who argue against inclusive,
enrichment programs believe that gifted and talented students
receive little or no instruction appropriate to their level of
learning. If true, this is a sad and valid problem, but can be
overcome with quality teaching. If we deny students the benefits of
inclusion because many teachers are not up to the challenge, and
instead favor pullout programs and grade-advancement for the gifted
and talented, and pullout programs and grade-demotion for the
students with learning disabilities, we have gone right back to
tracking our children. “Tracking” implies all sorts of negative
connotations, yet it appears that tracking is still very much alive
in our education system, but under the guise of “gifted and
talented” and “special education”. There are too many who argue
that if students fall below a certain average then they should be
placed in one class with a special teacher, and if students are
above average then they should be placed in another class, or
another grade altogether, also with a special teacher. A better
alternative would be to have all our teachers special and keep all
our students together.
Social and
emotional problems for students who are gifted and talented are
going to exist with or without grade skipping, but I believe
advancing a student based on intellectual ability will only increase
the likelihood that these problems will occur. A survey by Southern
and Jones (1989) of students and faculty, experienced in various
forms of acceleration, predicted that harm could come to an
accelerated young child as a result of his or her social or
emotional immaturity. However, the same survey revealed that harm
could come from inadequate academic challenge. While research seems
to be mixed on whether or not grade skipping leads to social and
emotional problems, it does seem to indicate only moderate positive
academic benefits for grade-skipping. Through the proper use of
inclusion, and by creating a curriculum that is more elaborate,
complex, and in-depth, teachers can academically challenge gifted
students. Innovative teaching strategies such as cluster grouping,
compacting curriculum, contracting, and differentiated instruction,
can increase higher cognitive thinking while at the same time lower
the risk of social and emotional problems for gifted and talented
students by letting them remain with their same-age peers.
References
Brody, L.E., &
Benbow, C.P. (1987, Summer). Accelerated strategies: How effective
are they for the gifted? Gifted Child Quarterly, 31, 105-109.
Daniel, N., &
Cox, J. (1988). Flexible pacing for able learners. Reston,
VA: Council for Exceptional Children. (ERIC Document Reproduction
Service No. ED 298 725)
Dauber, S.L.
(1990, Winter). Aspects of personality and peer relations of
extremely talented adolescents. Gifted Child Quarterly, 34,
10-13.
Feldhusen, J.F.
(1989, June). Programs for the gifted few or talent development for
the many? Phi Delta Kappan, 79, 735-740.
Gallagher,
J.J., & Gallagher, S.A. (1994). Teaching the gifted child (4th
ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Gardner, H.
(1995, November). Reflections on multiple intelligences: Myths and
messages. Phi Delta Kappan, 200-209.
Kaplan, L.S.
(1990). Helping gifted students with stress. Reston, VA: The
Council for Exceptional Children. (ERIC EC Digest #E488)
Lynch, S.J.
(1996, August). Should gifted students be grade advanced?
Reston, VA: The Council for Exceptional Children. (ERIC EC Digest
#E526)
Raebeck, B.
(1998). Transforming middle schools: A guide to whole school
change (2nd ed.). Lancaster: Technomic Publishing
Company.
Renzulli, J.S.
(1998). The three-ring conception of giftedness. Storrs, CT:
The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
Rogers, K.
(1991). The relationship of grouping practices to the education
of the gifted and talented learner: An executive summary.
Storrs, CT: The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
Rogers, K.
(1993). Grouping the gifted and talented. Roeper Review, 16,
8-12.
Slavin, R.E.
(1995) Cooperative learning (2nd ed.). Boston:
Allyn and Bacon.
Southern, W.T.,
& Jones, E.D. (1989, Winter). Practitioner objections to the
academic acceleration of gifted children. Gifted Child Quarterly,
33, 29-35.
Tomlinson, C.
(1995). Deciding to differentiate instruction in middle school.
Gifted Child Quarterly, 39, 77-87.
Webb, J.T.
(1994). Nurturing social-emotional development of gifted
children. Reston, VA: The Council for Exceptional Children.
(ERIC EC Digest #E527)
Westgate, R.
(1999). EDUC 660: Teaching the Exceptional Student. Southampton, NY:
Long Island University, Southampton Campus.
Winebrenner, S.
(1992). Teaching gifted kids in the regular classroom.
Minneapolis: Free Spirit Publishing.
Adam
Waxler is a middle school social studies teacher, teacher mentor,
and the author of eTeach: A Teacher Resource for Learning the
Strategies of Master Teachers. Adam is also the
editor and publisher of The Teaching Teacher’s Newsletter.
For more information about his ebook or to sign up for your free
monthly newsletter log onto:
http://www.teaching-teacher.com
|
