The Extent, Nature and Effectiveness of Planned Approaches in ...

learning there seems to be reluctance from teachers for subject skipping (Rimm & Lovance, 1992).Rimm and Lovance (1992) report that students, who are subject skipped only, find it quite a reliefwhen they are whole grade skipped after initially being subject skipped only. It seems that students aremore likely to be accelerated in some subjects (such as mathematics and science) than others. Forexample, art is one area that is viewed as a subject for ‘cultural enrichment’ instead of as a contentarea in its own right and a viable subject for acceleration (Clark & Zimmerman, 2002).Much of the controversy associated with acceleration is linked to teacher beliefs and attitudes.Australian research shows that many teachers believe that the social and emotional needs of studentsshould take precedence over their academic needs (Vialle et al., 2002). This overlooks the reality thatthe social and emotional wellbeing of students is inextricably related to cognitive needs (Gross, 1993;Southern et al., 1993). Many practitioners express consistently conservative sentiments towards thevalue of acceleration as an appropriate intervention for gifted young children (Southern, Jones &Fiscus, 1989). Townsend and Patrick (1993) found, in their New Zealand study, that teachers andteacher trainees were moderately positive though relatively conservative in their views aboutacceleration and expressed greater concern about the social and emotional effects than about theacademic effects. It was anticipated that student teachers would be more positive about accelerationbecause of their exposure to the literature in their course of study, but, in fact, limited attention hadbeen given to the education of gifted and talented students. In spite of the research providing evidencethat acceleration can work well, it is met with resistance in practice (Gross, 1999b; Vialle et al., 2001).Feldhusen et al. (2002) report that many teachers struggle to individualise a programme sufficiently tomeet the needs of gifted and talented students. They believe that school policy and programmes mayalso restrict teachers from using sufficiently high-level instructional material. “Acceleration practicesare more difficult for parents and educators to accept because they “disrupt” the flow and expectationsthat we have about age, grade, and sequence” (Muratori, Colangelo, & Assouline, 2003, p. 219). Partof this flow, which must be considered, is the transition between school levels and school types, andpotentially there are barriers to acceleration which must be overcome amongst and between theseorganisational structures. A school’s conception of giftedness and talent can also impinge upon the useof acceleration. As Gross (1999b) states:A principal who refuses to allow a highly gifted child access to one of many forms ofaccelerated progression, because the moderately gifted children in the school have notrequired this, is ignoring the fundamental principle of special education – that the level of acondition dictates the nature of the response (p.100).Exceptional ability may not be evident unless appropriate challenge is provided. High ability in asubject such as mathematics may be masked by a corresponding lack of ability in recording orpresentation skills, in verbalising or in working co-operatively (McClure, 2001). Acceleration,including early entrance to school, grade skipping and subject skipping has been used as a strategy toprevent and reverse underachievement with selected gifted students (Rimm & Lovance, 1992).Although factors such as the academic make-up of the class to which the child could be accelerated aswell as the peer group environment are taken into account, the most important criteria relates to theacademically challenging environment. There are cases when it might not be appropriate for a giftedunderachieving student to be accelerated. For example, students who are unwilling to take risks, havemajor skill deficits, very difficult behavioural problems or the receiving teacher or classroomenvironment is unsuitable.Highly gifted children do not suddenly emerge in late childhood. Gifted young children need to beconsidered for acceleration programmes. Lewis (2002) suggests that acceleration alone is not enoughwhen providing for highly gifted pre-schoolers. The author suggests that assessment, flexiblescheduling and counselling are key components critical for the success of any programme.“Acceleration is no guarantee that children will receive good teaching” (Lewis, 2002, p. 131).“Finding the best teacher for a child, one who epitomizes the art and science of teaching and who hasgood knowledge of content, may not be easy. It may be more important to find this best teacher than tosimply push the child through more advanced material. Parents of highly gifted children often find thatthey must make educational decisions year by year” (Lewis, 2002, p. 131).47