School Counselors’ Perceptions
and Experience With Acceleration
as a Program Option for Gifted
and Talented Students
Gifted Child Quarterly
54(3) 168­–178
© 2010 National Association for
Gifted Children
Reprints and permission:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0016986210367940
http://gcq.sagepub.com
Susannah Wood1, Tarrell Awe Agahe Portman1,
Dawnette L. Cigrand1, and Nicholas Colangelo1
Abstract
This article presents findings from a national survey of 149 practicing school counselors who are members of the American
School Counselor Association. The survey gathered information on school counselors’ perceptions of and experiences
with acceleration as a program option for gifted students. Results indicate that, although school counselors’ opinions are
being solicited in decision making regarding acceleration, they do not possess training and accurate information regarding
acceleration. Hence, training and professional development focusing on the research-based practices of acceleration are
needed to ensure that school counselors give accurate advice and guidance concerning gifted students’ education. Future
research is needed to compare and contrast the effectiveness of accelerative decision making between school counselors
who are trained and untrained in acceleration programmatic options.
Putting the Research to Use
School counselors are ubiquitous to schools and it is expected that they will assume an important role in the academic planning
of students. In addition, they are looked to for consultation on the social and emotional development of students and how these
dimensions may help or hinder academic choices. This study indicates that school counselors are prominent in the academic
and social issues of gifted students when it comes to the issue of acceleration. Parents and educators do look to counselors
for information and perspective regarding acceleration and counselors do provide their perspective. Also, acceleration has
become a more prominent option for gifted students in schools. Unfortunately, the information and perspectives of school
counselors on acceleration is not based on formal training and familiarity with the research but on informal information and
limited knowledge of the research. School counselors are not well prepared to fulfill their role in helping parents, educators
and students make sound decisions regarding acceleration. This study makes it clear that there is need for formal training of
school counselors in the research and practice of acceleration both at the preservice and inservice levels. School counselors
should participate in acceleration decisions because they bring a general and comprehensive understanding of the student.
However, they need a specific understanding of acceleration in order to be effective in such decisions.
Keywords
acceleration, social and/or emotional development and adjustment, counseling, training and preparation
The most well researched programmatic option for gifted lear­
ners is acceleration. The research supporting acceleration as
a programmatic option with positive outcomes has been robust
and consistent (Colangelo, Assouline, & Gross, 2004b).
Reg­ardless of the evidence, the concept and practice of acce­
leration in education has been much debated (and maligned)
as a viable option for gifted learners, with a primary concern
being the social and emotional impact of acceleration on the
student. Of the many stakeholders who are invested in mak­
ing decisions to accelerate a student, the professional school
counselor may be the primary consultant regarding the social
and emotional impact of acceleration. However, given the
primary role of school counselors in decision making regard­
ing accelerating a gifted student, little is known about their
perceptions of and experiences with acceleration. Hence, the
purpose of this exploratory study was to examine school
counselors’ perceptions of and experience with acceleration
1
The University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA
Corresponding Author:
Susannah Wood, Counseling, Rehabilitation and Student Development
Department, College of Education, The University of Iowa, N348 Lindquist
Center, Iowa City, IA 52242, USA
Email: [email protected]
Downloaded from gcq.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 12, 2016
169
Wood et al.
as a program option and their experiences in decision mak­
ing and recommending acceleration for gifted students.
Review of the Literature
Acceleration is the most documented, supported, and costeffective method of “helping students learn only what they
don’t already know” (Southern & Jones, p. 35; see also Stanley,
2000). Acceleration essentially describes practices that adjust
the pace of instruction to match students’ abilities, provide
students with the appropriate level of challenge, and reduce
the time needed for students to complete traditional school­
ing (National Association for Gifted Children, 2004). For the
purposes of this article, the authors define acceleration as
“an intervention that moves students through an educational
program at rates faster, or at younger ages, than typical. It
means matching the level, complexity, and pace of the cur­
riculum to the readiness and motivation of the student”
(Colangelo et al., 2004b, p. xi). Although there are up to 18
different types of accelerative options (Southern & Jones,
2004), most common examples of acceleration inc­lude the
following: grade skipping, moving ahead in one subject
area (single-subject acceleration), Advanced Placement (AP)
and International Baccalaureate studies, dual enrollment, and
early entrance into kindergarten or college. These examples
are likely those options with which school counselors are
most familiar when they think of acceleration.
Traditionally, when the questions of “do we?” and “if so,
when and how?” are raised concerning a gifted student who
may need to be accelerated, parents and educators may seek
the advice and consultation of the school counselor to ascer­
tain what, if any, social and emotional ramifications there may
be with this choice. The most recent version of the American
School Counselor Association’s (ASCA) role statement regar­
ding school counselors’ involvement with gifted students
asserts they are “an integral part of the educational team” that
works collaboratively to meet the identified needs of students
(ASCA, 2007, para. 1). Hence, the solicitation of school coun­
selors’ advice and consultation regarding acceleration and its
social and emotional outcomes is not surprising. However,
discussion of acceleration in school counseling research and
literature is limited, begging the question of where do school
counselors receive their information about acceleration?
When acceleration first was mentioned in the professional
school counseling literature by Brown in a 1993 edition of
The School Counselor, it was done with reference to under­
achievement and its negative academic and social effects.
Acceleration is again mentioned as a curricular option when
serving gifted students, but much later, in 2006, in a special
issue of Professional School Counseling (Milsom & Peterson,
2006), which focused on students with special needs on either
end of the spectrum. However, the mention is cursory and
does not delve into the research on acceleration. Without a
working knowledge of what the research indicates about
acceleration, school counselors are forced to fall back on
their own beliefs, experiences, and concerns when advising
parents and educators. In fact, parents, teachers, administra­
tors, and counselors may be choosing to not accelerate gifted
students because of a limited familiarity with and under­
standing of research on acceleration, political concerns about
educational equity, beliefs that gifted students must be edu­
cated with their chronological age group, or fear that accel­
eration will hurt students socially (Colangelo et al., 2004b).
Although beliefs and concerns regarding personal and social
functioning are frequently cited as reasons to not accelerate stu­
dents (Colangelo et al., 2004b; Southern, Jones, & Fiscus,
1989), research does not support them (Kulik, 2004; Robinson,
2004; Rogers, 2004). In fact, research suggests accelerated stu­
dents are more likely to (a) be ambitious and earn graduate
degrees at higher rates than other groups of students (Brody,
Muratori, & Stanley, 2004; Kulik, 2004), (b) experience acade­
mic challenge versus boredom and discontent in traditionallypaced curricula (Lubinski, 2004), and (c) feel social accep­tance
and report that their experiences with acceleration have been
positive ones (Robinson, 2004). In summary, accelerated gifted
students, as a group, are no more at risk for social/emotional
harm than are other groups of children (Neihart, 2007). For
some students, especially highly gifted students, there may be
more harm in not pursuing acceleration as an educational option
(Gross, 1993, 2004; Neihart, 2007). However, simply determin­
ing the “if” in accelerating a student is not the end of the discus­
sion. Special attention needs to be paid to determine the best
practices that will maximize student–learning fit, course and
content sequencing, teacher training, district and school policy,
and student readiness, with consideration of effective measure­
ments used to determine student ability and need, the personal­
ity and interest of the student, and available resources (Lubinski,
2004; Robinson, 2004; Southern & Jones, 2004). Hence, school
counselors need to be knowledgeable about research regarding
acceleration in order to effectively advise and consult.
In 2004, Colangelo, Assouline, and Gross (2004a) released
A Nation Deceived: How Schools Hold Back America’s Brightest Students, a compendium of 50 years of research exploring
the use of acceleration and supporting its positive benefits for
gifted students. The 2004 Nation Deceived report was sent to
various educational stakeholders who might be involved in
the decision to accelerate gifted students or the writing of
state and district policies on acceleration. In 2007, 3 years
after the report was released, stakeholders responded to a
web-based survey detailing their experiences and perceptions
of the report. More than 2,000 parents responded, as did more
than 1,000 gifted education teachers and coordinators,
570 classroom teachers, 278 school administrators, 55 school
psychologists, 48 school counselors, 33 school board members
and 57 other school personnel (Marron, Lohman, Colangelo &
Assouline, 2008, August). Although decision making regard­
ing the acceleration of a gifted student is the purview of any
or all of these constituent groups, when it comes to the issue
of whether or not acceleration will be emotionally or socially
harmful to a student, school counselors may be the first
Downloaded from gcq.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 12, 2016
170
Gifted Child Quarterly 54(3)
consultation sought. The fact that school counselors were
one of the fewest constituent groups that gave feedback to this
important document is a troubling one and begs the following
questions: (a) What do school counselors know about accel­
eration? (b) What are their beliefs and experiences with this
particular educational option for gifted students in their care?
If school counselors, like other educators, retain misconcep­
tions about the harm of acceleration (Southern et al., 1989),
they may be unwilling to explore or recommend this option out
of fear, prejudice, or simple ignorance. Hence, it is impera­
tive that the fields of both gifted education and school coun­
seling have a better picture of what school counselors know
about acceleration, what their perceptions are about it, and
how they promote it as a program option. Investigations in
acceleration are timely given that acceleration continues to
be a critical issue in the programming of gifted students in
schools, especially in light of the No Child Left Behind
(NCLB) Act and its reauthorization.
The NCLB is a U.S. Congressional act signed into law in
2002 that legislates a standards-based education with the
underlying premise that high expectations will lead to increased
learning outcomes. Although NCLB has been successful in
increasing the achievement of at-risk students in the achieve­
ment gap, it has not addressed the needs of gifted students. In
fact, in 2008, research was conducted by the Fordham Institute
(Duffet, Farkas, & Loveless, 2008) on National Assessment
of Educational Progress data from the late 1990 to 2000 and
beyond. Findings reveal that students in the 90th percentile
made minimal educational gains from 2000 to 2007. Could a
lack of implementation of acceleration be a supporting factor
in this finding? If so, additional investigation into how accel­
eration is viewed and used becomes a priority. If school coun­
selors are to be key players in the decision to accelerate a
student, then an investigation into their thinking about their
experiences with acceleration is essential.
Method
Participants
Purpose of the Study
Procedures
The purpose of this study was to assess professional school
counselors’ perceptions and experiences with acceleration.
Several research questions framed this study:
An email inviting participation for this study was sent to the
ASCA Scene online networking forum. In the solicitation,
potential participants were directed to an URL where they
were given a cover letter with elements of consent. After read­
ing the cover letter, participants who consented were then
given access to the survey. Participants were asked to com­
plete a 20-minute online survey within a 2-week window.
Participants completing the survey were offered the opportu­
nity to participate in follow-up studies by sharing their email
information at the end of the survey. This research received no
specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commer­
cial, or not-for-profit sectors.
1. What are school counselor’s training and background
regarding acceleration practices?
2. What are school counselors’ experiences with accel­
erating gifted students (including recommendation
of the practice as an option)?
3. What are school counselors’ experiences with dis­
trict policies regarding acceleration?
4. Who do school counselors perceive to be the stake­
holders in the conversations and decision making
regarding acceleration?
5. What factors do school counselors perceive as the
most important in the decision for or against accel­
erating gifted students?
In this study, researchers investigated school counselors’ per­
cep­tions of acceleration in K-12 school settings. There were
two criteria for participation in the study. Participants had to
be practicing school counselors who also were members of
the ASCA. At the time of the survey, there were approximately
23,000 members of the ASCA organization, 6,600 of whom
also belonged to the professional online networking forum
called the ASCA Scene. The ASCA Scene provides an online
venue for professional school counselors across the country
to exchange files, blog, and engage in discussions about school
counseling–related topics. Participants for this study were
recruited from the ASCA Scene. A total of 149 participants
who met both participation criteria responded to a survey
regarding perceptions and experiences with acceleration of
gifted students.
School counselors in the study were primarily working in
public schools (91.9%). Most of those reporting were from
Iowa (n = 53, 35.5%) and New York (n = 42, 28.1%), with
the remainder of the school counselor participants (n = 49,
32.8%) being from various states across the United States.
Five participants (3.4%) chose not to indicate the state in which
they practiced.
Participants’ years of experience in counseling varied,
with 53 (37.1%) counselors having 0 to 5 years of experi­
ence, 25 counselors (17.5%) had 6 to 10 years, 36 counselors
(24.2%) had 11 to 15 years, and 29 counselors (19%) had 15
or more years experience in the field. Participating counsel­
ors also varied by building level, with 38 (26.4%) serving as
elementary counselors, 40 (27.8%) as middle/junior high
counselors, 53 (36.8%) as high school counselors, 13 (8.7%)
participants reporting working as school counselors in other
settings (e.g., K-12, K-8).
Instrument
A survey was created by modifying an existing general sur­
vey on acceleration from a study conducted by the Institute
Downloaded from gcq.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 12, 2016
171
Wood et al.
for Research and Policy on Acceleration office at The Con­
nie Belin and Jacqueline N. Blank International Center for
Gifted Education and Talent Development and Talented
Education. Additional items specific to school counselors
were developed based on a review of literature and the con­
sensus of the research team. Items included demographic
information about the participants, such as the type of school
setting, building level, and years of experience. Other items
included knowledge and training pertaining acceleration, and
decision-making aspects of acceleration. The final draft of
the survey was titled School Counselor’s Perceptions and
Experiences with Acceleration Options for Gifted Students.
Sample items are included in the appendix.
Analysis
Tabulations were conducted of the aggregated participant
survey items to determine descriptive statics. The results are
presented by topical areas; training and preparation, experi­
ences with acceleration, district polices pertaining to accelera­
tion, stakeholders involved with acceleration decision making,
and factors that school counselors perceived important in
making decisions regarding accelerating students.
Results
Acceleration, when it is addressed in postsecondary course­
work or other training venues, is done so as a subset of the
more general field of gifted education. Thus, the instrument
included questions of school counselor exposure to and train­
ing in gifted education, as well as the more specific issues of
acceleration. Furthermore, items pertaining to training were
subdivided into formal and informal categories. Formal train­
ing included courses, classes and in-service workshops, whereas
informal training included discussions with colleagues, meet­
ings (informal), reading books, television/movies, parents,
casual conversations, and various other examples.
Training and Preparation
The majority of school counselors (N = 91, 61.1%) indicated
they had no formal training in gifted education as part of their
counseling program, whereas 49 (32.7%) of the participants
indicated some formal training. Of the entirety of the partici­
pants, 6.1% indicated they did not know or chose not to
respond to items. Of the group that indicated some formal
training in gifted education, 10 (13.4%) indicated it had been
part of one class period; 14 (9.4%) indicated a course or an
in-service presentation (N = 9, 6%), and 15 (10.1%) indi­
cated “other” under formal training.
Of the school counselors who reported having training in
their preparation programs, 26 (15.4%) also reported that their
training included discussing acceleration, and 26 (15.4%)
reported that it did not. Ten school counselors (5.7%) rep­orted
that they did not know, and 5 (3.4%) did not respond to the item.
The results of the survey indicate that most counselors
received information on acceleration informally. The majority
of school counselors reported receiving information through
colleagues (n = 105, 70.5%) and meetings (n = 76, 51.0%).
School counselors reported they did not receive information
from books (n = 78, 52.3%), television or movies (n = 134,
89.9%), the Internet (n = 105, 70.5%), students interning with
them (n = 138, 92.6%), consultation (n = 82, 55.0%), parents
(n = 82, 55.0%), casual conversation (n = 109, 73.2%), or
other methods (n = 116, 77.9%).
Experiences With Acceleration
Within School Districts
School counselors’ perceptions of how acceleration practices
were used in their districts ranged widely. Acceleration took
various forms in the schools and districts in which partici­
pants worked, including grade skipping, early entrance into
kindergarten or first grade, full-time gifted classes, dual enroll­
ment in high school and college, AP classes, International
Baccalaureate programs, and/or early entrance into colleges.
The majority of school counselors reported that dual enroll­
ment was a frequently used practice (n = 105, 70.4%), as was
AP classes (n = 105, 70.4%).
However, perceptions regarding the usage of early entrance
into K-1 grades or into college varied. The majority of par­
ticipating school counselors (n = 78, 52.3%) reported that
they did not know how frequently early entrance into kinder­
garten or first grade was used, whereas 54 (36.2%) reported
it was not used at all. Forty-eight school counselors (32.2%)
reported they did not know how frequently early entrance
into college was used by their districts, whereas 39 (26.2%)
reported it was not used at all, and 52 (34.9%) reported early
entrance into college was used often or very often. Percep­
tions as to the use of grade skipping also varied. Forty-five
(30.2%) of the school counselors did not know how frequently
grade skipping was used in their district, whereas 69 (46.3%)
school counselors reported it had not been used at all, and
30 (21%) counselors reported it being used as a program
option. Figure 1 illustrates these findings.
For school counselors participating in the study, knowledge
regarding their districts’ formally written policies pertaining
to acceleration varied. Some participants (n = 49, 32.9%) ack­
nowledged that their school district did have a written policy
that endorsed acceleration. Three school counselors (2.0%)
indicated that the written policy in their district did not end­
orse acceleration. Thirty-nine participants (26.2%) reported
that their district did not have a written policy at all. Fiftyfive (36.9%) participants reported they did not know if their
district had a written policy on acceleration.
School counselor awareness of any informal district
poli­cies also varied. Thirty-three counselors (22.1%)
reported their districts did have an implicit policy, and it
did endorse acceleration, whereas 10 (6.7%) reported that
their districts did have an implicit policy that did not
Downloaded from gcq.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 12, 2016
172
Gifted Child Quarterly 54(3)
Figure 1. Percentage of school counselors’ awareness of acceleration options in their districts
endorse acceleration. Fifty-nine (39.6%) school counselors
reported not being aware of any implicit policies their dis­
trict had on acceleration of gifted students. Others (n = 39,
26.2%) reported there were no implicit policies on accel­
eration in their schools.
Stakeholders Involved With
Acceleration Decision Making
Primary stakeholder groups. Participants were asked to share
their perceptions as to which stakeholder groups, in their exp­
erience, were involved in making decisions about accelera­
tion for gifted students. According to school counselors, the
four stakeholder groups most involved in making decisions
regarding acceleration were parents (n = 110, 73.8%), teach­
ers (n = 102, 68.5%), principals (n = 99, 66.4%), and the
school counselors (n = 82, 55%). Participants also offered
other stakeholder groups that had been a part of their deci­
sion making. These included district representatives, nomi­
nation committees, past classroom teachers of the gifted student,
and the inclusion of exam and test data.
School counselor conversations regarding acceleration. Partici­
pating school counselors did report having conversations with
educators and families about acceleration. For instance, 112
(77.8%) of school counselors reported talking to parents
about acceleration, and 105 (70.4%) reported talking to stu­
dents about acceleration options. Similarly, the majority of
school counselors indicated they had had discussions with
classroom teachers (n = 119, 83%), teachers or coordinators
of gifted programs (n = 80, 56.3%), other educators (n = 94,
66.2%), and school-based teams (n = 85, 57%) about the
acceleration of students.
Recommendation of acclerative options. Of the 149 partici­
pating school counselors, the majority (90, 60.4%) had heard
of a student being accelerated in their district. A small major­
ity of participants (77, 51.7%) also reported that they, in fact,
had recommended acceleration for a student in their building,
and 82 (55.0%) reported that they had advocated for accel­
eration on behalf of a student. Fifty-eight (38.9%) participants
had heard of student in their building or district who was
denied acceleration.
Level of comfort recommending acceleration. On a scale of
1 (not at all comfortable) to 4 (very comfortable), partici­
pants were asked to describe the extent to which they felt
comfortable recommending various forms of acceleration.
The majority of participants felt they were somewhat to very
comfor­table recommending dual enrollment in high school
and college (n = 117, 82.4%), offering AP courses (n = 115,
83%), and suggesting early college entrance (n = 89, 65.9%)
as methods of accelerating students. However, school coun­
selors also reported being not at all comfortable making rec­
ommendations regarding grade skipping (n = 79, 53%), and
early entrance to kindergarten or first grade (n = 78, 52.3%).
Participant responses were evenly split with their comfort
regarding International Baccalaureate as an option, as 63
(48.8%) school counselors reported being comfortable and
64 (43%) reported feeling uncomfortable. Figure 2 illustrates
these findings.
Participants also were asked to share to what extent their
opinion was solicited with regard to issues touching on accel­
eration. School counselors were solicited on the subsequent
issues (shown with percentages): personal/social functioning
(n = 97, 82%), academic performance (n = 96, 81.3%), test­
ing (n = 87, 74.4%), resources and referrals (n = 82, 71.3%),
Downloaded from gcq.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 12, 2016
173
Wood et al.
Figure 2. School counselors’ level of comfort in recommending various acceleration options
college preparation (n = 74, 62.7%), and course scheduling
(n = 79, 67.5%).
Factors that were the most commonly cited considerations
by school counselors in their recommendations and advocacy
for acceleration include test scores (n = 89, 60%), social/
emotional functioning (n = 82, 55%), and students’ future
performance (n = 44, 30%). Most commonly cited factors in
deciding against acceleration were concerns about social
emotional development (n = 106, 71%), student’s future aca­
demic performance (n = 62, 42%), and gaps in the acceler­
ated students’ knowledge (n = 56, 38%). Figure 3 illustrates
these results.
Discussion
The findings are striking. The majority of school counselors
who participated in this study reported having no formal train­
ing regarding gifted education included in their preparation
programs. These findings support prior conclusions drawn by
Peterson and Wachter (in press) who found that few Council
for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational
Programs (CACREP) accredited counselor preparation pro­
grams gave attention to preparing counselors to work with
high-ability or gifted students. A small minority of those who
reported some formal training in gifted education (simply one
Figure 3. Factors considered in recommendations of
accelerating gifted students
class period or an in-service presentation) indicated that they
had some discussion or training in acceleration per se. Some
school counselors reported they did not know if they received
training pertaining to acceleration. Although this could be
Downloaded from gcq.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 12, 2016
174
Gifted Child Quarterly 54(3)
because of difference in professional language pertaining
to how the concept of acceleration is used (e.g., faced-pace
math or AP) in their training, it could also be because of the
wording of the item, which did not allow for a “do not recall”
response that may have been able to more accurately capture
the participants’ responses. Although it was not possible to
determine the extent of information regarding acceleration, it
would appear that presentations and discussion of research
on acceleration was small. Although the training on accelera­
tion was negligible, the role of counselors in providing con­
sultation to decisions regarding acceleration was extensive.
The disparity between training and consultation begs the
question of what evidence are school counselors using to
guide their consultations? Clearly, counselors are providing
consultations on acceleration based on their attitudes, beliefs,
and any information gathered informally.
Findings in this study support the ASCA position statement
(2007) for school counselors, insofar as they are integral stake­
holders in the decision-making process necessary to determine
if a gifted student is to be accelerated. Participant responses
indicated that not only school counselors were involved in this
process but also parents, teachers, and principals. School
counselor participants reported having conversations regard­
ing acceleration with parents, students, classroom teachers,
gifted education teachers and coordinators, school-based
teams, and additional school personnel. Participants indicated
that their opinions regarding acceleration and its impact on a
gifted student were in fact solicited, with the majority of issues
for which their input was solicited being academic perfor­
mance, personal/social functioning, college preparation, course
scheduling, testing, and resources and referrals.
The majority of participants reported having heard of
gifted students being accelerated in their district and, in fact,
reported having advocated for acceleration on behalf of a
gifted student. School counselors who did not know if their
district had a policy or not may not have worked with a gifted
issue or an issue pertaining to acceleration that would have
required that knowledge. Although the majority of partici­
pants also felt comfortable recommending some accelerative
options such as dual enrollment in high school and college,
AP courses, and early college entrance, they did not feel com­
fortable with recommending grade skipping or early kinder­
garten or first-grade entrance. All of the aforementioned
forms of acceleration have equal research supporting their
effectiveness (Colangelo et al., 2004b). However, accelera­
tion via grade skipping would require removal of the student
from the peer group, making it a public event and a greater
educational departure from the “norm.” In addition, if the
grade skipping was not successful, there would be no subtle
way to return the student to his original grade. Hence, these
forms of acceleration could be considered by counselors as
more radical (and subsequently considered less benign) and
having a more negative impact on social and emotional adjust­
ment. Regardless of the evidence, counselors perceive dif­
ferent forms of acceleration differently.
Factors that participants considered in making a decision
to recommend or advocate for acceleration for a gifted stu­
dent included test scores, social and emotional functioning,
and the future performance of the student. Social and emo­
tional development, future academic performance, and gaps
in student knowledge were cited as factors that would influ­
ence a school counselor’s decision against acceleration,
supporting prior findings of Southern et al. (1989) but in
contrast to the research supporting acceleration (Neihart,
2007; Robinson, 2004). Findings from this study also under­
score the complexity of factors discussed in the literature
pertaining to acceleration when making the decision whether
and how to accelerate a student (Lubinski, 2004; Robinson,
2004; Southern & Jones, 2004).
Conclusions
Findings from this study generate five specific conclusions.
First, school counselors are obviously being solicited by par­
ents and educators for expertise on acceleration and its effects
on gifted students. Second, school counselors are, in fact,
providing this expertise. Third, school counselor expertise
regarding acceleration is not based on formal training but,
rather, on information gathered through informal means such
as through colleagues and meetings. These interactions may
lead to the passing on of erroneous information regarding
acceleration, which in turn reinforces common mythology
regarding its effects. Fourth, school counselors are hesitant
to recommend certain accelerative options such as early
kindergarten/first-grade entrance or grade skipping, perhaps
because of concerns pertaining to the social or emotional
impact of these more radical forms of acceleration, despite
findings in the current research supporting their effectiveness.
Finally, findings from this study indicate that school coun­
selors, without formal training in giftedness in which to root
their expertise, continue to cite social and emotional develop­
ment as one primary factor against accelerating a gifted stu­
dent regardless of the current research.
Implications
Findings from this study have two primary implications for
counselor preparation programs and professional develop­
ment providers. The first, and perhaps the most important, is
the fact that school counselors are in critical need of formal
training and accurate information regarding acceleration and
its research-based outcomes. If the ASCA Role Statement
cites school counselors as an integral part of an education
team that makes decisions affecting gifted students, then
school counselors need the required training to make these
decisions based on research, not on informal conversations.
Formal training should come as part of the school counselor
preparation program if school counselors are to be held res­
ponsible for working with and serving all students, including
gifted students. As Colangelo et al. (2004b) suggest, it is
Downloaded from gcq.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 12, 2016
175
Wood et al.
unfair to blame educators for not knowing what they need to
know if they were not provided with the appropriate training
and information from their preparation programs.
Second, practicing school counselors, like all educators,
should be required to be up-to-date on their specific district
policies and acceleration options employed by their district
so that they are knowledgeable about what types of practices
are being used, how frequently, and if they are successful
(Colangelo et al., 2004b). This knowledge can enable school
counselors to be more informed advocates and information
clearinghouses when participating in accelerative decision
making or dialogues with various stakeholders. The role
demands on school counselors are vast. Given the established
ASCA role statement regarding serving gifted students, it
becomes imperative that school counselors make advocating
and serving all students their highest priority. This advocacy
and program management requires school counselors to
increase their knowledge and involvement in gifted educa­
tion issues, particularly acceleration opportunities.
Findings from this study raise disturbing points and impor­
tant questions. Further investigation of how school counsel­
ors’ knowledge and use of acceleration is needed, including
a replication of the current study with a larger participant
size. Examination of CACREP and non-CACREP programs
is needed to determine what specific information counselors
are receiving in their counseling preparation programs per­
taining to acceleration, if any, and/or what school counselors
are learning from their educational peers and colleagues in
meetings regarding the practice of acceleration. Action rese­
arch is needed to obtain a clearer picture of how school
counselors apply their knowledge about acceleration in the
decision-making processes in which they partake with par­
ents and other educators. Additional inquiries are needed to
ascertain if professional development focused on accelera­
tion makes a difference in the knowledge and recommenda­
tions of acceleration to stakeholder groups.
Findings of this study underscore Gallagher’s (1969) call
for research to determine “why this procedure [acceleration] is
generally ignored in the face of such overwhelmingly favor­
able results” (Gallagher, 1969, p. 541, as cited in Kulik, 2004).
The authors of this study intend to pursue this line of inquiry
by examining the lived experience of school counselors with
acceleration as well as investigating the effectiveness of accel­
erative decision making between trained and untrained school
counselors, as well as how acceleration is implemented in
rural, urban, and suburban school districts.
Limitations
There are limitations to this study. Although a national sam­
ple was solicited (and partially obtained), the majority of the
respondents to the survey were from two states (Iowa and
New York). There were greater contacts in these two states
as authors are based in the state of Iowa, and one of the
authors had extensive professional contacts in New York.
Findings may be more generalizable to school counseling in
these states than others. An additional limitation to this study
was using a professional organization forum to solicit par­
ticipation. School counselors who voluntarily elect to partici­
pate in professional organizations through paying membership
fees and then again choose to participate in online virtual
forums may not be representative of the school counseling
population. Readers should consider these limitations when
generalizing the results. However, given the findings from
this study, it seems reasonable to acknowledge that the results
may indicate trends among school counseling perceptions
and involvement in acceleration of gifted students.
Appendix
Sample Items From School Counselor’s
Perceptions and Experiences With
Acceleration Options for Gifted Students
During your professional education and training in prepar­
ing to be a school counselor, did you take any coursework on
giftedness?
__ Yes
__ No
__ Don’t know
If yes, about how much formal training did you receive on
gifted education or gifted students in your training program:
___ One class period
___ One entire graduate class
___ An in-service
___ Other
If yes, did this training specifically discuss acceleration?
___ Yes
___ No
___ Don’t know
If you have any informal knowledge about gifted education
and acceleration, which of these did it primarily come from?
(Check all that apply.)
___ Books
___ TV/Movies
___ Internet
___ Interns or supervisees
___ Colleague/peer conversations
___ Meetings
Downloaded from gcq.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 12, 2016
(continued)
176
Gifted Child Quarterly 54(3)
Appendix (continued)
If you have been called on to discuss acceleration with
a parent, teacher, or student, to what extent was your input
solicited on the following issues?
___ Consultation
___ Interaction with parents
___ Casual conversation
___ Other
Not at A Bit
All (1) (2)
Does your school district have a written policy on
acceleration?
___ Yes, and the policy DOES endorse acceleration
___ Yes, and the policy DOES NOT endorse acceleration
___ No written policy
___ Don’t know
Who participates in the decision to accelerate in your
school district or building? Check all that apply.
___ Parent/guardian ___ Student ___ Classroom teacher ___ GT teacher/coordinator
___ Principal
___ School psychologist
___ School counselor
___ School Board
___ Superintendent
___ Other
To what extent did your service or work with gifted stu­
dents include conversations about acceleration with . . . ?
Not at
All (1)
A Bit
(2)
Often
(3)
Frequently
(4)
Parent/guardian
The gifted student
Classroom teacher
Gifted coordinator/
educator
Other professional
School-based team
Have you ever recommended acceleration for a student in
your building or district?
___ Yes
___ No
Have you ever advocated for acceleration for a student in
your district?
____ Yes
____ No
(continued)
Often Frequently
(3)
(4)
Academic performance
Personal/social functioning
College preparation or
planning
Course scheduling
(Advanced Placement,
International
Baccalaureate, dual
enrollment)
Testing
Resources or referrals
The following data points or issues may be considered in
the decision to accelerate a student in a school district or build­
ing. Please rank them in order of their weight in the consid­
eration to accelerate a student in your district or building.
Please put a 1 by the most frequently used data point or issue
in the decision-making process, a 2 by the second most sig­
nificant issue, and a 3 by the third most significant issue,
and so on (e.g., if GPA is the primary consideration for accel­
eration, this would be ranked as 1).
___ Transportation
___ Availability resources (technology, local university,
financial support)
___ Test scores (achievement, ability)
___ GPA
___ Social/emotional functioning
___ An acceleration scale or survey
___ Recommendations
___ Available mentors or teachers
___ Community norms
___ Parent/guardian preference
___ Teacher preference
___ Attitudes of administration
___ Effects on other students
___ Student’s future performance in the new setting
___ Other
Acknowledgements
Authors would like to acknowledge the Institute for Research and
Policy on Acceleration (IRPA) of The Connie Belin and Jacqueline
N. Blank International Center for Gifted Education and Talent
Development for supporting this project, and Josh Jacobs for his
technological and assistive help.
Downloaded from gcq.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 12, 2016
177
Wood et al.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect
to the authorship and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research and/or
authorship of this article.
References
American School Counselor Association. (2007). The professional
school counselor and gifted and talented student programs.
Retrieved from http://asca2.timberlakepublishing.com//files/PS
_Gifted.pdf
Brody, L. E., Muratori, M. C., & Stanley, J. C. (2004). Early
entrance to college: Academic, social, and emotional consid­
erations. In N. Colangelo, S. Assouline, & M. Gross (Eds.), A
nation deceived: How schools hold back America’s brightest
students (Vol. 2, pp. 97-107). Iowa City, IA: The Connie Belin
& Jacqueline N. Blank International Center for Gifted Educa­
tion and Talent Development.
Brown, L. L. (1993). Special considerations in counseling gifted
students. School Counselor, 40, 184-191.
Colangelo, N., Assouline, S., & Gross, M. (Eds.). (2004a). A nation
deceived: How schools hold back America’s brightest students.
Iowa City, IA: The Connie Belin & Jacqueline N. Blank Inter­
national Center for Gifted Education and Talent Development.
Colangelo, N., Assouline, S., & Gross, M. (2004b). Executive sum­
mary. In N. Colangelo, S. Assouline, & M. Gross (Eds.), A nation
deceived: How schools hold back America’s brightest students
(Vol. 1). Iowa City, IA: The Connie Belin & Jacqueline N.
Blank International Center for Gifted Education and Talent
Development.
Duffet, A., Farkas, S., & Loveless, T. (2008). Executive summary.
In A. Duffet, S. Farkas, & T. Loveless (Eds.), High-achieving
students in the era of NCLB (pp. 2-7). Washington, DC: Thomas
B. Fordham Institute.
Gallagher, J. J. (1969). Gifted children. In R. L. Ebel (Ed.),
Encyclopedia of educational research (4th ed., pp. 537-544).
New York, NY: Macmillan.
Gross, M. (1993). Exceptionally gifted children (2nd ed.). London,
England: Routledge/Falmer.
Gross, M. (2004). Radical acceleration. In N. Colangelo, S. Assouline,
& M. Gross (Eds.), A nation deceived: How schools hold back
America’s brightest students (Vol. 2, pp. 87-96). Iowa City, IA:
The Connie Belin & Jacqueline N. Blank International Center
for Gifted Education and Talent Development.
Kulik, J. A. (2004). Meta-analytic studies of acceleration. In
N. Colangelo, S. Assouline, & M. Gross (Eds.), A nation deceived:
How schools hold back America’s brightest students (Vol. 2, pp.
13-22). Iowa City, IA: The Connie Belin & Jacqueline N. Blank
International Center for Gifted Education and Talent Development.
Lubinski, D. (2004). Long-term effects of educational acceleration.
In N. Colangelo, S. Assouline, & M. Gross (Eds.), A nation
deceived: How schools hold back America’s brightest students (Vol. 2, pp. 23-37). Iowa City, IA: The Connie Belin &
Jacqueline N. Blank International Center for Gifted Education
and Talent Development.
Marron, M. A., Lohman, D. F., Colangelo, N., & Assouline, S. G.
(2008, August). Academic acceleration in schools: A survey of
attitudes and practices. Poster session presented at the American
Psychological Association conference, Boston, MA
Milsom, A., & Peterson, J. (2006). Introduction to special issue:
Examining disability and giftedness in schools. Professional School
Counseling, 10(1), 1-2.
National Association for Gifted Children. (2004, September). NAGC
position statement: Acceleration. Retrieved from http://www.nagc
.org/index.aspx?id=383
Neihart, M. (2007). The socioaffective impact of acceleration and
ability grouping: Recommendations for best practice. Gifted Child
Quarterly, 51, 330-341.
Peterson, J. S., & Wachter, C. A. (in press). Understanding and
responding to concerns related to giftedness: A study of CACREPaccredited programs. Journal for the Education of the Gifted.
Robinson, N. M. (2004). Effects of academic acceleration on the
social-emotional status of gifted students. In N. Colangelo,
S. Assouline, & M. Gross (Eds.), A nation deceived: How schools
hold back America’s brightest students (Vol. 2, pp. 59-67). Iowa
City, IA: The Connie Belin & Jacqueline N. Blank International
Center for Gifted Education and Talent Development.
Rogers, K. B. (2004). The academic effects of acceleration.
In N. Colangelo, S. Assouline, & M. Gross (Eds.), A nation
deceived: How schools hold back America’s brightest students (Vol. 2, pp. 47-58). Iowa City, IA: The Connie Belin &
Jacqueline N. Blank International Center for Gifted Education
and Talent Development.
Southern, W. T., & Jones, E. D. (2004). Types of acceleration: Dimen­
sions and issues. In N. Colangelo, S. Assouline, & M. Gross
(Eds.), A nation deceived: How schools hold back America’s
brightest students (Vol. 2, pp. 13-22). Iowa City, IA: The Connie
Belin & Jacqueline N. Blank International Center for Gifted
Education and Talent Development.
Southern, W. T., Jones, E. D., & Fiscus, E. D. (1989). Practitioners
objections to the academic acceleration of young gifted chil­
dren. Gifted Child Quarterly, 33, 29-35.
Stanley, J. C. (2000). Helping students learn only what they don’t
already know. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 6, 216-222.
Bios
Susannah Wood, PhD, is currently an assistant professor in the
Counseling, Rehabilitation and Student Development Department
at the University of Iowa. As a counselor educator, she teaches both
doctoral students and students who are pursuing their master’s in
school counseling with an emphasis in gifted education. Her
research interests encompass preparing school counselors for their
practice with an emphasis on serving the gifted population in col­
laboration with other educators and professionals, examining the
knowledge and use of acceleration as a program option by school
Downloaded from gcq.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 12, 2016
178
Gifted Child Quarterly 54(3)
counselors, and analyzing the effectiveness of best practices in
counseling the gifted.
such as students with autism spectrum disorders and twice-excep­
tional students.
Tarrell Awe Agahe Portman, PhD, LMHC, NCC, is an associate
professor in the School Counseling and Counselor Education Pro­
grams at The University of Iowa. She has 14 years experience in
U.S. public schools as a teacher and a school counselor. She has
more than 62 publications in the counseling field and more than
131 presentations. She is currently the Director of the Office of
Graduate Ethnic Inclusion at Graduate College at The University
of Iowa.
Nicholas Colangelo is the Myron and Jacqueline Blank End­owed
Chair of Gifted Education and Director of the Connie Belin & Jac­
queline N. Blank International Center for Gifted Education and Tal­
ent Development, College of Education, The University of Iowa. His
faculty appointment is in counselor education. He has published
extensively on the affective development of gifted students. He
coedited three editions of Handbook of Gifted Education (with Gary
Davis). With Susan Assouline and Miraca Gross, he has coauthored
A Nation Deceived: How Schools Hold Back America’s Brightest
Students. In 2009, he headed a task force that published the report
“Guidelines for Developing an Academic Acceleration Policy.” He
received the Distinguished Scholar Award in 1991 and the Presi­
dent’s Award in 2002 from the National Association for Gifted Chil­
dren, where he also served as Association Editor from 2007 to 2009.
Dawnette L. Cigrand, MA, completed her master’s degree at the
University of Iowa in School Counseling and is currently a doc­
toral student in Counselor Education at the University of Iowa.
She has been a practicing school counselor in rural Iowa since
1998 and continues to work with and research special populations
Downloaded from gcq.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 12, 2016