Two second-order meta-analyses synthesized approximately 100 years of research on the effects of ability grouping and acceleration on K–12 students’ academic achievement. Outcomes of 13 ability grouping meta-analyses showed that students benefited from within-class grouping (0.19 ≤ g ≤ 0.30), cross-grade subject grouping (g = 0.26), and special grouping for the gifted (g = 0.37), but did not benefit from between-class grouping (0.04 ≤ g ≤0.06); the effects did not vary for high-, medium-, and low-ability students. Three acceleration meta-analyses showed that accelerated students significantly outperformed their nonaccelerated same-age peers (g = 0.70) but did not differ significantly from nonaccelerated older peers (g = 0.09). Three other meta-analyses that aggregated outcomes across specific forms of acceleration found that acceleration appeared to have a positive, moderate, and statistically significant impact on students’ academic achievement (g = 0.42).
AdelsonJ. L.McCoachD. B.GavinM. K. (2012). Examining the effects of gifted programming in mathematics and reading using the ECLS-K. Gifted Child Quarterly, 56, 25–39. doi:10.1177/001698211431487
2.
AhnS.AmesA. J.MyersN. D. (2012). A review of meta-analyses in education: Methodological strengths and weaknesses. Review of Educational Research, 82, 436–476. doi:10.3102/0034654312458162
3.
AssoulineS. G.ColangeloN.VanTassel-BaskaJ.Lupkowski-ShoplikA. (2015). A nation empowered: Evidence trumps the excuses holding back America’s brightest students (Vol. 2). Iowa City, IA: Belin-Blank Center.
4.
BelfiB.GoosM.De FraineB.Van DammeJ. (2012). The effect of class composition by gender and ability on secondary school students’ school well-being and academic self-concept: A literature review. Educational Research Review, 7, 62–74. doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2011.09.002
5.
BicakL. J. (1962). Achievement in eighth grade science by heterogeneous and homogeneous classes (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Minnesota, MN.
6.
BicakL. J. (1964), Achievement in eighth grade science by heterogeneous and homogeneous classes. Science Education, 48, 13–22. doi:10.1002/sce.3730480104
7.
BorensteinM.HedgesL. V.HigginsJ. P. T.RothsteinH. R. (2006). Comprehensive meta-analysis (Version 2.2.027) [Computer software]. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Biostat.
8.
BorensteinM.HedgesL. V.HigginsJ. P. T.RothsteinH. R. (2009). Subgroup analyses. Introduction to meta-analysis. Chichester, England: Wiley.
9.
+BormanG. D.HewesG. M.OvermanL. T.BrownS. (2003). Comprehensive school reform and achievement. Review of Educational Research, 73, 125–230. doi:10.3102/00346543073002125
10.
BuiS. A.CraigS. G.ImbermanS. A. (2011). Is gifted education a bright idea? Assessing the impact of gifted and talented programs on achievement (NBER Working Paper 17089). Retrieved from http://www.nber.org/papers/w17089
11.
CallahanC. M.MoonT. R.OhS. (2013). National Survey of Gifted Programs. Charlottesville: University of Virginia, National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
12.
ChmielewskiA. K. (2014). An international comparison of achievement inequality in within- and between-school tracking systems. American Journal of Education, 120, 293–324. doi:10.1086/675529
13.
ChmielewskiA. K.DumontH.TrautweinU. (2013). Tracking effects depend on tracking type an international comparison of students’ mathematics self-concept. American Educational Research Journal, 50, 925–957 doi:10.3102/0002831213489843
14.
ColangeloN.AssoulineS. G.GrossM. U. M. (2004). A nation deceived: How schools hold back America’s brightest students (Vol. II). Iowa City, IA: Connie Belin and Jacqueline N. Blank International Center for Gifted Education and Talent Development.
15.
CooperH.HedgesL. V. (1994). The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
16.
CooperH.KoenkaA. C. (2012). The overview of reviews: Unique challenges and opportunities when research syntheses are the principal elements of new integrative scholarship. American Psychologist, 67, 446–462. doi:10.1037/a0027119
17.
CoxC. M. (1926). The early mental traits of 300 geniuses. In Genetic studies of genius (Vol. 2). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
18.
DewarJ. A. (1963). Grouping for arithmetic instruction in sixth grade. The Elementary School Journal, 63(5), 266–269. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1000087
19.
DrewsE. M. (1963). Student abilities, grouping patterns, and classroom interaction (Final Report of Cooperative Research Project No. 608, The Effectiveness of Homogeneous and Heterogeneous Ability Grouping in Ninth Grade English Classes with Slow, Average, and Superior Students). East Lansing: Michigan State University, Office of Research and Publications.
20.
DuvallS.TweedieR. (2000). Trim and fill: A simple funnel-plot–based method of testing and adjusting for publication bias in meta-analysis. Biometrics, 56, 455–463. doi:10.1111/j.0006-341X.2000.00455.x/epdf
21.
FickW. W. (1962). The effectiveness of ability grouping in seventh grade core classes. Dissertation Abstracts International, 23, 2753. (University Microfilms No. 63-794)
22.
FloydC. (1954). Meeting children’s reading needs in the middle grades: A preliminary report. Elementary School Journal, 55, 99−103. doi:10.1086/458653
23.
FordS. (1974). Grouping in mathematics: Effects on achievement and learning environment (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Yeshiva University, NY.
24.
GentryP.PaulK. A.McIntoshJ.FugateC. M.JenE. (2014). Total school cluster grouping and differentiation: A comprehensive research-based plan for raising student achievement and improving teacher practices. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
25.
GlassG. V.McGawB.SmithM. L. (1981). Meta-analysis in social science research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
26.
*GoldringE. B. (1990). Assessing the status of information on classroom organizational frameworks of gifted students. Journal of Educational Research, 83, 313–326. doi:10.1080/00220671.1990.10885977
27.
GrossM. U. M. (1992). The use of radical acceleration in cases of extreme intellectual precocity. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36, 90–98. doi:10.1177/001698629203600207
28.
GrossM. U. M. (2004). Radical acceleration. In AssoulineS. G.ColangeloN.VanTassel-BaskaJ. (Eds.), A nation empowered (Vol. 2, pp. 87–96). Iowa City, IA: Connie Belin and Jacqueline N. Blank International Center for Gifted Education and Talent Development.
29.
HattieJ. A. (2002). Classroom composition and peer effects. International Journal of Educational Research, 37, 449–481. doi:10.1016/S0883-0355(03)00015-6
30.
HedgesL. V. (1981). Distribution theory for Glass’s estimator of effect size and related estimators. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 6, 107–128. doi:10.2307/1164588
31.
HedgesL. V.VeveaJ. L. (1998). Fixed- and random-effects models in meta-analysis. Psychological Methods, 3, 486–504. doi:10.1037/1082-989X.3.4.486
32.
*HendersonN. D. (1989). A meta-analysis of ability grouping achievement and attitude in the elementary grades (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Mississippi State University, MS.
33.
HigginsJ. P. T.GreenS. (Eds.). (2011). Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions (Version 5.1.0). Retrieved from http://handbook.cochrane.org
34.
HillsonM.JonesJ. CMooreJ. W.Van DevenderF. (1964). A controlled experiment evaluating the effects of a nongraded organization on pupil achievement. Journal of Educational Research, 57, 548−555.
35.
JonesC. J.MooreJ. W.Van DevenderF. (1967). Comparison of pupil achievement after one and one-half and three years in a nongraded program. Journal of Educational Research, 61, 75–77. doi:10.1080/00220671.1967.10883590
36.
KentS. D. (1992). The effects of acceleration on the social and emotional development of gifted elementary students: A meta-analysis. Dissertation Abstracts International, 54, 419-A. (University Microfilms No. AAT93-16362)
37.
*KulikC. C. (1985, August). Effects of inter-class ability grouping on achievement and self-esteem. Paper presented at the 93rd annual convention of the American Psychological Association, Los Angeles, CA.
38.
*KulikC. C.KulikJ. A. (1982). Effects of ability grouping on secondary school students: A meta-analysis of evaluation findings. American Educational Research Journal, 19, 415–428. doi:10.3102/00028312019003415
39.
*KulikC. C.KulikJ. A. (1984a, August). Effects of ability grouping on elementary school pupils: A meta-analysis. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
40.
+KulikJ. A. (2004). Meta-analytic studies of acceleration. In ColangeloN.AssoulineS. G.GrossM. U. M. (Eds.), A nation deceived: How schools hold back America’s brightest students (Vol. 2, pp.13–22). Iowa City, IA: Connie Belin and Jacqueline N. Blank International Center for Gifted Education and Talent Development.
41.
+KulikJ. A.KulikC. C. (1984b). Effects of accelerated instruction on students. Review of Educational Research, 54, 409–425. doi:10.3102/00346543054003409
42.
*KulikJ. A.KulikC. C. (1987). Effects of ability grouping on student achievement. Equity & Excellence in Education, 23(1–2), 22–30. doi:10.1080/1066568870230105
43.
*KulikJ. A.KulikC. C. (1992). Meta-analytic findings on grouping programs. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36, 73–77. doi:10.1177/001698629203600204
44.
*LouY.AbramiP. C.SpenceJ. C.PoulsenC.ChambersB.d’ApolloniaS. (1996). Within-class grouping: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 66, 423–458. doi:10.3102/00346543066004423
45.
LovelessT. (2009). Tracking and detracking: High achievers in Massachusetts middle schools. Washington, DC: Thomas B. Fordham Institute.
46.
LovelessT. (2013). How well are American students learning? The 2013 Brown Center report on American education. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
47.
LubinskiD.BenbowC. P. (2000). States of excellence. The American Psychologist, 55, 137–150. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.137
48.
MakelM. C.LeeS. Y.Olszewski-KubiliusP.PutallazM. (2012). Changing the pond, not the fish: Following high ability students across different educational environments. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104, 778–792. doi:10.1037/a0027558
MakelM. C.PluckerJ. A. (2014). Facts are more important than novelty: Replication in the education sciences. Educational Researcher, 43, 304–316. doi:10.3102/0013189X14545513
51.
MarascuiloL. A.McSweeneyM. (1972). Tracking and minority student attitudes and performance. Urban Education, 6, 303–319. doi:10.1177/004208597200600401
MarshH. W.AbduljabbarA. S.MorinA. J.ParkerP.AbdelfattahF.NagengastB.Abu-HilalM. M. (2015). The big-fish-little-pond effect: Generalizability of social comparison processes over two age cohorts from Western, Asian, and Middle Eastern Islamic countries. Journal of Educational Psychology, 107, 258–271. doi:10.1037/a0037485
54.
McClainM. C.PfeifferS. (2012). Identification of gifted students in the United States today: A look at state definitions, policies, and practices. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 28, 59–88. doi:10.1080/15377903.2012.643757
55.
MikkelsonJ. E. (1962). An experimental study of selective grouping and acceleration in junior high school mathematics (Doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota). Dissertation Abstracts International, 23, 4226–4227.
56.
MorganE. F.StuckerG. R. (1960). The Joplin Plan of reading vs. a traditional method. Journal of Educational Psychology, 51, 69–73. doi:10.1037/h0047577
57.
*MostellerF.LightR. J.SachsJ. A. (1996). Sustained inquiry in education: Lessons from skill grouping and class size. Harvard Educational Review, 66, 797–842. doi:10.17763/haer.66.4.36m328762x21610x
58.
NeihartM. (2007). The socioaffective impact of acceleration and ability grouping recommendations for best practice. Gifted Child Quarterly, 51, 330–341. doi:10.1177/0016986207306319
59.
*NolandT. K. (1986). The effects of ability grouping: A meta-analysis of research findings. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED269451
60.
OakesJ. (1985). Keeping track: How schools structure inequality. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
61.
OakesJ. (2008). Keeping track: Structuring equality and inequality in an era of accountability. Teachers College Record, 110, 700–712.
PetersJ. L.SuttonA. J.JonesD. R.AbramsK. R.RushtonL. (2008). Contour-enhanced meta-analysis funnel plots help distinguish publication bias from other causes of asymmetry. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 61, 991–996. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.11.010
64.
PetersS. J.MatthewsM. S. (2016). Gifted education research from the economists’ perspective: What have we learned?Journal of Advanced Academics, 27, 150–161. doi:10.1177/1932202X16637398
65.
PluckerJ. A.HarrisB. (2015). Acceleration and economically vulnerable children. In AssoulineS. G.ColangeloN.VanTassel-BaskaJ. (Eds.), A nation empowered (Vol. 2, pp. 181–188). Iowa City, IA: Connie Belin and Jacqueline N. Blank International Center for Gifted Education and Talent Development.
66.
PolaninJ. R.MaynardB. R.DellN. A. (2016). Overviews in educational research: A systematic review and analysis. Review of Educational Research. Advance online publication. doi:10.3102/0034654316631117
67.
PresseyS. L. (1946). Time-saving in professional training. The American Psychologist, 1, 324–329. doi:10.1037/h0062575
68.
PresseyS. L. (1949). Educational acceleration: Appraisals and basic problems. Columbus: Ohio State University.
69.
PresseyS. L. (1955). Concerning the nature and nurture of genius. Scientific Monthly, 81, 123–129. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/21966
70.
+RogersK. B. (1991). A best-evidence synthesis of research on types of accelerative programs for gifted students. Dissertation Abstracts International, 52, 796-A. (University Microfilms No. AAT91-22206).
71.
+RogersK. B. (2008). Academic acceleration and giftedness: The research from 1990 to 2008. A best-evidence synthesis. Paper presented at the proceedings of the Acceleration Poster Session at the 2008 Wallace Research Symposium on Talent Development. Retrieved from http://www.accelerationinstitute.org/proceedings_2008.pdf
72.
RogersK. B. (2015). The academic, socialization, and psychological effects of acceleration: Research synthesis. In AssoulineS. G.ColangeloN.VanTassel-BaskaJ. (Eds.), A nation empowered (Vol. 2, pp. 19–29). Iowa City, IA: Connie Belin and Jacqueline N. Blank International Center for Gifted Education and Talent Development.
73.
RothsteinH. R.SuttonA. J.BorensteinM. (2005). Publication bias in meta-analysis. In RothsteinH. R.SuttonA. J.BorensteinM. (Eds.), Publication bias in meta-analysis: Prevention, assessment and adjustments (pp. 1–9). Chichester, England: Wiley.
74.
RuhoseJ.SchwerdtG. (2015). Does early educational tracking increase migrant-native achievement gaps? Differences-in-differences evidence across countries (CESifo Working Paper Series No. 5248). Retrieved from http://ssrn.com/abstract=2584887
75.
SchmidtF. L.OhI.-S. (2013). Methods for second order meta-analysis and illustrative applications. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 121, 204–218. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2013.03.002
76.
SeashoreC. E. (1922). The gifted student and research. Science, 56, 641–648. doi:10.1126/science.56.1458.641
77.
SheaB. J.HamelC.WellsG. A.BouterL. M.KristjanssonE.GrimshawJ.. . . BoersM. (2009). AMSTAR is a reliable and valid measurement tool to assess the methodical quality of systematic reviews. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 62, 1013–1020.
78.
*SlavinR. E. (1987). Ability grouping and student achievement in elementary schools: A best-evidence synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 57, 293–336. doi:10.3102/00346543057003293
79.
*SlavinR. E. (1990). Achievement effects of ability grouping in secondary schools: A best-evidence synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 60, 471–499. doi:10.3102/00346543060003471
80.
*SlavinR. E. (1993). Ability grouping in the middle grades: Achievement effects and alternatives. Elementary School Journal, 93, 535–552. doi:10.1086/461739
81.
SlavinR. E.KarweitN. L. (1985). Effects of whole class, ability grouped, and individualized instruction on mathematics achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 22, 351–367. doi:10.3102/00028312022003351
SmithW. M. (1961). The effect of intra-class ability grouping on arithmetic achievement in grades two through five. Dissertation Abstracts International, 21, 563–556.
84.
SouthernW. T.JonesE. D. (2015). Types of acceleration: Dimensions and issues. In AssoulineS. G.ColangeloN.VanTassel-BaskaJ.Lupkowski-ShoplikA. (Eds.), A nation empowered (Vol. 2, pp. 9–18). Iowa City, IA: Connie Belin and Jacqueline N. Blank International Center for Gifted Education and Talent Development.
85.
SouthernW. T.JonesE. D.FiscusE. D. (1989). Practitioner objections to the academic acceleration of gifted children. Gifted Child Quarterly, 33, 29–35. doi:10.1177/001698628903300105
86.
StanleyJ. C. (2000). Helping students learn only what they don’t already know. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 6, 216–222. doi:10.1037/1076-8971.6.1.216
87.
StanleyT. D. (2005). Beyond publication bias. Journal of Economical Surveys, 19, 309–345. doi:10.1111/j.0950-0804.2005.00250.x
88.
StanleyT. D.DoucouliagosH. (2007). Identifying and correcting publication selection bias in the efficiency-wage literature: Heckman meta-regression. Retrieved from https://ideas.repec.org/p/dkn/econwp/eco_2007_11.html
89.
StanleyT. D.DoucouliagosH. (2014). Meta-regression approximations to reduce publication selection bias. Research Synthesis Methods, 5, 60–78. doi:10.1002/jrsm.1095
90.
+Steenbergen-HuS.MoonS. (2011).The effects of acceleration on high-ability learners: A meta-analysis. Gifted Child Quarterly, 55, 39–53. doi:10.1177/0016986210383155
91.
TermanL. (1925). Genetic studies of genius: Vol. 1. The mental and physical traits of a thousand gifted children. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
92.
TiesoC. L. (2003). Ability grouping is not just tracking anymore. Roeper Review, 26, 29–36. doi:10.1080/02783190309554236
93.
TrautweinU.LüdtkeO.MarshH. W.NagyG. (2009). Within school social comparison: How students perceive the standing of their class predicts academic self-concept. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101, 853–866. doi:10.1037/a0016306
94.
U.S. Department of Education. (2014). Public and private elementary and secondary teachers, enrollment, pupil/teacher ratios, and new teacher hires: Selected years, fall 1955 through fall 2023 (Table 208.20). Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d13/tables/dt13_208.20.asp
95.
WallenN. E.VowlesR. O. (1960). The effect of intraclass ability grouping on arithmetic achievement in the sixth grade. Journal of Educational Psychology, 51, 159–163. doi:10.1037/h0040117
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
