This response to HE 531 678 argues that, although there is evidence that accelerated programs designed for gifted children can be effective, most emphasize enrichment, not true acceleration. Enrichment is seen as appropriate for all students, not just the highest-achieving 3%. (MSE)

It is argued that lack of sustained academic effort, not student grouping, is the major reason for differences in student performance. Ability grouping is seen as a useful tool, especially in accelerated programs for bright children, that should not be rejected in favor of approaches that ignore individual differences. (MSE)

This response to HE 531 676 proposes that critics of ability grouping for instruction are looking at grouping as a social, not educational, issue and that research supports the notion that grouping is good for all students, not just high-achievers. Gifted education is seen as a legitimate educational undertaking compatible with other goals. (MSE)

A discussion of tracking, or student grouping by academic ability, looks at arguments for and against such tracking, outlines several alternatives, including cooperative learning, active teaching strategies, and extended learning time for low-achievers. It is concluded that tracking is ineffective, harmful to many, and undermines democratic…