As we all know, the left has a specific strategy to address educational inequality, which reached its peak of implementation during the Biden administration.
I believe every "group" has IQ distributed on a Bell Curve and that the biggest driver of IQ differences between groups is dependent on the level of education among females. There have been a few articles crediting male competitiveness for their performance in chess compared to females, yet when it comes to K-12 and pointing out that societies where the education of girls is spotty, I get a blank stare. If one wants to raise IQ scores in those places, send all the girls to school and the male competitiveness will kick in and they will buckle down.
This is an excellent essay, indeed. You are correct, the issues are quite complex. One problem is that when people discuss "group" differences, they often don't understand how to define the groups. For instance, see, "When ‘Black’ & ‘Hispanic’ Students Outscore ‘Asian’ & ‘White’ Students on the ACT, Nobody Notices" https://everythingisbiology.substack.com/p/when-black-and-hispanic-students … Thank you again for an excellent essay. Sincerely, Frederick
Excellent article, Michael. Too bad we live in a world in which much of what you state should be common sense, but is widely rejected by embraced ignorance in the name of equity.
I've covered, from different angles, much of this perspective in my book. If you (or anyone else) are interested in reading it, send your email to ZepharethLedbetter@gmail.com, and I'll send you a Google Drive share.
The fact that these things are even necessary to discuss today is mind blowing.
"Warne dismisses these objections as irrational and unsupported by data, noting that research shows no academic or social harm from acceleration." Do you happen to have a citation for this? I just find it hard to believe that a kid who is 1-2 years younger than his/her classmates will not suffer any social harm (Being shorter, behind in puberty, etc would be quite noticeable and kids do care about such things. Plus, being intellectually ahead doesn't mean being emotionally ahead).
Great question. Short answer: yes, there’s quite a bit of research that suggests accelerated (especially “gifted”) students do not generally suffer social harm — and in many cases may even benefit socially or emotionally. But, as with many educational interventions, results depend on the type of acceleration, individual student factors, and context. Here are some key findings and sources, plus caveats.
Evidence & Documentation That Acceleration Doesn’t Lead to Social Harm
Social-Emotional Characteristics Study (Netherlands)
A study comparing accelerated vs non-accelerated gifted students (ages 4–27) found minimal differences in social-emotional measures. Interestingly, some results favored the accelerated group. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23025394/?utm_source=chatgpt.com
The National Association for Gifted Children (NAGC) states that researchers “overall … have seen no effect or positive effects on students’ social and psychological adjustments” across acceleration types. https://www.nagc.org/acceleration?utm_source=chatgpt.com
Yes — there is strong documentation showing that accelerated students do not, on average, experience social harm, and many studies suggest neutral to positive social-emotional outcomes. The weight of the research supports the idea that worries about social damage are often overstated, especially when acceleration is done carefully and with support.
I believe every "group" has IQ distributed on a Bell Curve and that the biggest driver of IQ differences between groups is dependent on the level of education among females. There have been a few articles crediting male competitiveness for their performance in chess compared to females, yet when it comes to K-12 and pointing out that societies where the education of girls is spotty, I get a blank stare. If one wants to raise IQ scores in those places, send all the girls to school and the male competitiveness will kick in and they will buckle down.
This is an excellent essay, indeed. You are correct, the issues are quite complex. One problem is that when people discuss "group" differences, they often don't understand how to define the groups. For instance, see, "When ‘Black’ & ‘Hispanic’ Students Outscore ‘Asian’ & ‘White’ Students on the ACT, Nobody Notices" https://everythingisbiology.substack.com/p/when-black-and-hispanic-students … Thank you again for an excellent essay. Sincerely, Frederick
Excellent article, Michael. Too bad we live in a world in which much of what you state should be common sense, but is widely rejected by embraced ignorance in the name of equity.
I've covered, from different angles, much of this perspective in my book. If you (or anyone else) are interested in reading it, send your email to ZepharethLedbetter@gmail.com, and I'll send you a Google Drive share.
The fact that these things are even necessary to discuss today is mind blowing.
ZL
It is insane to me that some people won't admit intelligence affects success in school.
"Warne dismisses these objections as irrational and unsupported by data, noting that research shows no academic or social harm from acceleration." Do you happen to have a citation for this? I just find it hard to believe that a kid who is 1-2 years younger than his/her classmates will not suffer any social harm (Being shorter, behind in puberty, etc would be quite noticeable and kids do care about such things. Plus, being intellectually ahead doesn't mean being emotionally ahead).
From Chatgpt.
Great question. Short answer: yes, there’s quite a bit of research that suggests accelerated (especially “gifted”) students do not generally suffer social harm — and in many cases may even benefit socially or emotionally. But, as with many educational interventions, results depend on the type of acceleration, individual student factors, and context. Here are some key findings and sources, plus caveats.
Evidence & Documentation That Acceleration Doesn’t Lead to Social Harm
Longitudinal Evidence from Vanderbilt
A recent study from Vanderbilt (Study of Mathematically Precocious Youth) found no negative long-term effects on psychological well-being for gifted students who were accelerated (e.g., grade-skipping, early graduation). https://news.vanderbilt.edu/2020/08/03/academic-acceleration-has-no-negative-long-term-effects-on-the-psychological-well-being-of-gifted-youth/?utm_source=chatgpt.com
Meta-Analysis / Best Evidence Synthesis (Karen Rogers)
In a “best-evidence synthesis” of over 300 studies, socialization (peer relationships, social adjustment) and psychological outcomes showed no substantial negative effects for most acceleration types. https://www.davidsongifted.org/gifted-blog/a-best-evidence-synthesis-of-research-on-acceleration-options-for-gifted-students/?utm_source=chatgpt.com
For grade-skipping in particular, there were positive socialization effect sizes. https://www.davidsongifted.org/gifted-blog/a-best-evidence-synthesis-of-research-on-acceleration-options-for-gifted-students/?utm_source=chatgpt.com
Social-Emotional Characteristics Study (Netherlands)
A study comparing accelerated vs non-accelerated gifted students (ages 4–27) found minimal differences in social-emotional measures. Interestingly, some results favored the accelerated group. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23025394/?utm_source=chatgpt.com
The authors even say multiple grade-skipping “does not have negative effects … long-term effects … tend to be positive.” https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23025394/?utm_source=chatgpt.com
Policy / Practitioner Summaries
The National Association for Gifted Children (NAGC) states that researchers “overall … have seen no effect or positive effects on students’ social and psychological adjustments” across acceleration types. https://www.nagc.org/acceleration?utm_source=chatgpt.com
The Illinois State Board of Education (ISBE) in a report on acceleration notes that “the research … does not create social or psychological problems for the majority of academically talented students who accelerate.” https://www.isbe.net/Documents/Dev-Academic-Acceleration.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com
Social-Emotional Effects in “A Nation Empowered”
In A Nation Empowered, a comprehensive report on acceleration, researchers (Cross, Andersen, & Mammadov) found positive effects on social self-esteem, especially for grade-skipping. https://ncrge.uconn.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/982/2022/12/ch3-A-Nation-Empowered-Vol2-3.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com
Historical / Classic Research
Earlier longitudinal work (e.g., by Pollins, via Davidson Institute) reviewed cases of “radical accelerants” (students who accelerated many years) and found no permanent or significant negative social/emotional effects. https://www.davidsongifted.org/gifted-blog/the-effects-of-acceleration-on-the-social-and-emotional-development-of-gifted-students/?utm_source=chatgpt.com
In fact, in those studies, some “accelerants” even had higher occupational success, more education, and good interpersonal adjustment. https://www.davidsongifted.org/gifted-blog/the-effects-of-acceleration-on-the-social-and-emotional-development-of-gifted-students/?utm_source=chatgpt.com
PhD Dissertation on Long-Term Effects
A dissertation by Baxter examines long-term social-emotional outcomes and concludes that while there may be an initial dip in self-concept right after acceleration, over time self-confidence and satisfaction often improve. https://getd.libs.uga.edu/pdfs/baxter_patricia_b_200908_phd.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com
Caveats / Nuances
Individual Differences Matter: Not all students are the same. Some may struggle socially for a while after acceleration, especially during transitions, though many studies note that these are often temporary. https://getd.libs.uga.edu/pdfs/baxter_patricia_b_200908_phd.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com
Type of Acceleration: Effects depend on how the student accelerates. Whole-grade skipping, subject acceleration, early college—even among those, social outcomes vary. https://www.davidsongifted.org/gifted-blog/acceleration-what-we-do-vs-what-we-know/?utm_source=chatgpt.com
Study Methodology: Some critiques point out that “no negative effect” findings might reflect limitations like small samples, insensitive measures, or selection bias. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/234652801_The_Social_and_Emotional_Development_of_Gifted_Students?utm_source=chatgpt.com
Long-Term vs Short-Term: Some negative social effects may occur immediately after acceleration (e.g., “temporarily feeling different”), but many studies suggest these fade or reverse over time. https://www.davidsongifted.org/gifted-blog/the-effects-of-acceleration-on-the-social-and-emotional-development-of-gifted-students/?utm_source=chatgpt.com
Support Matters: Successful acceleration often involves good support — e.g., thoughtful placement, guidance, social-emotional check-ins. Reports like the Florida Dept. of Education’s brief emphasize the role of planning. https://www.fldoe.org/core/fileparse.php/7690/urlt/0070108-gift_accel.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com
Conclusion
Yes — there is strong documentation showing that accelerated students do not, on average, experience social harm, and many studies suggest neutral to positive social-emotional outcomes. The weight of the research supports the idea that worries about social damage are often overstated, especially when acceleration is done carefully and with support.