PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC SCHOOL SUPERINTENDENT BELIEFS AND PRACTICES REGARDING SINGLE SUBJECT ACCELERATION IN AN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL SETTING

Abstract

This study was designed to identify factors that might influence Pennsylvania public school superintendents in the decision regarding the potential use of single-subject acceleration as a practice for meeting the needs of students in the elementary setting. The research targeted public school superintendents in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. In Pennsylvania, gifted education is mandated by Chapter 16 of the Pennsylvania School Code, yet acceleration policy is left to the local education agency (LEA), the school district. Since use of single-subject acceleration is not consistent across districts, this study sought to understand how administrators make decisions about using this tool. Previous research identified teacher and counselor perception of acceleration. Because the superintendent is instrumental in developing district policy, this research focused on their perceptions of this one specific acceleration tool. The research survey was delivered electronically to district superintendents via email using publically available district email addresses. Of the four hundred and ninety- nine (499) state superintendents, 96 returned the survey for a response rate of 20%. The survey included questions for the superintendent about the district’s size and its designation as urban, suburban, or rural. The survey also included questions about the superintendent’s background in regards to receiving gifted services or training in acceleration as well as the superintendent’s perceptions of gifted education. The survey was intended to address three research questions. 1. What factors impact Pennsylvania superintendents in adopting the practice of single-subject acceleration in their districts? 2. How might the personal and professional background of Pennsylvania superintendents, including experience and training, affect decisions in regard to use of single-subject acceleration? 3. What are superintendent’s attitudes about gifted education? Of the respondents, there were 46 each from suburban and rural districts and 4 from urban districts. The majority of the respondents had under six years of experience and under 250 annual graduates in their districts. Fewer than 20% identified as having been trained in single-subject acceleration, and 51% expressed utilizing single-subject acceleration. Quantitative survey research results revealed that superintendents in larger districts and suburban districts – characteristics that are confounded – are more likely to utilize single-subject acceleration. Further, superintendents expressed concern with transportation issues and logistical, scheduling, and coordination issues associated with single-subject acceleration. The quantitative survey results showed few correlations with superintendents’ background and utilization of the practice of single subject acceleration. The results, identified, however, indicate that the more training or life exposure regarding gifted education, the greater the support and the lower the concerns with gifted education. Further, those trained in single-subject acceleration were more likely to anticipate support from their boards regarding single-subject acceleration. Pennsylvania public school superintendents expressed support generally for gifted education even if it were not mandated under Chapter 16. The superintendents overwhelmingly agreed that the gifted need special attention to develop talents. More than a quarter of the superintendents disagreed, however, that a greater number of children should be allowed to skip a grade however while over forty percent of superintendents express neutrality on that topic. Yet, superintendents responded with disagreement about supporting gifted education in their districts; only 15 superintendents expressed agreeing or strongly agreeing with supporting gifted education in their district. This result, seemingly contradictory with other findings, is worthy of deeper investigation. Follow-up qualitative research utilized an interview format and targeted survey respondent volunteers. The follow-up interviews were used to gain deeper insight on the survey questions than binary or Likert-scale questions could reveal. The qualitative interviews revealed tremendous weight on organizational dynamics among the superintendent, school board, teachers, parents, and community at large. In regards to single-subject acceleration, interviews highlighted that culture needed to support single-subject acceleration or student need for acceleration must be strongly evident.