This leads me to the real question for you guys - am I guilty of confirmation bias myself?
I have only seen articles that basically tell you that your child will crash and burn (or turn into a dysfunctional husk of what they could have been) if they do not get accelerated. Could someone point me to any accelerations that had negative consequences?
There is very little good research on accelerated children vs unaccelerated. Most of what gets presented as research is anecdote or hopelessly outdated. Whether skipping helped children in 1990 has little utility today when college courses are available free online and there are so many resources outside of school or to be used within a school setting.
I could tell you about many accelerations that have had negative consequences, but these would also be anecdotal and not that helpful. Whether acceleration could be negative for your child depends on your options and your child. Skipping one year seems pretty easy for most kids, but multi-year skips can lead to mismatches that can be challenging. These are easily negotiated by some kids and massive stumbling blocks for others. The social fit can be harder with more age mismatch. Kids who do well and finish college early sometimes struggle to find a path. For kids with clear plans for grad school in STEM, early can be great and save time on an arduous journey. For kids trying to go to med school or psych grad school, acceptances for 18 yo are quite rare. It can be challenging for kids who are 18 or 19 and out of college to find jobs. It can be even harder for them to figure out what they want to do. I know one very young graduate who ended up working for a few years while trying to get admitted into med school. I'd rather my kids spend that time at home with me paying the bills than working themselves.
I can assure you that we've chosen to pursue higher level learning without changing the actual grade level and have seen no crash and burn or "dysfunctional husk" (like that phrase!). Things that I like about acceleration -- getting closer to the right level, better social maturity of peers, faster access to wider circles (high school changing classes makes taking APs in 9th easier than a 2nd grader getting access to appropriate work), and fewer years of big misfit. Things I don't like -- my kids are in no hurry and higher level work takes more time so they have less free time which they use to grow and learn and explore, skipping one or two or three grades would not be helpful or fix the educational mismatch, uncertainty about whether a 15 yo would be ready to leave home for college, and a massive hassle every year trying to make things work in the age grade. Competitions that depend on grade level may be fun and children are more competitive without skips.
I agree that it's hard to blame poor outcomes on skips or vice versa. There are just too many variables and skipping is just one factor that affects outcome.
