One thing that might be influencing the current (or, last few decades) tendency not to accelerate is an idea that there should be "equal outcomes". Now, I'm not sure at all of this - never really thought about *equal* outcomes (as opposed to equal opportunity) until coming across the phrase in Miraca Gross's book a few weeks ago. She was talking about Australia, but since that time I've noticed that possibly the same idea is in play in the US. Perhaps there is an underlying idea that some kids (especially if they aren't low income/minority) shouldn't be allowed to get ahead because it results in inequality... You can see how this might lead to an attitude that acceleration is bad.
I don't happen to agree with this premise myself, but thought I'd share as I had not previously thought about the difference between equal opportunity and equal outcome. I'm also not at all certain that this particular social agenda is what lies behind age grouping at school. I'm just thinking about it aloud, sort of.
You make a very valid point. Do you think it is only a possibility? I confess to know little if anything at all about the NCLB legislation but I would think the concept of equal outcome/social justice plays a part in it, but then again maybe I'm way off the mark!
