I tend to agree that at the elementary level it is usually possible and appropriate to differentiate for students who are 1 year ahead (provided teacher is able/willing and there are at least 1-2 peers). The range of ability/acheivement in an elementary classroom is broad, and end of the year standards are generally the minimal level of proficiency for that grade. Many students will demonstrate skills above that level, but still be within the proficient (vs. advanced) range, because they aren't a full year ahead. I do think that all students who are a full year ahead in any subject should have new learning goals stated in writing, and should have those goals evaluated in writing on the same schedule as the report card. Learning goals could be very simple--e.g. a rising second grader who is demonstrating end of year acheivement levels could simply have "will meet 3rd grade level standards in ________". I don't object to having those goals worked on within the context of the 2nd grade classroom (again, depending on teacher/peer situation), and I recognize that that is the reasoning behind trying to identify students who are at least two years ahead before considering grade acceleration.
However, this approach doesn't make sense to me in middle/high school structures. Generally students are switching classes for each subject, and therefore I believe that a student who can pass the end of the year test (at least for a subject as concrete/linear in development as math) should be placed in a class working on the grade standards that they actually need next. If there are a few students, they can be absorbed. If there are many, then one (or more) of the "sixth grade sections" should be converted to a "seventh grade section" (or whatever grade is involved). As to students who test two grades ahead (or more) I still believe that at the middle/high school level they should be placed two years ahead, not just one grade in that subject. The exception would be when a quality honors program is available to all students who meet prerequisite standards. Honors programs, when well planned and delivered, can, I think, sometimes be more effective than acceleration. Unfortunately, the presence of large numbers of students who are "ahead" does not guarantee appropriate instruction (sigh)
.
