Yes! Educators enter the field because they want to make a difference in the lives of children--to inspire and transform, not only academically, but holistically.

And for your DS and others, the cost benefit analysis could be changed if completing a small selection of easy tasks that demonstrate sufficient mastery to the teacher provided access to progressively more challenging materials (as in curriculum compacting using the test-out approach).

In addition to external stereotyping, there are also internal pressures, especially among those same populations, to mask gifts in order to blend in with perceived peer and authority expectations. The homeostasis of bias has many dimensions.

I work very hard to play to this when negotiating for my kids. I am bashing my head against a brick wall atm and it is really doing my head in. It's quite heartbreaking....

In some schools/districts, focusing not on demonstrable academic skill achieved and pupil readiness ("need") for advanced material in the zone of proximal development... but rather on a student's mental processing and belief systems (such as identity as a learner, emotional well being, and belief in their ability to be successful) may result in extensive journaling assignments examined by school counselors, scheduled pupil visits to the school psychologist, and even unwarranted encounters with child services. YMMV.

While some, many, or most educators may enter the field because they want to make a difference in the lives of children, I'm also aware of a good number who choose not the field of education, per se, but specifically government school education due to the strong union, salary, and lifelong benefits. On the other hand, some of the most noble teachers I've met have been those who work in private, independent, or parochial schools, where the goals are NOT equal outcomes, but inspiring each student to acknowledge and appreciate differences, and through grit, determination, resilience, and perseverance, be the best they can be. YMMV.

I'm not currently aware of teacher-provided access to progressively more challenging materials (such as curriculum compacting using the test-out approach), as these, in some areas, may be relics of the past now that a policy of "equal outcomes" has become entrenched, and teachers are evaluated on extensive data collection including grade books which show there are no performance gaps, no achievement gaps, no excellence gaps, among pupils in their classrooms. YMMV.

I do agree that documenting and demonstrating sufficient mastery may help a pupil be cluster grouped with others of similar ability and readiness. Especially if the pupil is grouped with a higher grade level in which their performance would not show as a "gap" between themselves and other pupils in that classroom.

In regard to "internal pressures... to mask gifts in order to blend in with perceived peer and authority expectations... homeostasis of bias..." are you referring to a perceptive gifted pupil observing that there is an expectation of equal outcomes for all pupils, and the gifted pupil understands that they are not to exceed this?

That is one among the possible scenarios. I also refer to GT students incorrectly perceiving peer social norms to be markers of adult or institutional expectations. Or even prioritiing those lower, unspoken peer norms over higher, overt adult expectations. More nuanced examples would include misattributing their own emotional experience to internal failings rather than external failings. For example, when a child thinks they are "bad at" a skill when in reality it is well below their true instructional level, and thus experienced as not engaging (aka, "boring").

Excellent insight, aeh.
As usual.

Awww, MumofThree, I’m so sorry to hear that! Would it be helpful to discuss? Feel free to PM if you’d like to brainstorm ideas privately. You have my heartfelt support.

That is so kind of you! I may well reach out but I have a few too many plates spinning atm. Hopefully later in the week.