I do agree with a lot of the points made here and the likely intent of the study -- gifted kids exist in disadvantaged schools and homes just as they exist elsewhere and low expectations depress performance. I absolutely see the value in teachers teaching all children as if they are capable and if this approach increases performance, great.
What I wonder on is the sheer number of kids who can be taught to perform highly enough to be considered gifted and what that means about the construct as a whole and/or the tests being used for assessment. The original study was unclear on what tests were required for identification in NC, but did state that a full 25% of the kids in the classrooms with the interventions met the criterion for referral for GT consideration and 15-20% of the total number of kids met the criterion for identification after referral (most of the kids who were referred).
I don't, personally, define gifted as that large of a chunk of the population so I am left wondering not just about underidentification of minorities and low income kids (which I do think is a real problem), but also about what gifted means and how we test for it.
