Renzulli says,
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In our identification model (Renzulli, Reis, & Smith, 1981), we have used above average ability as the major criterion for identifying a group of students who are referred to as the Talent Pool. This group generally consists of the top 15-20% of the general school population. Test scores, teacher ratings, and other forms of status information" (i.e., information that can be gathered and analyzed at a fixed point in time) are of practical value in making certain kinds of first-level decisions about accessibility to some of the general services that should be provided by a special program.

This procedure guarantees admission to those students who earn the highest scores on cognitive ability tests. Primary among the services provided to Talent Pool students are procedures for making appropriate modifications in the regular curriculum in areas where advanced levels of ability can be clearly documented. It is nothing short of common sense to adjust the curriculum in those areas where high levels of proficiency are shown. Indeed, advanced coverage of traditional material and accelerated courses should be the "regular curriculum" for youngsters with high ability in one or more school subjects.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

http://www.gifted.uconn.edu/sem/semart13.html

He also says that it is important to have these decisions made by human beings, not a formula. Does that mean somebody with an ax to grind might apply Renzulli's criteria in the way that Delisle describes? Sure it does! When you give a team of human beings the authority to make an educational decision on their own best judgment, anything might happen. But that doesn't mean what Delisle describes is the way Renzulli intended the model to be used.

I considered going to graduate school at UConn (where Renzulli works), but then I saw the 80s clipart in some of the presentations that department had on the web. Call me overexcitable, but I just would not be able to handle it. Those would get under my skin.