I've noticed a trend of people using "high achievement" when promoting a particular pov. Statistically the Z2+ gifted are only noise in the sorts of studies that talk about the benefits of heterogenous. The other thing I find deceptive is talking about an achievement gap. Because rates of learning are different, a rounded successful program will increase gaps. The relevant discussion is if the rates themselves are improving.
From the first article: "On its face, it would appear to be an exercise in students working together to solve a problem. But a proponent of gifted segregation might view it differently: One child readily overcomes a group challenge while others watch." I remember that, it made Biology more fun to have my own two personal lab assistants.
With enough effort, and a hop in Mr. Peabody's Curriculum 2.0, they can all work together at McDonald's.
Last edited by Zen Scanner; 08/23/12 07:04 PM.
