Yeah, but I think that this really just argues semantics.
Which I still see as rather ridiculous since in my mind (and that of many good educators I've known) it's all ONE thing-- kids need the education that they are ready for, are capable of learning from, and they need to feel included in a classroom environment of peers.
The labeling and hand-wringing over the labels is just-- well, it's just weird. It ignores the pragmatic aspects of things which are more or less unchanging generation after generation. Some kids ARE at different readiness levels. That's all.
I mean, I do get what you're saying, MoN. I do. This is what our district does, too. There really ISN'T any meaningful GT here, because it is what has been used to replace that nasty term "tracking."
Oh, except that we no longer even call it "GT" after elementary school. It's just "honors" or "advanced" or "AP." (You know, versus "standard" or "basic" or "foundations" or "essentials.")
But it's still ability grouping, when you get right down to it. How could ANYONE think that an AP class is a "mixed ability" classroom?? Well, I mean-- technically, it IS, but only in the sense that you can call it either thing, depending upon how narrowly you define "similar ability." KWIM? This is the problem with GT programs that try to be "inclusive" and wind up capturing 20%+ of a school population-- they really amount to tracking at that point, which is just the broader version of ability grouping. Kind of, anyway.
Often, in elementary, kids with similar needs CAN be grouped in one classroom, and then swapped out to other subject specialist teachers within a grade cluster. That actually works tolerably well when implemented carefully, since you can have three second grade teachers, each an endorsed subject specialist in Math/Science, Literacy, in Social Sciences... that way, all the kids in the grade can be grouped into classrooms based on language arts levels (or math levels- whatever you want to consider the "base")... and from there, pulled into other rooms for on-level instruction in the other areas in the instance of the kids who need either much more intensive instruction, or those ready for advanced material (past grade level). It's a little complicated to schedule, but it can work really well. Some kids will be paired with particular teachers for reasons other than their basic academic placement (so perhaps one of those teachers is better for dealing with kids who have anxiety, or another who is great with psychomotor OE's or something).
This business of "spreading them out" has never made sense to experienced classroom teachers, I'll say that. Aside from fairly serious behavioral problems, I mean. It doesn't help anyone-- well, except for administrators who get soundbites that deliver the warm fuzzies. :sigh:
Of course, mandatory test-test-testing gets in the way of all of this authentic learning anyway. So it's still sort of a moot point.
