This is a charitable interpretation, but I take his article
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/hunghsi-wu/math-education_b_1901299.htmlat face value. I am sure he is highly articulate and capable of clearly expressing what he wants to say, so if he had meant to say something different he surely would have done so. The article is unambiguously vehemently anti-acceleration. Based on this article I certainly don't see him as one of the good guys. I also question the ability of someone who thinks this way to construct a good set of standards. His reasoning is so totally non-sensical.
I disagree; I've started going through his stuff and he seems to really get it as far as the curriculum is concerned. Read the document I posted earlier in ths thread and you'll see what I mean. Remember, this guy is a professor emeritus of mathematics at UC Berkeley. I looked through the titles of his his non-education papers and they seemed like serious stuff.
I agree that the blog post comes across as being essentially clueless about HG+ students and is lumping them in with the tiger cubs. It's possible that he really has no idea about giftedness and levels thereof. Many of us here are HG+ and didn't understand the topic before we had kids and/or arrived here. Not knowing something is okay, but what I don't like is that he made sweeping pronouncements without examining the problem thoroughly. Someone in his position should know better than to do that.
Especially someone who has put so much effort into fixing mistaken assumptions about math education.
