My kids' school admits to doing this. They take the top 3 kids from each grade and make sure they are all in a different classroom the next year (until they are forced by the district to do cluster grouping in third grade, but even then they don't necessarily put them in the same class). The goal is to make it "fair" to all the teachers. Another thing the principal is doing with grades that have the cluster group, is that he is putting the kids at the rock bottom in the same class, so that the ability levels average out to the same as the other classes. Maybe that's why the teacher has NO TIME to do anything with the cluster group.
Our elementary did this, too. While the district is not huge, it was not until 7th and 8th grade that my DD met the few kids who are probably her nearest academic peers (and who have become good friends). A huge relief- we knew they were probably out there, but it seemed impossible that they had not crossed paths before this.
When my DS was in the same school, a few years later, he was actually grouped in a class with several similar kids for a few years- this has made all the difference socially, as they have a tight circle of friends and find each other even though they are not always grouped in classes.
Yes, unfortunately grouping the gifted with intellectual peers was largely discontinued in the wake of No Child Left Behind, with any remaining practice discontinued in the name of closing the achievement gap and/or closing the excellence gap.
The way in which this is said to be "fair" to teachers is by the artificial connection of teacher evaluation with student achievement as measured by scores on standardized tests. Unfortunately there is little acknowledgement of the ways in which this is not fair to teachers, including the unrealistic expectation of being able to simultaneously teach to the broad range of abilities and readiness within one classroom. By unifying in promoting ways to be more fair to teachers and pupils, parents may be able to bring about change. There is a saying: "What you reward, you get more of." Some have suggested we may need to reward providing opportunity. Gifted kids, high achievers, and ALL kids, thrive when they have opportunity to achieve. We may want to reward the creation of opportunity to achieve, in all its forms.
I believe research has shown that flexible cluster grouping by readiness and ability benefits kids at ALL levels... if I recall, the gifted and high achievers may challenge each other to remain engaged and learning, while gen ed pupils may feel more comfortable to ask a question or offer an answer which may not be correct without the gifted and high achieving kids present. Without fear of being wrong or standing out, ALL kids were more likely to develop a growth mindset and flourish.
Applying quotas to education based on statistics is not logical. By analogy, applying quotas to medical practice based on statistics may help illustrate this: If statistics show that a certain percentage of children are diagnosed with a particular condition nationally, then it would be cause for concern if pediatricians began to model their own practice or case load after these statistics... for this would indicate that some patients may be diagnosed and treated unnecessarily while others may be lacking needed treatment. Better to diagnose according to the symptoms the patient presents with, rather than modeling to statistics.
When some say there are too many kids in GT programs, and they are expressing in a sound-bite that there are a broad range of abilities which precludes the outliers from receiving appropriate curriculum and placement... the answer may again be flexible cluster grouping by readiness and ability. Gifted is not one-size-fits-all. The book from Prufrock Press on Advanced Academics may be of help in guiding teachers/schools/districts to creating a better educational experience for both teachers and pupils.
