I don't have personal experience either way, but I've certainly read of plenty of cases where precisely the opposite happens.
Oh...this comment intrigues me. Do tell!?
Again, not my direct experience, but from reading threads on this forum and elsewhere, I gather that in some schools, children who obediently do all the boring busywork correctly are favored (for access to advanced work) over those who refuse because it's to easy, or who made mistakes due to frustration/boredom. They are not given the chance to demonstrate more advanced skills, but instead must demonstrate compliance with non-advanced tasks. Another problem is that lack of exemplorary classroom conduct may disqualify one for access to advanced work. Instead, the imperfect classroom conduct is focussed on as a problem to be resolved before academics are considered.
This perfectly captures what happened for DS' entire first grade year. In addition, these mistakes and non-compliance were held up as evidence that DS was unlikely to be gifted, since "we've had gifted children and they are always the ones finding something productive to do." (DS was finding his version of productivity, entertaining his classmates with his comedic routines. The teachers were not amused.) He later tested at the PG level.
And also something I fought against for years when I was on the gifted screening committee in my old district; teachers consistently referred kids with IQs in the 110s who were personable, compliant, and worked quickly, and routinely overlooked a few kids with CogAT and ITBS scores in the 130s across the board. Oh, and they underreferred students of color and linguistic minorities, too.
I think one of the problems is that a lot of teachers refer children who are like themselves, or an idealized picture of themselves at that age.
