While ultimately I agree with the final question you pose, I'm not following parts of your post and have three follow-up questions. Possibly there is confusion over definitions.
They say anyone short of PG isn't really gifted, so there should be no accommodations.
1)
Who is "they"... who says that anyone short of profoundly gifted is not really gifted? There are many articles and webpages which discuss the normal distribution curve for IQ and levels of gifted (LOG). Many have termed moderately gifted as optimally gifted, and profoundly gifted as outliers beyond the scope of many gifted programs and services.
2)
No accommodations? The word "accommodations" has a specific meaning in education and advocacy, which is typically:
agreed-upon supports to address the needs of learning disabilities or learning differences for children with an IEP or 504. Gifted kids can also have an LD, and then are termed twice-exceptional or 2e, and may receive accommodations. In this context, possibly you do not mean
accommodations but rather
differentiation in curriculum, instruction, and pacing, especially when you say "they're not just 12 months ahead".
They say all gifted kids drop out of college anyway
3)
Do you have a source to share, that informs this view? A research paper, article, book, thread/post, etc?
Because they have not ever in their lives been asked to do something difficult or uncomfortable.
Unfortunately, gifted kids spend much of their school years doing what is difficult or uncomfortable:
- waiting for others
- tutoring other kids
- being ignored, invalidated, or
undermined- watching others receiving attention, encouragement, support, validation, and affirmation
- teaching themselves (often they may receive higher level worksheets without instruction.
However they may lack:
-
appropriate academic challenge at their zone of proximal development (ZPD),
-
intellectual peers.
Why is a kid with a higher IQ worth less than any other kid? Why do they deserve to get thrown by the wayside when everyone else gets taught how to strive and fail, and strive and succeed?
Agreed. This is the quintessential question. Some may envy them, some do not trust them because they do not follow the typical development for their chronological age and may be highly internally motivated (less responsive to external rewards), others may fear them because they find them to be eerily "scary smart". Some IRBs may find it justifiable to place these children in a control group while attempting to grow the intellect of other children, specifically for comparison to see if equal outcomes can be achieved.
