Back to the OP's article... a few random thoughts...
Commentary on Mt 25:29 - "
A muscle that is not exercised tends to degenerate and lose its power."
The
Matthew Effect is not a reverse-RobinHood, it is just a simple truism.
After meta-memory training for both groups of children,
gifted children performed much better than nongifted children, demonstrating transfer of the strategy to a new, dissimilar, task.
This simply seems to acknowledge that giftedness is more than "training", as gifted kids often make connections between things and may excel at strategy acquisition and transferring learned strategies to other situations.
many interventions provide training in areas in which the higher functioning group has already mastered the skills
Unfortunately this seems to describe "gifted programs" which provide greatest benefit to high-achieving but non-gifted kids (
IQ < 116), as the curriculum and pacing in these programs may not provide gifted students (those with IQ => 132) with much opportunity for learning new material on a regular basis.
if policymakers intend some cognitive interventions to close preexisting gaps, then such demonstrations underscore the need for more focused, targeted interventions that boost the lower scoring group without adding to the higher scoring group’s preintervention advantage
Unfortunately some school districts do this, for example by
providing targeted groups of students with advance notice of quizzes, prepared study notes, etc. This can manipulate student grades, providing an artificially high score on transcripts.
One can imagine from an ethical position a case being made that every student has an intrinsic right to have access to any intervention that is known to improve performance. Thus, one could argue that any intervention that elevates the performance of any student should be made available to that student, without regard to his or her financial needs, ethnic membership, aptitude level, or the social and political consequences of that student’s elevation vis-a`-vis lower functioning peers.
Equal opportunity.
Some may say this is related to unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
However, when funding is so limited that the intervention cannot be made universally available, then hard decisions have to be made as to whether the program should be targeted exclusively to those most in need.
There is virtually no cost associated with
redo opportunities, therefore no logical financial basis for limiting them to an underperforming segment of the student population, rather than making them universally available.
In summary, this article seemed to be about finding ways to ensure that gifted kids stagnate. Parents, beware! Here is a post about ways in which some schools
close gaps by capping the growth of kids at the top.
