Thanks to everyone who is digging into this!
I am excited about the study as it focuses on "kids at the top", who may need more than the standard grade-level curriculum. I believe that the fact that they've identified this as a significant percentage (15%-45%) has great potential for creating future policy which would make it easier for top performing students to receive instruction in their zone of proximal development (ZPD), with less advocacy required by parents and/or less resistance to advocacy.
I find that the 3
Implications and the 3
Final Thoughts presented at the end of the
study are realistic, pragmatic, and make it very worthwhile to pursue the further research suggested.
Posters have asked great questions, which had me digging deeper and fact-checking as well.
As there is quite a bit of information presented, this is one of many times I wish we were discussing in person so we could each point to the exact words, phrases, diagrams, footnotes, etc which we are responding to at the moment (as some may find the routine back-and-forth of conversation comfortable in person, but rather painstaking and/or contentious when typed and read).
That said, I'll continue with digging into the information presented in the article (and research study upon which the article is based)... and proceed with typing responses to a few things in posts, with what I find in the information presented.
Please feel free to re-direct attention to other parts of the research study as needed.
