Indigo, really, I hope it helps improve options for everyone. Though I am particularly interested in kids at the top as I am worried about DD's education.
Because the focus of this study was the needs of students at the top (those achieving at a level one or more grades beyond the assigned grade level, as evidenced by scores on standardized tests) therefore my comment matched that, and focused on the students at the top. This does not show indifference to other students. There is simply no need to remark on them in this context, any more than it would be expected to wish a "Happy Birthday" to every attendee at a birthday party once you've acknowledged the guest of honor; while they all have birthdays, the moment is not about them.
But I really do think studying the ways that we can differentiate waste and disservice of current public education in teaching content which students already know for the highest levels of intelligence will actually provide solutions for students at every level because it will force individual needs to be seen with out collective lens.
I agree that it is essential to see individual
needs without the collective lens. However, for illustrative purposes I struck the phrase with the
buzzword differentiate and chose other words to describe this study.
I also don't think that our society will allow what will be seen as a privilege for those who many think are already "privileged" with intelligence, unless it is framed as a case study in differentiation and marketed as a way to improve our education system as a whole.
When some may wish to reframe educational needs as "privilege", I believe it is important to refocus on
needs. The right size of education to fit a pupil's growth in their zone of proximal development (ZPD) is not a privilege any more than the correct shoe size is a privilege; too-small education, like too-small shoes, can cause harm. (See related thread,
what kids don't learn.)
