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.)
It seems like an ambitious undertaking, but I agree it needs to change. Based on the response I've seen in everyday discussion, and the denial of the existence of higher cognitive ability, it seems like a big challenge. Perhaps I'm suffering from defeatism at the moment, but I recently had a couple conversations with people I consider quite intelligent, who don't believe in IQ differences (at least at the top; most people seem to accept that there are differences at the bottom, with just a few people at the very top who are obviously out there, but not that 2% have much different needs) nor that student needs are big enough to require anything beyond classroom differentiation. They both think that the gifted label stems from home enrichment and privilege, rather than higher intellectual ability. Also that it all evens out in the end, and everyone should have access to the same materials.
