This question always interests me - I never understand why it's positioned as an either/or (or "vs.").
Take two kids with equal, high intellectual ability. Have one slog through standard school curriculum while the other gets the enrichment, support, etc. as described. The latter is likely to have a better outcame.
Put a high performer and an average performer through the same process - wither standard or enriched, and the high performer is likely to have a better outcome.
"Does the other student's IQ really matter or is it their work efforts/achievements that matter"
"Both" seems to be the obvious answer to me.
Support and enrich an average performer and put a high performer through a mediocre, standard development process and, at some level, they'll have similar outcomes.
I don't think only one of them is important. They're closer to additive/multiplicative.
