Hmm ... how do you define a years' worth of progress? If gifted kids are capable of learning much more in a years' time than your ND kid (and I think that most of us agree that HG+ kids are), then is this goal even measurable? If we're looking strictly at academics versus social goals, it seems like a "year's progress" is a prohibitively nebulous term.
It is nebulous, at least until goals for a given year are set. And those goals may not/probably won't reach high enough for an HG+ child. But they would at least guarantee *some* new material every single year. That's more than HG+ kids get now.
I completely agree that anything but an individualized education is a compromise. (Frankly, it is even for ND kids!) But we have a system, and if we're going to try to improve it and not just chuck it completely, then I think we have to ask, what's the best way to include GT kids? What's the best way to be sure that they matter to teachers, that teachers actually feel the need to teach them? I think we *have* to start from there or else there's no point in even having this conversation.
I'm arguing that requiring that kids make at least a year's worth of progress from where they start is the best way I've heard.
I'm sure open to other ideas!
I think it also pays to consider the fact that this system would improve the educational lot for the high-average and MG kids, probably significantly. There's a lot of value there, I think...
