I only skimmed the article but I can see how his model can be a beginning of a very slippery slope as he seems to equate giftedness with being highly determined and productive.
Yeah, I think that the things that leave me leery of Renzulli's model are that he seems to require performance to be considered gifted and that he defines it a bit broadly (above avg ability but not necessarily superior ability). As the parent of a very 2e kid, I do appreciate there being more than one path in to the GT classes, but I also worry that allowing for kids to be considered gifted even without superior ability allows for GT programs such as we have where I live where most of the kids got in because teachers who don't understand the difference between gifted and high achiever thought they were gifted.
Have you all read these two articles by Jim Delisle?
http://www.hoagiesgifted.org/defining_moment.htmhttp://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2010/03/31/27delisle_ep.h29.html?print=1&override=webThe second one I can't seem to find in its entirety free online anymore, but he is essentially arguing that definitions like Renzulli's and the multiple intelligences model muddy the waters and that we need to get back to defining gifted as a small select group of kids who are intellectually superior not possessed of a mulitude of talents.
