I wish the locals could just use their best efforts and their best judgement. If "every child would benefit from GATE instruction" then why aren't they using that instruction as the standard with remedial classes for the remainder? If a child's ready for more why should it take costly testing? (..accountability because we don't trust the teachers or the parents). Shouldn't the teacher know if a kid is teachable? And if it comes from the pushy parent or the child, whose child is it to raise? The only drawback is that if you let them try and they fail then it adds a year to the cost of their free public education. I guess I'm saying nobody would have to advocate special circumstances for gifted children except that nobody else really wants to do the work at an advanced level so they don't want anyone else to.
I guess I'm saying it doesn't matter if it's 10% or 2% if the only accommodations offered are easy for the top half of average. For meaningful differentiation for the 2%+ you need to have some local discretion between what the school can provide and what the kids family wants. More definition might lead to more restriction on what the school can provide and the upper level gifted really need more discretion on a local level to provide their education.
-signed, my whining wishful-thinking inner child.
