JonLaw I love reading your posts you always crack me up.
I am torn on this topic. I can sympathize with the idea to a degree - I know from experience that teaching can be a great way to solidify your own knowledge in a subject (in Karate, the higher belts are expected to help teach the lower belts partly for this reason). I know in middle/high school my DD enjoyed helping other students learn and she took satisfaction in being able to explain things better than the teacher.
I guess if they are teaching at or just under their own level and at the same time are being challenged themselves, it may be a good thing. But if the gifties are being forced to work with the students who never should have been promoted and in lieu of being taught anything new themselves then there's a problem.
I remember at my DD's gifted magnet elementary school, the district decided it would be a good idea to move the severely disabled (non-communicative, diapered, tube fed) students to their campus with the theory that gifted kids would be mature and sympathetic to these extremely special needs students and this would be positive for them. I remember a lot of parents being outraged because they thought the district was using their kids for free therapy. I remember fearing that my sensitive DD would be overwhelmed by sorrow for these kids and fear of their fate befalling her or a loved one.
I don't know the answer but I used to think ability grouping was it. Now I wonder if separating people strictly by ability in school really prepares them to deal with the life after school - i.e. have patience for the rest of the people they will eventually be working with. The gifted kid in math may help a student who then turns around and helps them in language, this would seem positive, no? Kind of like the workplace where the engineer with no people skills relies on the planner to get the plans through the public approval process and the planner relies on the engineer to produce plans that are viable.
Okay that's my random 2 cents on this
