When my sister and I were in middle school, the school district got a gifted program [huzzah!], went around testing all these kids by teacher recommendation, yadayadayada. When all was said and done, I made the cutoff, and my older sister did not. OK, fast forward 30 odd years, and I'm a teacher. My older, better-focused sister is a medical doctor, making, perhaps, 12 or 20 times as much money as I am. What Renzulli's 3-Ring concept means to me is that both of us should have been in the gifted program, and that seems right to me.
I wonder if your school had used a better identifying instrument, if your sister would indeed have been identifying without resorting to Renzulli's 3-Ring concept.
I also question your idea that gifted 'should' in any way result in 'able to make more money.' I think that giftedness is a way of interacting with the world, and for some highly or profoundly gifted folks, that way makes them less likely to find their way to a high paying job. I think character attributes are very important in life, but sort of tangential to giftedness. I've also heard the idea that if identification instruments are any good, they should be able to target and predict who will win a Nobel Prize. I disagree, I think that testing, IQ and achievement are good at helping to design educational experiences for kids, and that is all. I agree that the rest of the traits are important for life, but I think an underachieving gifted kid deserves a subject acceleration, independent of their behavior, just based on their current level of knowledge or someone's suspicion, the same way no one says 'You haven't earned the right to use your hearing aid today.'
I wish that all school adopted Renzulli's methods of enriching the whole talent pool. But I more wish that Renzulli's casual 'of course we place the child where at their current ability level' was uiversally seen as normal. But we live in a world were 1st grade teachers may not even have access to 3rd grade level reading assesments, and see nothing wrong with stopping a reading assesment when the child reaches grade level.
It's almost as if we are concerned with two seperate topics - 1) some kids are intellectually ready for work that is usually only able to be done by older kids (although they many need accomidation for their handwriting, stamina, etc.)
2) the school experience itself doesn't offer enough to the bright child. Children are individuals who have individual interests, and learn more when they have freedom to combine their interests with with learning. Seriously this to me has very little to do with my definition of giftedness and just sounds like a very good idea. I'd be quite suprised if it didn't work well with every student.
Hope that helps,
Grinity
