Well, I'd be a little concerned that this is was written by an educator without a great grasp on grammar and usage. But I'm guessing that isn't what the OP was most concerned about.
Overhead 6/ ability grouping for gifted .3
enrichment .39, acceleration .84.
But if all students respond to high expections and acceleration, is there a need for Gifted and Talented tracks.
Leaving aside for a moment the issue of the missing question mark at the end of the clearly rhetorical question, there, I'm concerned with the ASSUMPTION being made in that rhetorical question.
The underlying assumption is in the word
all in that sentence.
If all students respond (equally well) to high expectations and acceleration...WHOAH.
Do they??
Well, they DON'T. Where is the evidence for THAT statement-- even the more lukewarm version actually stated, I mean.
There
are studies which suggest that enrichment and exposure to
brighter peers is good for ALL children. There are mixed ones that say that "high expectations" may be good-- but ONLY to the point that they remain "appropriate" to the child's underlying ability, that is.
It is a LONG way from that set of facts to the statement above.
The assumption implicit in that statement is that while, sure, GT children respond VERY well to enrichment, tracking, and to acceleration; it is probably only because we don't make those things
available to all children.
I see this statement as a covert "all children are gifted, so shut up about your special snowflake-- they're ALL snowflakes." Or even "there's no such thing as gifted."
It would make me wary, too.
