I don't share your misgivings - indeed the tendency I perceive here to see giftedness as an innate, unchangeable attribute is something that bothers me. Moving towards identifying children who right now need something different from what's on offer - whether or not they did last year or will next year - and emphasising that everyone can improve their capabilities with hard work and appropriate challenge and support, seems very positive to me. Sure, I'd expect there to be a large overlap between children who need more one year and those who need it the next, but the black and white "is s/he gifted?" thinking we often see here and elsewhere does noone any favours, IMHO.
I think this is well put, ColinsMum. An emphasis on closing the gap between services offered and services needed is really what's on the table, not a label. Frankly, maintaining focus on services rendered and required would be beneficial for meeting the educational needs of all students, not just gifted ones. I wish that our educators and policymakers could be so lucid as to see needs (and required actions!) existing on a continuum, not just on a truncated distribution.
