1) Streaming is not a buzzword I've had thrown at me, so I'll pass on this one.
2) Actually, for social studies and science, I can't say I disagree there. At lower grade levels, these topics are covered superficially at best, and I see a lot of value in going deeper rather than faster.
Agree-- BUT-- what actually winds up happening there is that if you go "deeper" you're actually covering advanced grade-level material. {sigh} Because-- spiraling.
For ELA? I'm pretty sure if you're going deeper, you're way beyond grade-level curriculum.
Hmmmm-- I can actually (somewhat) see the point in NOT accelerating with ELA/social studies in particular since those tend to be areas in which advanced material also tends to place demands emotionally. But I suspect that isn't what was in the speaker's mind, somehow...
3) And this teacher's evidence is... what?? Because there's quite a bit of evidence in favor.
Overall, this teacher seems hostile to acceleration. And since acceleration is one of the simplest and most effective tools for meeting the needs of a gifted child, I don't think this teacher has a sufficient understanding of gifted children.
It would be like a music teacher who can't tell you the notes in C-major.
Yes, I'd agree.
That is if this is more or less in context.
My question in response to the last statement in fact, is:
Well, sure-- but WHICH children? That seems to be a critical thing to define in that statement.
