I think it's very important to include all bright kids when trying to change the system.
The thing is that lobbying on behalf of, say, 2% of the population will be an uphill struggle with possible/likely labels of elitism.
But if you lobby on behalf of everyone who's at least one standard deviation above average (~IQ 115) then you include 16% of the population, and your target group increases to the tens of millions.
If the school system is forced to recognize that a large percentage of its students aren't being served, the changes it will have to make will scale to the brightest ones. In other words, what's good for the ones with an IQ of 115 will also benefit the ones with IQs of 130, 145, 160, etc.
I fully realize that the learning abilities of gifted and very gifted kids are different from most others. But I also realize that perceptions are extremely important, and I have my doubts about the sellability of an approach that excludes almost everyone by focusing on 130+ or 145+.
Whereas if you include 16% of the population ---well, a lot of people will see themselves or their kids in what's being said. And anyway, why shouldn't a kid with an IQ of 120 be allowed to move faster if she can --- which she certainly can???
I guess I think a good way to spin this is to argue that a lot of kids can move faster and should be allowed to do so in any relevant subjects.
Val
