I generally agree with the principle that the best form of education is simply challenging each student at their personal level, like a video game where you quickly build up to that point where you struggle which is optimal for growth. However, given that such education is virtually impossible to implement in general, and the fact that being different from the norm brings up adjustment issues, I think it's rather important that children know in some way that it's not their own fault that they struggle with these issues. I would say that you see a certain form of this sort of teaching in the arts, where good teachers can coach students one-on-one, and therefore develop them largely independently. In that situation, "acceleration" doesn't even make sense as a term, because there is no set tempo.

Agreed that inclusion in gifted programs shouldn't be thought of as a sort of accomplishment. But isn't this a slippery slope? How about scores on the SAT (which are highly g-loaded)? Getting into university? Getting into a top university? Should we only reward effort, or a combination of effort and talent? Should we reward "actual impact", and if so, what qualifies as "actual impact"? In that case, children will basically never have actual impact, so what should they be rewarded for?