Yes. Quite apart from the organisational/political issues, people who work in gifted organisations or education often write as though they don't understand the implications of what they do to celebrate diversity of talent.
Here's the Statistics 1 view of a fairly typical example (I won't name it, but I was reading one earlier today from which this example is drawn). Let's take a case where "gifted" is considered to mean "in the top 3%" - sounds pretty restrictive, right? Now say that there are different ways in which giftedness can manifest, and so you identify 5 criteria, and you say that a child is gifted if they are in the top 3% on any of the criteria. If these criteria are independent - which they won't be, but OTOH, they probably aren't that well correlated, or you wouldn't have felt the need to make the change at all - then even though it still looks as though you're using a "3%" criterion, actually the proportion of the population who satisfy it is 1 - 0.97^5 = 0.14 or so, i.e. now 14% of your population meet your "3%" criteria. Not so restrictive. Which may be OK, but you'd better know what you've done!
