isn't it the point of gifted programs to not be developmentally appropriate
No, quite the opposite. It's to present academically-advanced material in a developmentally-appropriate way. For instance, it's not developmentally appropriate to expect an 8yo to sit through a 3-hour lecture (as you might get in a college-level course), even though the 8yo might have the intelligence and background to otherwise do well with the material.
Weeell ... it's to present academically-advanced material to those children to whom such material is developmentally appropriate, surely - that is, appropriate to the development of those particular children. I imagine that what you're getting at is that it's silly of a programme to assume that because it is aimed at children whose development is unusually advanced in one respect, it can therefore assume that the children's development is unusually advanced in other respects, and there of course I agree.
I really dislike the blanket term "developmentally appropriate" because it leaves out the individual, and I don't think we should encourage that in any respect. There is, after all, no law that says that no 8yo can sit through a 3 hour lecture, just as there's no law that says that any Xyo can't do Y for any of the various Xs and Ys we sometimes encounter such claims about. FWIW my DS6 has been able to sit through one-hour lectures reliably for well over a year now, simply because we have often needed him to do this, and these days he'll pay attention throughout on the rare occasions when the material is of interest to him, although other times he reads. It wouldn't surprise me at all if in two years' time he could sit through a 3-hour lecture on material that was interesting to him [although my throat aches in sympathy with the lecturer who actually lectures for 3 hours solid!!] Of course, it would be a foolish school that decided this was a good way to teach.
