Certainly, some enrichment programs have been shown to work, but others, like the track system in which students are grouped into different classes by ability, has in many cases been shown to be not particularly beneficial for either less or more talented students. See e.g. Jo Boaler's "When even the winners are losers: Evaluating the experiences of top set' students" (
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/002202797184116#....).
It's also funny how the only standard for a well-rounded education seems to have become whether you perform well on standardized tests or have what it takes to become the next "inventors, entrepreneurs, artists and scientists." Everyone seems to want gifted children to receive a deeper education, not a broader one.
I'm an absolute proponent of differentiation and enrichment for gifted students, just don't make the mistake of thinking that the solution is as simple as giving smart people a more challenging curriculum and equally smart peers and you're done. A lot is possible within (or in addition to) mixed-ability classes.
Also, are we really seriously still doing this whole "BUT LOOK AT FINLAND, LOOK AT SOUTH KOREA" dance?
It's also funny how the only standard for a well-rounded education seems to have become whether you perform well on standardized tests or have what it takes to become the next "inventors, entrepreneurs, artists and scientists." Everyone seems to want gifted children to receive a deeper education, not a broader one.
I'm an absolute proponent of differentiation and enrichment for gifted students, just don't make the mistake of thinking that the solution is as simple as giving smart people a more challenging curriculum and equally smart peers and you're done. A lot is possible within (or in addition to) mixed-ability classes.
Also, are we really seriously still doing this whole "BUT LOOK AT FINLAND, LOOK AT SOUTH KOREA" dance?