A few, more enlightened states in the US require what amounts to a "Gifted" or "Talented and Gifted" Individualized Education Plan. This is a promising concept, but reports from parents in those states say that, just as with special education supports and services for students with disabilities, there are high barriers to eligibility, and once qualified, the implementation is nearly always lacking in comparison to the individual student's needs.
I will have to read the full report, but from the summary here, I strongly suspect that many, many school districts will see this report as an endorsement of what they currently claim to be doing. It goes by several names, but the one I've seem most often is "Enrichment for All", and this policy is widely used, along with a need for "socialization with peers", to deny advancement (by subject or entire grade level) to any student, no matter how far beyond grade-level expectations that student might be.
I have long suspected, and have received confirmation from more than one (now all ex) school board members that districts resist supplying "advanced education" (other than some AP classes for high schoolers) because allowing highly capable students to be taught to their capacity increases the various Achievement Gaps (race, family income, and gender) that they have been told is their most important duty to close.
A few, more enlightened states in the US require what amounts to a "Gifted" or "Talented and Gifted" Individualized Education Plan. This is a promising concept, but reports from parents in those states say that, just as with special education supports and services for students with disabilities, there are high barriers to eligibility, and once qualified, the implementation is nearly always lacking in comparison to the individual student's needs.
I will have to read the full report, but from the summary here, I strongly suspect that many, many school districts will see this report as an endorsement of what they currently claim to be doing. It goes by several names, but the one I've seem most often is "Enrichment for All", and this policy is widely used, along with a need for "socialization with peers", to deny advancement (by subject or entire grade level) to any student, no matter how far beyond grade-level expectations that student might be.
I have long suspected, and have received confirmation from more than one (now all ex) school board members that districts resist supplying "advanced education" (other than some AP classes for high schoolers) because allowing highly capable students to be taught to their capacity increases the various Achievement Gaps (race, family income, and gender) that they have been told is their most important duty to close.