The point of labeling kids as "gifted" is to try and give instruction appropriate to the level of intelligence and preparation of different children. Getting rid of this means exacerbating the issues the author presents: being in an 8th grade classroom where teaching algebra has been banned because it's too advanced for the least common denominator is a recipe for even greater lack of challenge. If a student goes through school without being challenged, they're much more likely to run into the issues the author discusses.
It's not that the label is perfect or that we have a perfect way to measure who's "gifted" and who's not, but an intelligence test coupled with subjective teacher evaluations is the best way we do have to identify which tracks are appropriate for which children.
I said this before. We need a linear system where kids learn at their own pace, with online tools and in-person tutoring and assistance when necessary. With the incredible amount of online learning and online forums, I don’t think we need structured grades anymore.
One of my old colleague's son went to a Montessori school, which was based in a similar "no grade levels" philosophy like GP mentioned.
They apparently smashed through the regular curriculum fairly quickly, then allowed the kids to pursue something that interested them. His son in particular learned how to produce music, and he was actually pretty bloody good at it for a kid.
At no point did they actually need 1:1 tutoring to ram education down the kids' throat; given a little bit of free reign the kids would gladly learn things on their own.
The kind of teacher that could fully corral and educate 10 children on all subjects would probably be under earning at $220k, especially if they had to pay business tax on that income.
That's a praiseworthy intention, but I don't believe it works in practice, and I really don't believe that any current process for selecting 'gifted' children is effective. I'd also draw a stark line between 'gifted' programs and what you describe
> but an intelligence test coupled with subjective teacher evaluations is the best way we do have to identify which tracks are appropriate for which children.
I'd call the above streaming or setting, and it's definitely valuable/effective. However, it doesn't need to be tethered to any system that focuses on labelling students. 'This is the stream you are currently in' is a very, very different idea to 'this is who you are', particularly for a child.
> being in an 8th grade classroom where teaching algebra has been banned because it's too advanced
This is definitely a problem, but I think it's best solved in other ways, rather than a poorly-supported regressive policy.
Gifted & talented programs often have positive intentions, but every implementation I've ever seen or heard of just reinforces existing systems without actually having a positive impact.
It's not that the label is perfect or that we have a perfect way to measure who's "gifted" and who's not, but an intelligence test coupled with subjective teacher evaluations is the best way we do have to identify which tracks are appropriate for which children.