This makes a lot of sense to me, Phil.
As far as memories of grade school go, my primary memory is of
boredom--long, excruciating boredom--while the teacher reprimanded
children who were fidgeting or whispering, or repeatedly asked
questions of the students not raising their hands ready with the
answers... I remember long sessions going over and over the
same material, long workbook sessions which were filled with
surreptitiously reading the book I had hidden in my desk. I had
the good fortune to come from a very intellectually stimulating
family with a long history of higher education, and I probably,
as Pam points out, could have done well with just about any
curriculum. However, my enjoyment of learning was something
I got at home, not something I got at school. On the other
hand, despite my school experience of unending boredom,
I don't believe in tracking, and, given limited resources,
I would prefer to see them go to students who most need them,
rather than to enriching the intellectual environments of
kids designated "talented and gifted." In other words: yes, I
was bored--but I did fine because I had access to my own resources
at home. I'd rather see enrichment go to kids without those
home resources--the very kids who are less likely to be
labelled "talented and gifted." As far as tracking goes, I can't
think of anything that would deaden a child's desire to learn more
than to infer that they are considered "less able to learn".
Robin