It isn't that unreasonable to ask for an education system that pushes kids as fast as the kid keeps up with and eases them back if they regress

Surely you can see the damage this would do to the majority of children currently being told they are "gifted"?

Being "gifted" until the 6th, 7th, or 8th grade would psychologically cripple a lot of these kids through high school. It's better to not allow that "advanced but not gifted" demographic in from the outset, than it is to unceremoniously boot them at some arbitrary time in the future if they fail to keep up with those at the extremes.

The better ideas are the remediation, normal, advanced and then gifted classifications. And you don't get the gifted label unless you are on the extreme of exceptional.

> Surely you can see the damage this would do to the majority of children currently being told they are "gifted"?

We don't have to call it "gifted", we can call it "accelerated" or "ahead of their age" or whatever else you want

The point is that while they may not become exceptional adults, if they are exceptional for an 8 year old it is doing them a disservice to keep them at the same level as all of the other kids their age

> Being "gifted" until the 6th, 7th, or 8th grade would psychologically cripple a lot of these kids through high school

I don't think you can claim this without evidence.

And no, people whine-blogging online about being a former gifted kid and now a depressed and anxious failure is not evidence