As an alum of gifted programs with many friends who were also alums, I think most of us would say, "good riddance". In fact, I'm pretty sure the strongest haters of gifted programs I know are people who used to be in them.

For most of us, the reality was that our status as relatively studious kids created a situation where our area of greatest need was social-emotional development, not intellectual development. Gifted programs mostly served as easy, almost dismissive solution for our parents, who would rather see our very real social-emotional challenges as further evidence of our intellectual excellence and the importance of separating us from our peers so they won't "hold us back."

Quite the opposite. Being in class with my friends is what kept me emotionally grounded, and being separated from them, in a way that sends a clear message to everyone involved (including me) that it needed to happen because I was somehow too good to be in the same classes as them, did lasting harm. Even now my lifelong best friend is obnoxiously deferential to me on all sorts of subjects because he sees me as "the smart one" instead of a more sensible perspective like "the one who happens to enjoy math."

But I did move around as a kid enough times to see a few different ways of doing this sort of thing, so I can say with certainty what does work, and it works well for everyone involved: flipped classrooms. It's magical. In a group where kids who have mixed skill levels on a particular subject are asked to support each other instead of competing with each other, they do just that. And I can say from experience that it's a much better way to make a classroom more challenging for kids who do better in that subject. Helping your peers understand a tricky subject is a much more interesting intellectual challenge - and builds more useful life skills - than an artificially "accelerated" learning program ever will be. And it's better for long-term learning, too, because it helps build even stronger foundations of understanding.

And I am also seeing, now that my kids are in a school that uses flipped classroom teaching, that it's better for everyone else, too. My younger child, who has been having trouble with reading, gets an immense amount of value from being able to pair with friends who are stronger readers.

> a situation where our area of greatest need was social-emotional development, not intellectual development

Not an educator, but it seems like "supporting gifted kids" is one of those phrases where everyone acts as if its meaning were clearly defined and agreed-upon, while avoiding looking too hard at how it is neither.

What should the goal be for institutions or parents? For example, to accelerate these kids to the end of the curriculum ASAP? To quickly get them into the workforce? To whisk them through a carousel of possible specializations in the hopes of matching genius to a tough problem?

The above options intend to direct their strengths, rather than support their weaknesses and trusting that the rest will follow.

I think these are good points, but I don't buy that these are true of a majority of gifted programs. Enough of my friends were also gifted (or we became friends because we were in the same problem) that I didn't feel the separation you describe. In fact, it was a relief to get out of classroom settings where peers valued social performance over intellectual performance. Gifted gave us a space where I could be comfortably awkward.

I also had experiences with mixed skill level classrooms and frequently found myself paired with students who didn't want support -- either from myself, other students, or the teacher. They didn't want to be in a classroom of any kind. I can imagine environments where this does work, but it freaks me out a little bit that you say you're certain this works.

As an additional anecdote, my son loves his gifted classes. But similar to myself, that's where his friends are.

I wonder if we'd both agree that kids' social environment is more important than the structure of any particular learning program?

This resonates for me. I really, really did not like being in GATE in the 1980s for the same reasons.

Also, now as a college instructor, I really like flipped classrooms.

I know at least one person - a very, very smart person - who really struggles in flipped classrooms. I think there are people who thrive in them and people who don't, and that axis is orthogonal to the gifted/not gifted axis.

Flipped classrooms look wonderful - here's a group of people who were struggling before, and look, they're thriving! But you can miss that here's another group who were thriving before, and now they're struggling.

Ditto. I skipped most of high school through an accelerated program and wound up in university before I was 15.

At the time I was happy. It was the first time I was surrounded by peers as smart or smarter than me. First time I wasn't bored in school.

It absolutely destroyed my social abilities and I spent the next 5 years miserable and depressed. I barely graduated and took another few years before I felt like I had caught up enough on everything I missed out on and I was able to start a career in my mid-20's at a comparable time to everyone else.

I'm no longer "exceptional" relative to my age peers, and Im just fine with that.

I have a son now and I genuinely don't know what I would do if he has the same challenges and opportunities as me.

On the one hand I would never wish what I went through on anyone. On the other, noone forced me to go. I wanted to.