I agree that controlling for poor scholastic experiences would be necessary to determine whether there are large gaps in ability among non-special needs kids, but I don't know whether it's even possible to do that, let alone whether it has been done.
My understanding is that aptitude tests, for all their flaws, generally obtain results with a roughly normal distribution. Whether the differences among kids within, say, 1.5 standard deviations of the mean are enough to mean that they couldn't all be educated in the same class with proper support, I'm no longer sure. I'm willing to admit that Erin is much more familiar both with what kids of average ability are like and with what differentiated instruction makes possible than I am, so I concede that it may be possible to educate everyone in that middle range together.
The differences between kids at the extreme high and low ends of the normal distribution, and kids near the mean, are...I'm not sure whether anyone's really tried to quantify them, but I'm also not really sure how anyone can seriously question that they exist. If everybody could learn equally well if given adequate support, why do we even have diagnoses of intellectual disability or learning disabilities? Why is it that some kids raised in educationally optimal environments do fine in regular classes, and others feel bored and stifled because the work is too easy? I'm not sure where to go looking for the data on this now that I don't have access to a university database, but I'm also honestly confused at how anyone can look at highly gifted or seriously intellectually disabled kids, and not see that there's something different about them that optimal education for everyone wouldn't cancel out. I'm sorry if this looks like a cop-out on my part, and maybe it is, but I also feel pretty intimidated by the task of researching this and I kind of need to devote emotional energy to other things (like finding a job) right now.
no subject
My understanding is that aptitude tests, for all their flaws, generally obtain results with a roughly normal distribution. Whether the differences among kids within, say, 1.5 standard deviations of the mean are enough to mean that they couldn't all be educated in the same class with proper support, I'm no longer sure. I'm willing to admit that Erin is much more familiar both with what kids of average ability are like and with what differentiated instruction makes possible than I am, so I concede that it may be possible to educate everyone in that middle range together.
The differences between kids at the extreme high and low ends of the normal distribution, and kids near the mean, are...I'm not sure whether anyone's really tried to quantify them, but I'm also not really sure how anyone can seriously question that they exist. If everybody could learn equally well if given adequate support, why do we even have diagnoses of intellectual disability or learning disabilities? Why is it that some kids raised in educationally optimal environments do fine in regular classes, and others feel bored and stifled because the work is too easy? I'm not sure where to go looking for the data on this now that I don't have access to a university database, but I'm also honestly confused at how anyone can look at highly gifted or seriously intellectually disabled kids, and not see that there's something different about them that optimal education for everyone wouldn't cancel out. I'm sorry if this looks like a cop-out on my part, and maybe it is, but I also feel pretty intimidated by the task of researching this and I kind of need to devote emotional energy to other things (like finding a job) right now.