I've seen this result before. I think it's generally under-emphasized as it calls into question the justice* of setting aside resources for 'gifted' students if said resources also improve the outcomes for average students.
The rather sad, obvious truth here is that _everyone_ could benefit from better teaching - not just the kids with known issues at the top and the bottom.
Note "resources" != "money thrown at the problem". There are plenty of expensive interventions that don't work.
* this will probably provoke the usual hysterical stuff from the self-proclaimed HN geniuses that were terribly bored in school (unlike everyone else, who was, I suppose, riveted).
The rather sad, obvious truth here is that _everyone_ could benefit from better teaching - not just the kids with known issues at the top and the bottom.
Note "resources" != "money thrown at the problem". There are plenty of expensive interventions that don't work.
* this will probably provoke the usual hysterical stuff from the self-proclaimed HN geniuses that were terribly bored in school (unlike everyone else, who was, I suppose, riveted).