High Achiever, Gifted Learner, Creative Thinker

I think this is mostly bogus. Consider the research presented in recent articles like:

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=the-secret-to-raising-sm...

This division into 3 kinds of kids has an underlying assumption that kids can be classified by some innate characteristics.

Rather than putting effort into "identifying gifted students", maybe we should concentrate on finding more effective ways to teach everybody. Getting rid of grades comes to mind as one way to help convert "high achievers" into "gifted learners".

This article talks about sharing these categories with children in discussion, so that children can consider where they fit in. However, other work on 'mindsets' [1,2] suggests that labeling a child as 'gifted' or 'creative' in contrast to 'hard working' could negatively impact the child's future learning and achievement.

I wonder if Kingore, the author of this article, has written anything taking into account mindset research like Carol Dweck's.

[1] http://nymag.com/news/features/27840/

[2] http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=84655

That big 3rd paragraph seems to be the center of bogosity. "Her comparison helps to delineate differences between the two groups and provides a useful format for discussions." Translated that means - this is some bogus education theory that has no scientific basis behind it, and if you take action based on it, then whatever mess you create is your own fault.

I had to take a survey course on education research during my postgrad days - the first thing the prof said was that basically education is a research ghetto where every half-baked methodology, and every bit of post-modern drivel can find a home.

So is there hope for the Creative Thinker? Because at least in news.yc circles, he seems to be not very well liked?