>I don't feel that's an answer. It's just a couple of words that sound nice.
It's a developmental clinician's perceptive (myself) that has its root in the long standing educational and clinical view that curriculums should be tailored to meet student ability. The most obvious every-day example being in the special education classroom (which enjoys the protection of hefty federal law), and which is also mirrored in the less obvious gifted programs.
>I was in a gifted program in junior high school, by the way. In retrospect, it's not clear to me what purpose it served, other than to separate us socially from other students. Maybe it wasn't a very good gifted program, but I did live in a fairly well-off school district, so I don't think that was from lack of funding. In high school we had Advanced Placements courses, which are obviously more practically useful, though I wouldn't place them under the category of "educational justice".
You can't see the purpose of a child with a 150 IQ having a unique curriculum apart from other students? That may or may not be you, but it doesn't mean that it isn't someone. Controlling for any lack in your specific gifted program.
Unless highly organized and driven, the average admissions non-advantaged (no affirmative action, etc) successful Ivy candidate is likely 140 IQ+. With 150 not being uncommon.
There is an ethical parallel to providing these individuals with a unique curriculum and providing one to special education students.
>That's the issue. It sounds nice, reminiscent of the Rawlsian difference principle, but empirically I'm not seeing it in the world. What I see is largely self-enrichment of the minority, without much regard for everyone else.
That's because you lack context on the history of living standards and poverty.
