I’m wondering as well whether there isn’t a STEM bias in this approach. Yes, it does respond to the constitutive rigidity of an evaluation system born in an industrial culture that bases everything on objects called “credits” and “grades”. And yes society (but not necessarily education alone) should find ways to encourage the so-called gifted. But we have a lot of more basic work to do on how we define classes of people, such as gifted and ungifted, social and asocial and other binary distinctions that may be fundamentally misleading.
To say nothing of the question of “gifted at what”, which inevitably means gifted at the things the teachers or the institutions recognize as being valuable.