Although all teachers (and their school & district) have reasons to USE activities that are especially valuable for promoting a knowledge-and-skills curriculum (with knowledge, skills, skills-with-knowledge), they also have rational reasons to NOT USE these activities. But some "reasons to not-use" might be weaker when designing programs for gifted students. I'll describe some reasons to not-use, and why these reasons might be weaker for gifted students. / a disclaimer: Most claims below are “might” and “maybe” because (quoting from co-creating better education) "although I have some useful understandings and skills, I need help from other educators who have developed other understandings and skills, who understand the perspectives of classroom teachers [and students] more accurately & thoroughly, or are skilled activity developers, and have other kinds of useful experience & expertise." Therefore I'm looking forward to learning from teachers & administrators who – in a variety of important ways – know more than me.
The following comments build on the foundation of sections about "rational reasons to avoid Problem-Solving Activities," examined briefly here & here and with more depth.
• A common goal for a school/district (and its teachers) is wanting to do well on standardized exams. IF their perspective is a competition of "knowledge versus skills" with knowledge decreasing when "skill activities" increase, this is a rational reason to reject Activities [+ Metacognition] for Thinking Skills. But if a teacher/school thinks "the gifted students will do well anyway" they might be more willing to invest more time in Activities for Thinking Skills, including Metacognitive Strategies. And a variety of problem-solving projects (broadly defined, so these can be small or large) can be “extras” for students who master “the usual things” more quickly, to provide extra challenges so they don't become bored with school.
• A teacher/school may not want to "gamble" with a change that seems risky — because although it might be beneficial (for their Exam Scores and in other ways), it might be detrimental — and they don't want to risk a large-scale loss, if they make a major change for the entire school or district. But they might be more willing to gamble on a small scale, with changes only in their program for gifted students. Then if this small-scale experiment works well with good results, they may be more willing to try it on a larger scale, with more students or all students.
• Most teachers often are overworked, and their time is limited in two ways: in how they use the school's classroom time, and also what they are willing to invest (and should be expected to invest) in their own preparation time. Each of these time-constraints is a factor in decisions (by a school & by its teachers) about using activities that involve general metacognitive strategies and/or specific metacognitive strategies.
• With an important question, we wonder “will students be highly motivated to use metacognitive strategies?” I think the answer will be “yes!” for most gifted students because they are very interested in thinking, and they believe that thinking will be a valuable part of their life so doing it well (helped by metacognition) will improve their life. By analogy, it's similar to asking “who usually is most motivated to watch football films of offense-vs-defense?” and answering “quarterbacks & coaches” for a team's offense (or “linebackers & coaches” for defense) because they are “gifted” in football (in playing or coaching), and they think their efforts will be rewarded. We can encourage their motivations, e.g. with metaphors like “driving your brain” (and growing it into becoming a high-performance race car) and “being the CEO of your brain.” More specifically, I think many students will be fascinated by my model for Design Process — due to its blending of logic and art, as when they "observe the words, colors, and spatial relationships" in my favorite visually-logical representation — although this isn't yet KNOWN WITH CERTAINTY due to a lack of experience, and thus a lack of evidence. But it does seem probable – as "A GOOD WAY TO BET" – that many students will be enthusiastic about Design Process and metacognition (when they drive their brains, are CEO of their thinking systems) and this will make life better for their teachers, with more fun and satisfaction.