Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums Parenting and Advocacy Achievement tests as factor for gifted placement

Blackcat, would your DD be up for tutoring? My DS really likes his math tutoring. And I feel better with him getting it because many US math programs are so deficient anyway (we're not as bad as everyday math but we have envision, which I am told is not a bad as 'everyday math' but not good) . I have to say my DS still does it even though this year he did qualify for the advanced math group (maybe due to the tutoring?) as the advanced group is only twice a week and not much more advanced according to DS. The only thing that kind-of bugs me is that I have to pay tutoring charges and the school will get the credit anyway for the standardized test scores. (Speaking of that, and as an aside, I was thinking about all of the afterschooling/tutoring that goes in this district and the immigrant populations must have recognized right away the math was deficient b/c they all get their kids tutored in math, too; and, then, the school's state scores are "high!" But are they high b/c the school does a good job? I am not so sure - I think they are high b/c all of the people in this district have the means to get their kids taught properly when the school can't or won't. Everyday math, envision math, whatever - it doesn't matter b/c the majority of the kids in this district will learn math and score pretty well b/c none of these parents are gonna let their just 'get by' ykwim? anyway, just a digression).


Now that DS has the IQ scores and the achievement scores (regardless that he gets the achievement scores form being taught outside of school) things are better. I send in more advanced worksheets for DS to do in class. Teacher makes DS only do a few problems b/c she knows he knows the work and then lets him move on, etc. He has math pull-out twice a week. Now that he has the "scores" the presumptions seemed to have shifted, you know? It's a bit nicer.

Of course we haven't had the Parent/Teacher conference yet! LOL!

Oh and yeah - DS's school certainly has it's shortcomings but the lack of communication that you seem to get is just unheard of at my DS's school and district. At least so far at the elementary level. People DO talk to you here (even if you dn;t like what they say!) Teachers, psychs, principal, etc... everyone gets right back to you, they call, email, meet...

She is going to take the achievement tests again in Jan. so over Christmas break I am going to hothouse her. I am going to get a 6-7th grade level reading comprehension workbook (the one she is doing right now at school is 3rd grade), and make sure she actually READS the directions and questions carefully and looks at all the answer choices. She read Harry Potter in 2 days, and other books that are a couple grade levels ahead and has no problem understanding. I think the problem is multiple choice tests. And taken at school at times when she's not necessarily fully medicated--it's just not a good situation.

Thank you for clarifying... when you mentioned this was higher than most you see, I was hoping you might share what you found in terms of a number? Now I think I understand correctly you were speaking of more of an impression or feeling formed, rather than a number or range of numbers you found? Please forgive me for asking again, but might you explain to me what you mean by the quality of the data?

As 1/6th would be 16.67%, some may say this is not a "large percentage" of the gifted population.

2e Students with slow processing speed and/or low working memory (resulting in the calculation of GAI in addition to FSIQ) may not have the "gifts" of high processing speed and high working memory; They may have difficulty with a fast-paced curriculum. 2e kids may need or benefit from different instruction (detailed in an IEP), and may receive accommodations (detailed in a 504).

I understood this was not about labels but rather about teachers/schools/districts attempting to make the best match (or least-worst fit) between students' NEEDS/abilities and challenge-level curriculum, teaching students in their zone of proximal development?

Considering IQ scores for a moment (rather than achievement scores): This describes matching a child to a program. For any children who are not a match to this program, parents may wish to think in terms of meeting the child's needs by matching the program to the child.

Please accept my apology if you feel a bit on the spot when I ask you to clarify things which you say that I do not understand.

I would join you if we could have EVERY kid at their own pace in each subject! Each child would have time and support to explore areas of interest, then there would be time to study other things we may need to know to be well-rounded. By every kid, I mean all levels, no one is excluded.

Understood. Meanwhile our world is full of apples-and-oranges comparisons.

I understand your concern. I have personally shared that concern, until over the years, many have communicated the existence of a bit of flexibility which may be available through teacher recommendations.

That may be, and it is rather inexplicable due to the large number of lists of common characteristics of gifted children, easily found online, describing something quite different than that.

Agreed. This would be an advocacy effort.

Unfortunately there is always the possibility of advocacy not achieving the desired result. That being said, some schools may appreciate an honest attempt at advocacy when a parent may have evidence that the identification process was flawed, and that other credible evidence exists of the student's achievement at the requisite level. For example, this may be preferable to a lawsuit alleging bias, to letting a child fall through the cracks, to a family leaving a school, to casting aspersions on attempts to serve gifted pupils resulting in disbanding gifted programs.

Thank you for clarifying. My point is that if a student was high in reading, not in math, they could be in a high reading group matched by readiness and ability not chronological age (for example, 6th-7th level)... possibly the same student would be served well in math with others studying 3rd-4th level compacted into one year... etc. EVERY student throughout the school could be served at the best match (or least-worst fit) for each subject.

I am so sorry this happened. Unfortunately it is not an uncommon scenario. This could go on a teacher's hall of shame thread, alongside the recent post about teachers exploiting and humiliating pupils.

Yes! Although it's a cheetah, not a cougar. All kids should get their antelope... the appropriate challenge to keep them active. IMO, there should not be a gate-keeper for this opportunity. ALL kids deserve to be educated at their challenge level. Including gifted kids.

Once qualified for the program, what does the program consist of? What does the student experience in the gifted program?

For example, a "cut score" system would take one lower score - say a CogAT of 129 in a program that requires a 130...and that student is OUT of consideration for programming. In a system that looks at all of the data, an administrator might look at the WISC and outstanding achievement scores (lets assume they are very high, 99.9%) and give this same student another look because of the other high scores. Then this administrator notices the teacher comments, etc. You can switch the data scenarios around in different ways, but just because a student meets a program's "minimum scores" in all areas, doesn't mean this student is necessarily better suited than another student who had, say three 99.9% achievement scores, a high WISC, and one score (lets pick the CogAT) just a point or two below a cut-score. I believe some look at the data is necessary.

I fully understand how and why "cut scores," might have developed - but if administered without any thought or look at the data, they do not seem to meet the goal of finding the best children for the programs, IMO. Cut scores also sound like a nightmare for children that are 2e.

I would agree that all children are entitled to the best programming for them, yes.

As to the different subjects, I think this makes sense. The same student might have different needs in different subjects - I agree.

Many agree this is a huge issue. Based upon a number of families paying for tutors, students score highly on standardized tests... teachers receive raises/bonuses for their supposed efficacy... district high schools receive high national ratings... then parents are asked to pay more in property taxes for the privilege of living in a high-performing district.

Kids without tutors may spend hours on homework, the old-fashioned way. On the positive side, they may develop grit.

New families unaware of what is driving the success of the district may move in or open-enroll to partake of the "excellence" and wonder why their kids cannot keep up.

Yes! I am just noticing this but this seems to be the case!

Well, that is still a question that I can not yet answer! LOL It's just a twice a week pull out - an hour each time. I am not sure what they do exactly, but DS likes it... I am not sure it is anything all that rigorous.

Our school district requires a 96th percentile or above on the OLSAT in third grade. They rank the kids by scores; my son got a 99 on all 3 parts (total, language, math). However, only kids with a 97-98% or above could actually get in, since they don't have enough spots.
This year, they now do a lottery to get in, so if you have 96% or above, you go into the lottery.
It runs one grade level ahead in math and, for my son, two grade levels ahead in vocab, more writing. At least it is something.