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

delete

I find that my son doesn't achieve high on tests above level because he has been taught in so much as he takes what he knows and applies the next logical step. He of course couldn't do a calculus problem but given his limited algebra teaching he could get through some of the more basic problems (he is eight) and even a bunch of geometry just based on what he has been taught about angles he could use that knowledge for harder problems. He wasn't taught half of this nine week's science material because it was pre skip and we didn't think to tell him to go back and read those chapters and the teacher gave a 9 week cumulative test and he stil got a 90% second highest in the class. Not from anything we have after schooled or enriched. He just knows stuff. Or figures it out. And he doesn't read non fiction.

So I understand that kids aren't going to know stuff they have not been exposed to in general...I think that each thing should be a piece of the puzzle...ind iq testing, achievement, that stupid group test (luckily our county doesn't use that), classroom observations (by someone who knows what they are looking at).

delete

In our school, they use a matrix that includes the following: achievement test score 95th percentile and above in one subject, teacher recommendation, behavioral checklist, that's it.

My PG son didn't qualify for it in K. He thought the achievement test was boring and stopped taking it halfway through.

Right but my son if having been taught long division might get the digit answer and then look at it and figure out he needs to move the decimal because his answer couldn't possibly be right without ever being taught to move your decimal because he just gets math like that. Some people have to be taught to check long division with multiplication and he can just look at it and mentally check it in his head. Like if he had been taught to long divide 1000 by 5. And then got a problem to divide 1000 by .5. He would know 200 wasn't right just by his number sense and then use logic to add a zero. And then mentally check it by multiplying.

delete

Assessing both aptitude and achievement for placement into a gifted program is common. The scores you share are often considered the minimum requirements. In general if a pupil is not this advanced, they are believed to not have demonstrated a need for other than the grade-level curriculum.

Unfortunately some may say this expresses a view of a child more as a passive recipient of knowledge presented to them, rather than the child as a passionate, driven, intensely interested, internally motivated, perpetual knowledge seeker... these are common characteristics of gifted children who may often feel a need to constantly learn something new, just as they feel a need to breathe... children who may feel suffocated in the gen-ed classroom. These children will tend to be challenge-seeking, achieving, asking, persisting, some may even say pestering, until they learn more in depth and breadth about whatever has their interest at the moment... then may often move on to a new intellectual pursuit, reading, experimenting, questioning, and learning along the way.

The frustration which some parents have reported is that their child's self-directed learning may be outside the parameters which some achievement tests may tend to measure. In these instances, some families have had success with presentation of a portfolio of the child's leisure-time age-untypical academic-or-intellectual work-products and/or accomplishments reflective of the child's interests and passions (given any financial constraints which may tend to limit opportunities of a grander scale)*. It may often be helpful if the child has a hand in selecting what s/he is most pleased with and comfortable in sharing, and if the child also presents the portfolio while the parent assists only if the child specifically asks for a particular type of assistance.

ETA: * (given any financial constraints which may tend to limit opportunities of a grander scale) Example: A child's construction of something from a household material, traditionally used for another purpose -as compared with- a child's construction of something from a commercially available toy building block. The second may have instant appeal and brand name recognition but it may be costly. The first may have more appeal when considered for a length of time, as the child first thought to re-purpose a common household item to utilize for building. Parents may wish to take photos of these spontaneous projects!

Ohio has very clear criteria for gifted identification:
Chart of Approved Gifted Identification/Screening Instruments
Identification of Students Who Are Gifted in Superior Cognitive Ability
Identification of Gifted Students Using Above-Grade Level Testing
Identification of Students Who Are Gifted in Creative Thinking Ability
Identifying Students Who Are Gifted in the Visual and Performing Arts

Districts choose which tests from these approved lists they will use for screening and identification, and they choose which students to screen. Parents can have their children participate in talent searches or have outside testing done for identification if the school didn't select their child for testing.

This doesn't mean that the district will offer any kind of services or programming for gifted students. It also doesn't tell districts how to determine which gifted students receive services if gifted services are provided and there are more students identified than there are spots in the program.

Having these criteria are helpful for parents to advocate for gifted identification and acceleration. I used my DD's EXPLORE results to begin the process that resulted in her subject-acceleration in math this year.

Our schools require MAP test scores above --% as part of the criteria for screening, and then ITBS scores above --% as part of the criteria for selection.

Having higher scores does not appear to help at all at any point in the process. All of the children still need to take and meet the minimum criteria for all of the testing (and there is quite the list of tests in this process, including CogAT and a Wechsler-variety IQ test).

Our schools differentiate in reading starting in 1st grade, and in math, starting in -- grade. How this is done is rather cloak and dagger - you usually will NOT find out from the teachers which group your child is in, but from other parents who know which teacher teaches which group of students.

Afterschooling is also pretty common here.

I think what some people are saying is that gifted kids can make a little bit of knowledge go a long way, and they can show it on achievement tests.

delete

Also in my state/district program and placement are two different things.


Our district:
A child is screened because someone nominates him/her for screening....parent or teacher. Screening is a one on one test with the guidance counselor using a K-BIT 2. If s/he meets the minimum score, at least 2 different teachers fill out some sort of gifted scale, records are reviewed, and a student study team signs off on a psychological assessment request and parent consents. Ideally the assessment would be a wisc and a woodcock Johnson. But they do what they feel like doing. One of my sons got a RIAS and one got a K-ABC-2 instead of WISC and they used an old SAT-10 for my younger son's achievement.

Anyway that qualifies them to be a part of the gifted program....which is just a label...then you develop what that child needs and finally decide the placement or the how....that child is required to see someone gifted endorsed for some part of the day. So principals try to have one gifted teacher per grade level and then that leads to clustering in that teacher's classroom.

I understand that your schools are doing something different than MAP testing (I think you said they are MAP-like). Your schools might even be using something harder than MAP-tests.

For the MAP (NOT your school's tests), I would say that it is possible to score above 98% without above-grade level instruction or extensive afterschooling.

On another recent thread hothousing high-achievement was discussed, compared, and contrasted with giftedness. While hot-housed, high-achieving kids may be in some gifted programs, a system of both aptitude and achievement qualification criteria such as you've described in your district may limit that?

Anecdotally, I'm aware of many gifted kids who far surpass their parents and other family members. They quiz, doodle, theorize, invent, read, research online, visit the library and check out books on the most unlikely topics, ask unending questions, create lists of more questions, and there is no stopping them for lack of large-scale opportunity, mentor, or parent with advanced degree.

True, while following their own instincts for learning, these kids may accumulate non-traditional, esoteric knowledge and information which is not screened for on achievement tests. Again, this is where a portfolio may be of use.

I find it hard to imagine a gifted third-grader who's never asked and been told what a dot in a number means or what that little 2 up there means, and for a sufficiently gifted child that's all it takes. We have a thermometer at home that measures temperature to 1 decimal place of celsius, for example, and I remember puzzling during the stage when DS (aged two? I'd have to look it up) might still read "18" as "eighty one", about why he'd never make such mistakes with "19.3". Similarly, seeing something sold in m^2 is enough exposure to exponentiation for some. I don't dispute that afterschooling or good differentiation makes it easier for a child to score high on an above level test, but I'm with Sweetie and others: it isn't a necessary condition.

Part of our "hothousing" strategy to artificially inflate DS7's achievement score was to provide him with an internet connection and just let him loose on his own to discover what's out there, thereby giving him an unfair advantage over those who didn't have the same opportunity.

*Very* quick reply here as I'm in a hurry, but fwiw, I think this must depend on the test. This is just a very quick example for you, but both my EG ds and my MG (if that) dd have been through the same language arts/etc curricula for the past few years. My MG actually is more "successful" at the curricula - she's a talented writer and grammar/etc all come very naturally too her with little effort. She's the kid who after-schools herself in LA activities. DS, otoh, is a total math/science nerd. Yet ds consistently scores up above 98th percentile on LA (reading, verbal, grammar etc) achievement tests that their school uses (nationally normed tests), and dd scores consistently lower. Both of their scores make sense if you look at it relative to their ability scores.

polarbear

My DD took the WJ-III as part of neuropsych testing. I don't think she was able to do problems that were that many years beyond her age - what she was able to do was hard problems that were within the material she had been taught. More steps, more digits, that kind of thing, rather than being able to interpret an integral sign that she had never seen before.

delete

Those are still higher criteria than you see for most schools.

I'm a big proponent of looking at the quality of all of the data - not just cut scores. In blackcat's DD's case, she is clearly earning gifted IQ scores AND achievement scores. She'd be in my program! I think a program that fails to look at all of the data (including the quality of the data and very high scores, not just use a cut score formula), is going to miss some gifted kids that need the program.

You raise a good point, blackcat - what about children who lack any environmental advantages (and perhaps many environmental DISADVANTAGES)? They might be missed entirely. It would certainly be much more difficult for a child not living in an enriched environment to attain those achievement scores.

My older son actually qualified for gifted under the state program for disadvantaged children...he is 2e and his achievement scores are just fine but I believe his RIAS score was a bit suppress by his anxiety/Asperger's...he will be getting a WISC but is on the waiting list at the university. He was just under the cut for gifted but because his dad is a school teacher and his pitiful salary makes us qualify for reduced lunch so he qualified for gifted services...he is the least disadvantaged kid I know. All of his teachers (out of his earshot or in email) will comment on his depth of understanding, his giftedness, the way he connects concepts, sometimes he is the only one chuckling at a teacher's joke because he is the only one who got it. He isn't just a high achiever he truly is gifted, he just wasn't tested correctly. But I am glad they qualified he under the disadvantaged program. I wouldn't make him get additional testing if we didn't need some other testing that the university is going to do and it is just part of the package.

eema, my eg ds that I mentioned above is 2e - when he is given the WJ-III Achievement his scores are all over the place (from very high to extremely low) due to his second e. That's because the tests are given *without* accommodations - and they are (here) more typically given (and I think actually designed) to show differences in specific abilities rather than broad knowledge across a specific subject. He is allowed to use accommodations for the group tests our school uses to track student achievement (note: I'm *not* talking about state testing lol!).... these tests are designed to test specific knowledge expected to be learned by the grade the test is written for, and are nationally normed tests. DS is able to take these tests *with accommodations* and he scores in the same general percentile range on them as he does on ability tests.

If a school district questions scores on tests such as the WJ-III Achievement tests given without accommodations specifically for the purpose of understanding learning strengths and challenges in a 2e child, you should be able to advocate by demonstrating how the student's "e" impacts the score. When our ds was in early elementary and we ran into this as a potential issue for gifted id, our neuropsych told us there are two versions of the WJ-III Achievement tests (a "form A" and a "form B") and that we could if we wanted to request that our ds be given the second form using accommodations to illustrate the impact of his fine motor challenge on the test results.

polarbear

delete

Interesting--DS just supposedly took the WJ achievement tests (not sure what form) as part of his IEP eval. I'm getting the results Monday! I'll probably be back with questions, having no idea what any of it means. IEP meeting Tuesday.

Perhaps you are being sarcastic but this actually happened in a slum India - an amazing article was written about it in The Times, I think? Or maybe it was Newsweek or Time... I can't remember right now. I can't link it now but I do have it at work I will link it on Monday...

What criteria do you see for most schools?

What is meant by the quality of the data?

Some would say that IQ is a measurement, much like height... not something one earns?

The criteria for that program is 92nd percentile, whereas her district is 98th percentile?

Some may say it depends upon what "the program" consists of?

Several posters have addressed the inquisitive mind which is characteristic of gifted children... the questions which they ponder, the curiosity they tend to possess... do not tend to go unnoticed.

The curiosity-driven child may tend to out-perform expectations, possibly annoying more advantaged families along the way. In recent conversations many have said they were not looking for labels but rather the appropriate challenge-level educational experiences; Some have called this the least-worst fit. In considering changes to educational approaches, please consider a system in which each child may be placed at the best (or least-worst) curriculum level for each individual subject... working with intellectual peers of similar readiness and ability, rather than seeking labels or hoping some may be impressed with IQ scores as though labels or scores are a judgment of one's intrinsic worth or value.

Indigo, I have run across the criteria for various schools in trying to understand the criteria for my DC's school. 98% CUT scores for achievement testing seem high (and no, I've performed no formal study) - especially in light of 2e issues, and other factors mentioned by PPs.

A large percentage of the gifted population is 2e (I seem to recall a statistic of as high as 1/6th of the gifted population, I could be off on this, though). They are no "less gifted," than the rest of the gifted population.

"Earned" was perhaps a poor choice of words - "attained," is that better? I am feeling a bit picked on here...

I should have clarified, "my program," was meant to describe a program I would design (if I could be queen of the world, I am being a bit tongue-in-cheek here) and not the program utilized by my DC's school. DC's uses different tests - so I do not think one can compare.

Actually, I believe that gifted characteristics (extreme curiosity, unusual interests) may INDEED go unnoticed if harsh cut-scores are utilized, without much other thought. I do think that too many school personnel tend to still believe most gifted students will typically display compliant, high achieving behavior. Many programs with "cut score" criteria (ours) also do NOT encourage the submission of portfolios or other data in their selection process. Actually, such unsolicited submission may be viewed as attempting to unduly influence the selection process, so any such additional submission could backfire.

Yes, the goal is NOT the label, as though it is an accomplishment. My point was more that some of the "intellectual peers of similar readiness and ability," may be missed by some of the selection methods being described.

delete

Part of my Ds's long story is this: DS was terribly bored and frustrated in math class. While he did not 'spontaneously' know the new concepts he mastered the work quickly and without a lot of repetition. He wanted to move ahead and learn more but was thwarted and discouraged from doing so and even disciplined for trying to do so. He found math class "excruciatingly boring" as a result. He did go on the internet and IXL and other places and tried to teach himself more (with some limited success). I was one who was not, at the time, interested in spending a bunch of money and time on private tutoring... We are in an excellent (and expensive) district and I was actually kind-of against such a thing, quite frankly. I was certain once DS's teacher saw that DS need more she would give it to him. In addition, I could not teach him math myself because I am terrible at it and just don't have the time. But I thought 'he'll be fine, school will realize and he'll get mor, etc.' Then, at an IEP meeting late in the year, I became painfully aware that Ds's teacher was not interested in differientiating for DS... She told me she thought DS was fine and "just wanted to feel special" (she said this to me and about 13 other people on DS's IEP team) - she said if he were bored it was probably because he has adhd (which he does not have a formal diagnosis of ). I sat in that meeting and realized no one wanted to give or teach DS more. I realized if he didn't get more instruction he would be stifled and, for the foreseeable future, appear not capable of more. He'd never get a super high achievement scores if he were not exposed to the material but that did not mean he didn't need the exposure! The principal closed the case on it right there on DS"s teacher's assessment. The school psych then gave DH and I a list of family psychologists to go to for "family counseling" (we were still perplexed by that, but I am thinking now it was because they all thought that *WE needed DS to be "special"* and that *DS also "needed" to feel special* and that we all needed some serious counseling for this. Uh, yeah. Humiliating.) It seemed like no one really believed in DS and I felt like they though *I* was being a neurotic, pushy tiger-mom. His WJIII achievement scores were average when normed for his age (but he was old for the grade) and about a year ahead when normed by grade. No big deal, they said, he's just fine how he is. That was when I decided to get him tutored. He LOVES it. He spends an hour each Saturday morning getting tutored in math. His WIAT and WJIII achievement scores went to 95%ile based on his age-norm in a matter of a few months. But most importantly he is thrilled to learn more and that someone actually believes he is capable of it!

I guess my point is that I agree with Blackcat. And I'd also like to point out that not all gifted children are the same.

As most of you know, my kid is 2e. He is also only mild/moderately gifted with a GAI of only 139. I realize there are very gifted and highly gifted kids who just 'know' things. And some need to be taught but learn the stuff quickly. My kid does just seem to know vocabularly and grammer. He is much more gifted there. His reasoning is in the 98th and 99th percentile on two different IQ/psycho-educ tests. Someone who hears him speak may think I drill him on vocab words or speech... but the reality is he just absorbs it... However, exposure is still necessary. He just latches on to words somehow. Math he loves but he doesn't just absorb it from the environment like he does words and speech - he does need some instruction in it.

And, btw, isn't this what the "cougar" analogy/article is all about?

Anyway, just my two-cents on this issue.

Oh, and Blackcat, your district does seem to be asking for a lot, imo! In my district, you need a WISC IV of 130 and you get in - you could have dyslexia (and be in the bottom reading group), you could not be able to write, you could have dyscaculia, autism, ADHD, whatever... You get a GAI or FSIQ of 130 you're in. If not then there are some different ways based on lower GAI/FSIQ combined with achievement tests and teacher recommendations that add to points. However, it's my feeling that the school's emphasis is on the 130 WISC score.

delete

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.

I hate the lottery system. Places should be allocated on qualification/need not chance. How can it be fairer if everyone who qualifies gets an equal chance if some with a fsiq > 99.9 misses out while someone at 96 gets in?

How about we allocate for special needs the same way. We will give an aide to someone who has a mildish impairment but not to the person with severe autism. I would not necessarily be against that for sport though. Everyone who wants to play in the top grade and can pass a fitness test and a basic achievement test for ball skills could be eligible for the lottery. The first (15 for rugby, 11 for soccer etc) drawn would be the starting lineup and the next x number the reserves. Sports are far too important for that sort of nonsense though I guess.

After putting three children through the elementary gifted program, I still don't know exactly how the criteria works. There are all these documents that lay out what to look for and there is suppose to be a file on each child from K until the official program begans in 3rd grade, but the bottom line is that it is kind of fuzzy. All three of my children were in the unofficial stand-alone gifted class in first and second grade based on teacher observations and various testing. Interestingly, you don't have to have the GT label to be in the gifted program. My oldest, who had the IQ score and an almost perfect national standardized achievement test score in 2nd grade, did not get the designated GT label in 3rd grade but he was always placed in the stand-alone GT class for 3rd through 5th grade. The issue was that he was 2E and while he demonstrated the GT ability, he didn't demonstrate the GT achievement in the classroom.

Honestly, with the perspective of years, I can't say that it is completely wrong. The actual performance does matter and high performers deserve the opportunity to apply themselves while test scores are just numbers on a given day. Interestingly, at one point, I tried to pull my oldest 2E DS from the GT program, but was persuaded by the assistant principal that he would be worse off in the regular classroom.

delete