Gifted Bulletin Board

Welcome to the Gifted Issues Discussion Forum.

We invite you to share your experiences and to post information about advocacy, research and other gifted education issues on this free public discussion forum.
CLICK HERE to Log In. Click here for the Board Rules.

Links


Learn about Davidson Academy Online - for profoundly gifted students living anywhere in the U.S. & Canada.

The Davidson Institute is a national nonprofit dedicated to supporting profoundly gifted students through the following programs:

  • Fellows Scholarship
  • Young Scholars
  • Davidson Academy
  • THINK Summer Institute

  • Subscribe to the Davidson Institute's eNews-Update Newsletter >

    Free Gifted Resources & Guides >

    Who's Online Now
    0 members (), 600 guests, and 19 robots.
    Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
    Newest Members
    parentologyco, Smartlady60, petercgeelan, eterpstra, Valib90
    11,410 Registered Users
    March
    S M T W T F S
    1 2
    3 4 5 6 7 8 9
    10 11 12 13 14 15 16
    17 18 19 20 21 22 23
    24 25 26 27 28 29 30
    31
    Previous Thread
    Next Thread
    Print Thread
    Page 2 of 4 1 2 3 4
    Joined: Feb 2010
    Posts: 2,639
    B
    Member
    Offline
    Member
    B
    Joined: Feb 2010
    Posts: 2,639
    Even if measured IQ is highly variable before 3rd grade (I'd have to review the research on this), this is not a strong argument against identifying students in K, 1, and 2, as long as you also identify students in 3rd and later grades. Having multiple entry points should not be problematic, but whether students identified as gifted in 1st grade should also be assessed in later years and possibly removed from a gifted program is a difficult question. The Johns Hopkins talent search requires students who qualify by doing well on the SCAT in elementary school to do well on the SAT, ACT, Advanced SCAT, or Spatial Test Battery in 7th grade to maintain eligibility for various programs.

    Joined: May 2013
    Posts: 2,155
    B
    Member
    Offline
    Member
    B
    Joined: May 2013
    Posts: 2,155
    There's an entire chapter on this topic in the book "Nurture Shock". Here's a brief summary
    http://nurtureshockmoment.blogspot.com/

    Joined: Feb 2011
    Posts: 5,181
    Member
    Offline
    Member
    Joined: Feb 2011
    Posts: 5,181
    I agree, Bostonian.

    While it may be true that most moderately gifted children who have not been particularly exposed to academics aren't especially harmed by the practices embraced in late evaluation/identification as a philosophy--

    the outliers who are HG/HG+ are disproportionately harmed very greatly by the practice. A child who spends the first three years of school learning NOTHING in that environment has spent all of those hours of mandated attendance learning other things instead.



    Schrödinger's cat walks into a bar. And doesn't.
    Joined: Apr 2014
    Posts: 4,047
    A
    aeh Offline
    Member
    Offline
    Member
    A
    Joined: Apr 2014
    Posts: 4,047
    Dr. Hertzog is also the director of the Robinson Center at UW, home of one of the original early college programs for radically-accelerated gifted youth in the USA.

    It may also provide some perspective if one understands that the backstory to early childhood gifted ID is that CLD and SES minorities are grossly underrepresented, so that trainings such as the one cited above are focused on casting the net wide enough to capture those whose gifts have not had the same supportive early environment.

    If the slots are filled early with those with all the advantages, then some who need the services at least as urgently may be excluded.

    Note: I am in favor of early ID, when warranted, but conscious of the risks of inequity.


    ...pronounced like the long vowel and first letter of the alphabet...
    Joined: Feb 2011
    Posts: 5,181
    Member
    Offline
    Member
    Joined: Feb 2011
    Posts: 5,181
    Agreed, aeh. A great many children do not have a lot of enrichment and exposure, and those children who do not have a lot of books available in their homes are certainly less likely to attain literacy early (just as one example).

    Programs that pull on the basis of achievement testing are especially prone to over-estimating the ability of children who begin school having come from backgrounds with substantial academic preparation. When that is also a proxy for high SES (and it's a rough correlation-- but an imperfect one, obviously)-- then the children who are identified late also tend to be those who most desperately need enrichment THROUGH the free public school system, because they will not be getting those opportunities at home.

    A fair and appropriate system has to identify children on the basis of what they have been taught, and how well they've learned it, and how rapidly. For a lot of children, that is best done later-- but for outliers, it needs to happen a lot sooner. Still, I really do think that most teachers are going to see HG to PG children for what they are by around Christmas, without anyone telling them a thing. At least if there aren't 2e issues getting in the way, and if the teacher genuinely understands what gifted children actually look like-- and doesn't look for perfect compliance and perfect seat work as evidence of it.

    I know that I've told this story before-- but DD, at six, was SO clearly an outlier, even on the limited data that our charter school had of her (she had been homeschooled, and we had a single CAT-5 battery, slightly out of level, that we had administered at home)-- they immediately placed her in 3rd grade. They NEVER evaluated her, and did an additional grade skip after that-- all with no formal evaluation of her ability. It was simply that obvious.

    I know that isn't always the case with children who are gifted-- but for the ones that are, it's truly a no-brainer.

    I also still believe that calling gifted services "Special Education" would go a very long way to leveling things with clamoring parents. It's true, anyway, and frankly, it shouldn't be seen as a negative or positive thing to have a child who needs special educational services. Besides, that REALLY improves things for 2e and (3e, etc) students who need services all over the map in special education.

    And prestige seeking parents maybe won't be quite so keen when they have to explain that no, Janey isn't in "Special education" classes because she is BEHIND grade level, but ahead of it.

    Heck, maybe it's nice when there isn't an awkward silence when other parents use the term to describe their children who are in the 3rd percentile in literacy, either.


    Anyway. That's a soapbox for another day entirely, I fear. blush





    Schrödinger's cat walks into a bar. And doesn't.
    Joined: Oct 2014
    Posts: 675
    P
    Member
    Offline
    Member
    P
    Joined: Oct 2014
    Posts: 675
    Our Board is struggling with this question now, and I have been searching for compelling evidence.

    So far, I am finding pretty consistent expert opinion that WISC scores are, overall, highly stable from age 6 up, which doesn't support the "wait till grade 3 argument". What I haven't yet found is a couple of well-designed, compelling and easily understood pieces of research that back up that expert consensus. Also, most of what I can find addresses the stability of IQ scores generally, but not specifically their use in gifted identification.

    In anyone can point me at some research, it could have a lot of impact in a current Board discussion.

    Thanks!

    ETA: Sorry HK - Gifted is Spec Ed around here, and the fights over elitism continue to run amok. We gotta name it something really unpleasant...

    Last edited by Platypus101; 10/09/15 06:25 AM. Reason: Oh yeah, meant to add...
    Joined: Sep 2013
    Posts: 848
    C
    Member
    OP Offline
    Member
    C
    Joined: Sep 2013
    Posts: 848
    Originally Posted by aeh
    Dr. Hertzog is also the director of the Robinson Center at UW, home of one of the original early college programs for radically-accelerated gifted youth in the USA.

    It may also provide some perspective if one understands that the backstory to early childhood gifted ID is that CLD and SES minorities are grossly underrepresented, so that trainings such as the one cited above are focused on casting the net wide enough to capture those whose gifts have not had the same supportive early environment.

    If the slots are filled early with those with all the advantages, then some who need the services at least as urgently may be excluded.

    Note: I am in favor of early ID, when warranted, but conscious of the risks of inequity.


    Thanks for sharing your perspective, aeh! I completely understand and am also concerned with the issue of missed students. What confuses me is the flip to "no one can be identified as gifted before third grade." It's so unfortunate that the system is largely designed to have a specific number of slots, versus making spots for ALL children who should be getting faster-paced, differentiated education at their levels.

    Joined: Mar 2014
    Posts: 387
    C
    Member
    Offline
    Member
    C
    Joined: Mar 2014
    Posts: 387
    ITA with that. Every kid is supposed to have a "slot" that fits.

    Joined: Oct 2011
    Posts: 2,856
    Member
    Offline
    Member
    Joined: Oct 2011
    Posts: 2,856
    Originally Posted by Bostonian
    Even if measured IQ is highly variable before 3rd grade (I'd have to review the research on this), this is not a strong argument against identifying students in K, 1, and 2, as long as you also identify students in 3rd and later grades. Having multiple entry points should not be problematic, but whether students identified as gifted in 1st grade should also be assessed in later years and possibly removed from a gifted program is a difficult question. The Johns Hopkins talent search requires students who qualify by doing well on the SCAT in elementary school to do well on the SAT, ACT, Advanced SCAT, or Spatial Test Battery in 7th grade to maintain eligibility for various programs.

    Agree on multiple entry points. That should be a requirement of any successful gifted program... not only because children within your own community could have previously been missed, but also because community members come and go, and an incoming child may have come from an area where gifted services are lacking, and no prior opportunities for identification had been available.

    Disagree on the difficulty of the question of reassessment. As you said, Johns Hopkins requires periodic reinforcement of qualifications. My state gifted program has a similar provision, in which G/T students have an annual end-of-year IEP review with parents and faculty, and a requirement to re-evaluate students for eligibility at least every three years, though that requirement can be waived if both parents and faculty agree it's not necessary. In practice, this means that if every evidence is that the student is not falling behind or seeming overwhelmed in G/T, they stay in the program without re-evaluation. So there's two examples of the question being answered rather easily.

    Joined: Sep 2013
    Posts: 816
    L
    Member
    Offline
    Member
    L
    Joined: Sep 2013
    Posts: 816
    3rd grade is too late to identify. By that time, students who could have used the services in the younger grades may have already started to tune out and develop poor attitudes towards school. By third grade, some of these students may be underachieving because they did not get services at a younger age when they needed them.

    Out of the mouth of my younger DYS (who is not "old enough" yet to test for gifted services): "Why do I have to go to school? I don't learn anything!" Not the attitude for school I was hoping for, but the grade-age school DOES seem to be a huge mismatch for him (sigh). Socially, he is very happy (gets along well with older and same-age children...quite the chameleon). Academically, it is a mess.

    I completely agree that the number of slots should change every year to meet the number of students who need services. Actually, to our schools' credit - they do it this way.

    I also agree with multiple entry points. I do think, however, that once a student is deemed eligible for services, the bias should be that this child will need services for the entire time they are in school (I can envision exceptions to this, but not many). Part of my bias here, though, is that services in our schools require jumping through QUITE a number of hoops and I have a hard time envisioning a student who successfully jumps through all of these hoops ever not needing gifted services.

    Page 2 of 4 1 2 3 4

    Moderated by  M-Moderator 

    Link Copied to Clipboard
    Recent Posts
    Testing with accommodations
    by aeh - 03/27/24 01:58 PM
    Quotations that resonate with gifted people
    by indigo - 03/27/24 12:38 PM
    For those interested in astronomy, eclipses...
    by indigo - 03/23/24 06:11 PM
    California Tries to Close the Gap in Math
    by thx1138 - 03/22/24 03:43 AM
    Gifted kids in Illinois. Recommendations?
    by indigo - 03/20/24 05:41 AM
    Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5