Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums THINKING BIG About Gifted Education Should programs be 4 high aptitude or achievement?

Should gifted programs be for kids who have:
(1) demonstrated high achievement
or
(2) tested with a high aptitude (IQ)
or
(3) limited to those who have shown BOTH high achievement AND tested with high aptitude?

What approach does you child's school use? What so you see are the pros / cons of the different approaches?

What will happen inside the gifted program? Will it be a more rigorous approach to subjects, with somewhat more enrichment than the normal course, or an accelerated program, or a focus on creative thinking? What percentage of students do you want to qualify for it?

Basically, your criteria for entrance to the program should be determined by what you do within the program. And really, both sets of students likely need some form of specialized education, so it isn't necessarily right to exclude either.

My kids' school system uses more of a focus on iq (and iq like measurements like the cogat). No idea what life within them is like yet because it really doesn't start until 4th grade (oldest is currently in K).

There should be programs helping every child reach his/her full potential. For high-IQ/high-achieving, high-IQ/not-high-achieving, high-achieving/not-high-IQ, and not-high-achieving/not-high-IQ students, there should be different ways of teaching.

The public schools that we are in deal with normal IQ students (high-achieving or not) very well. They don't do a good job for high IQ students (high-achieving or not). Both of my kids are DYS. My DD is definitely high-achieving and is unusually so, and she had not been receiving any support from school for her needs until this year when she was allowed to take online math (and she finished 4 years worth of math in 8 months). My DS is high-achieving in subjects that he likes, and is fine in other subjects. He also never received any special support. If anything, the teachers and schools often show contempt if we dare ask for any special support.

I believe our district uses an initial option where you're serviced based on either high achievement or high aptitude (but they only do the CogAT in 3rd, so after that it's really all achievement-based).

Some kids are supposed to be flagged with a matrix (of CogAT and high achievement on state test) to catch some who do better on one than the other. A few who aren't offered services for 4th grade are later added in based on state test and MAP scores (or grades in honors classes) in future years.

At the core, though, it's achievement-based, and it varies in program approach. Literacy is differentiated within classes, with GT coordinator support on the side, assisting the teacher with enrichment, up until AP classes. All kids are required to take the same core curriculum until 11th grade (when AP kicks in), with elective options on the side.

Secondary honors science apparently uses the increased rigor & depth approach, and requires high achievement for acceptance.

For math, there's no compacting of 2 years of earlier grade math, and the advanced math path is only honors in name (it's the same year-long course, just ahead of age-grade), not offering an increased pace/compacting while going deep and wide on less typical content, which I find disappointing, after all I've learned about taking math to the next level in mathematical thinking.

I get the sense that the schools like to have hard achievement test numbers to justify why kids are given the challenging path, rather than going by cognitive ability and thereby affording challenge to the under-achieving kids who haven't been demonstrating what the school expects. If you go by ability, then you have to offer more testing, and it's harder to explain to some people why A got in and B did not.

Ours offers pullouts and acceleration for kids who have demonstrated high achievement consistently in both the classroom and in standardized tests. If the kid has high IQ but poor achievement, then the child is placed in the regular class room and has extra support to bring up the achievement level (tutoring and extra help by teachers). ours is a private school.
Pro: the kids who have the ability to perform get acceleration. the kids with 2Es who cannot perform get support and tutoring.
Con: The same material is taught to the group of high achievers no matter what their IQ level is.

If there is only one program available, I'd rather they take students by achievement instead of IQ. If someone with a high IQ is not achieving, it might be more important to figure out why and address the reasons. And if someone does a great job, he/she should be encouraged to do even better regardless of whether the good work comes from effort or innate ability. The difficulty is when high achievers because of very high IQ and high achievers because of great effort are taught the same way.

Well my local elementary the top 'gifted' program is officially for BOTH (1) and (2). And in reality those with (2) really struggle with it and after having gone through it with my son I don't recommend unless the kid is self motivated. I think it's really designed for the kid who are both (1) & (2) and they have changed the criteria a bit to lean it even more in that way.

I would rather the gifted program was for (2) because those are the students who's needs are not being met by the regular classes. But I have no problem with there being special program for (1). The problem as other people say is they are often thrown together and taught the same way when their needs are different.

Our program is for (2) and it has been amazing for DS9. Until this year he was in a regular classroom and things were not going well. He was getting good marks in a couple things and average in the rest. The school sort of accommodated his LD and pretty much ignored the fact that he was gifted and then wondered why his behaviour wasn't always the best.... It was very frustrating.

Now in the program he has top marks and actually would be able to qualify for (3) but there is no way his previous teachers would have ever considered him high achieving - they barely could believe he wasn't delayed never mind gifted.

Pros
- he's found his people
- his teacher gets gifted (finally!!)
- I don't have to fight for differentiation and be "that parent" anymore

Cons
- to get into the program the school board uses the Canadian version of the Cogat which misses a lot of kids. The school also do WISC testing but as far as I know you have to score high on the Cogat first and there are long wait lists.
- this results in many people end up testing privately with the WISC, then the school board complains that lower SES aren't represented equally and the school board trustees/staff don't like this and use it as a reason that the program should be cancelled.
- the application process to get into the program changed recently and you basically have to prove that your kid can't function in a regular classroom for them to be allowed in. This makes it that only parents that are willing and able to figure out the convoluted process enough to get through it will make it in. Next up I'm sure they will be wondering why girls are under-represented in the program and use that as another reason to cancel it. My DD is a quiet, high achieving gifted type and we're now applying for her to get in and all of the teachers just say "she looks happy so she's fine in a regular class" and implying that the gifted class is only for those with social/behaviour issues which actually goes against what is on the official board website.

I would have no problem with there being another program for (1) but the school board is super paranoid about streaming and any sort of ability grouping so it is a minor miracle that they have anything at all never mind expanding.

What's high achieving? Does it mean able to churn out ever-greater amounts of homework on time? Test at "A" level on all quizzes and exams?

That seems to be the general rule in many programs, at least from what I read. I would rather have programs that help facilitate strong problem solving, critical thinking, creativity... which seem to be rarer.

Personally, I think that they should be open to either (1) or (2) (logical or) but only for a trial period during which they need to show that they really are capable of (3) or not...