Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums Identification, Testing & Assessment Can someone tell me what I should think?

All of those kids would be in our GT program in the more liberal GT district locally. Any kid who is testing advanced on the NCLB tests and a few years above level on lexile is prepped with critical thinking pull out classes and practice tests and tested over and over on tests like the CogAT until they hit close to the mid 90s on the verbal part and are then deemed gifted and guaranteed placement in GT literacy classes through high school based upon that id.

I do believe that this is part of the reason dd11 wants to move back into the district to our north for high school. While the north district has its own set of problems with overidentifying high achievers and underindentifying gifted underachievers, they don't call more than, say, 20% of their kids gifted (still quite likely an overestimation) as opposed to 40%+ of kids in some of the schools in the south district. She feels that the level of instruction is higher in the north district as a result. When you have so many kids who are clearly not gifted in the GT classes, it does tend to modify what you can do & teach in those classes.

Sorry for taking your thread OT! Back to the regularly scheduled discussion ...

I don't mean to sound like a GT elitist, but it drives me NUTS when GATE programs let in more than 8-10% of the student body. By doing so, they dilute the programs for the HG/PG kids who truly NEED the program, and it does nothing for them.

We all know that there's a huge difference between a child in the 97th% and one in the 99.9th. The former can still generally get what they need in a regular classroom; the latter can't. I've completely given up on it anyhow, though. From everything I've heard, it's not nearly enough. Plus, of course, it doesn't start until 3rd grade. (We can get into YS but not into GATE?!?) That, and our public budgets are so depleted that there's nothing left to the program. In our old elementary school of 740 children, there was only $3500 left for GATE. (Plenty for the lower spectrum special needs, of course.) Grrr...

I'm sorry....I'm having a cranky morning and know I'm coming across crabby!!

Dottie, please don't get me wrong. I'd like to see every child get what they need, and everyone other than the very middle could use some kind of differentiation plan. I just can't help but jump on the bandwagon now for the special needs of our DSs because the schools are not providing them the education they need. While we are SO fortunate with our family situation and with where we live, so many parents have no help for their HG/PG. If I went back to work, or if we were back in Ohio where HS is not nearly as supported, I have no idea what we'd do. There are no HG schools in our area, and none for less than $20k a year where we used to live. If schools can integrate the special needs of the very bottom of the spectrum (and I do support those children's needs too), it begs the question as why there isn't something to help the very top, as well. *sigh* I know I'm preaching to the choir here!!

Lest Ohio get a bad name, some parts of Ohio are *really* good for homeschooling. Our area offers a (private) school for homeschoolers that is set up much like a college situation--kids choose a wide variety of classes as they like and pay only for what they use, as little as 30 minutes per week or as much as 4 days a week with before- and after-care. The school has lots of playtime and small classes, and though it is not specifically a gifted school, many of the teachers have experience and training in working with gifted kids. It's an amazing resource. Other schools (some private, some public) offer part-time homeschooling, too.

We start our fourth year of homeschooling this year, and I am regularly amazed at how many secular homeschoolers are here, and how many programs and classes and co-ops and homeschooling groups that work for them are offered in our area.

I realize this isn't the point of this thread, but I had to stick up for Ohio. It's been great for us!

There are so many great points, here. Even our *gripe* posts really get me thinking about different things. It's a wonderful dialogue!

Kriston, I'll PM you separately, if that's okay. We moved when DS was 4 so we didn't look much into HSing, but I have many friends who are considering it and don't know where to look.

Absolutely! Happy to help if I can.

Wow, Kriston, where are you? That school sounds amazing.

DeeDee

It is a really great arrangement for my kids, certainly.

For safety's sake, I don't usually share more about my location than I have already shared. I hope you understand.

I'd be happy to tell you more about the school though, if you want details. PM me, or we can start a new thread if others want more info.

I don't know....while I absolutely agree that performance should determine next instructional topics/skills regardless of IQ indicators, I think that that should be cross spectrum and considered outside of GT programming. I would argue that the kids who need GT programming are the kids who--regardless of current acheivement levels--are highly unusual in their ability to synthesize/analyze/create/invent. Acheivement based measures speak to the next appropriate content. Alternate instructional approaches may not be necessary as long as the content provided is appropriate (e.g. fifth grade math standards have been mastered, sixth grade math standards are appropriate). In contrast, I think that gifted students--regardless of acheivement outcomes--often need (but don't get) a markedly different approach/instructional arrangement. I would agree that gifted students with high achievement outcomes should be served separately from gifted students who are underachieving for the sake of both groups, but a student who is at the 99.8 percentile at age 8 and only ready for fifth grade math probably isn't recieving, and probably has not been recieving, what he/she needs. Performance can be depressed by what is/isn't offered; the learning climate; the instructional approach. High achievers who are ready for fifth grade math will probably move at a predictable pace. Gifted students who are in fifth grade math AND are given instruction in a format that taps/reinforces the qualities that put them at 99.8th percentile are more likely to leapfrog through that content in less predictable ways.

It seems likely to me that the reason that so many kids are being called "gifted" by the schools is that within the typical range, kids from advantaged backgrounds are being contrasted with kids from less advantaged backgrounds (I use the term advantaged loosely--not necessarily in economic terms, but in terms of resources/supports that provide some children with a head start). If the curriculum and standards are designed to hit some "middle", then of course there will be a large portion of children who are acheiving well above those standards. That doesn't make those children gifted, it makes them high achieving. Deserving of appropriate content based on what they already know? Yes. Gifted? The performance level isn't enough to say one way or the other.

Although I know that it isn't a popular viewpoint, I continue to see gifted children in the same way in which I see children with disabilities. These are children who cannot be adequately served without specialized instruction and supplementary aids and services. That specialized instruction and those supplementary aids and services aren't going to match the specialized instruction, aids and services of a child with a disability (although for 2E there will be some overlaps), but it is also going to be qualitatively different than it is for high achievers who are not gifted. Our failure to identify and serve gifted students differently than we identify and serve high achievers in the typical cognitive range is probably why we see the problem of underacheivement within the gifted population, as well as the underidentification of gifted students in populations that are in some way disadvantaged.

Climbing off my soapbox now I've enjoyed reading this discussion--lots of interesting perspectives here!