Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums Identification, Testing & Assessment Does anyone know anything about RIT ranges?

My ds (1st grade) is supposed to be taking a 2nd grade end of the year exam to illustrate his academic need to skip to 3rd grade next year. I have not afterschooled or hothoused at all. I have looked up CA standards and feel he has mastered the majority of 2nd grade and possibly alot of 3rd grade.

While looking for an evaluation that I can use to assess ds myself I have come across alot of test's based on RIT scores and MAP tests I find the RIT test's and results a beneficial tool but I can't seem to correlate the results to grade year terms.

Thanks.

This is just my two cents, and I don't know anything about your school district's policies on acceleration, so:

You may want to help him learn some of the 2nd grade stuff that he doesn't know. Sometimes schools can be amazingly pedantic about the need for curriculum mastery. Remember, 98% of kids in a given school aren't gifted and most of this large group can't fill in gaps in knowledge as quickly as gifted kids can. Teachers have very little experience with kids who can just skip stuff and pick it up easily later.

------------

As an aside, this board sometimes has a lot of negative posts about "hothousing" (xoxosmom, I'm not referring to your post here, but to ones I've seen over the past couple years). I think these posts can be a little unfair and can lead to the misconception that if a child is truly gifted or highly gifted, s/he'll learn everything without help (and that non-gifted kids need to be taught).

This isn't true at all. If it were, there would be no need to send gifted kids to school at all (or homeschool them) and places like the Davidson Academy etc. wouldn't exist. Everyone, no matter how brilliant, needs instruction from someone who is more knowledgeable about a subject. Two of my kids adore science, and beg me to teach them about it. My eldest says that learning is more fun when I'm helping him. Does this mean they aren't gifted?

Also, over-emphasizing the statement that "my child teaches himself" can undermine arguments for getting accomodations in school (overworked teachers can use this as an reason to deny help, saying that "if he can teach himself, my primary duty has to be to the others, who can't teach themselves.").

Sorry, not trying to offend anyone, but this, umm, hothousing stuff, kind of bothers me. It can be divisive.

Val

You might see if this website has info you need.

http://www.dillon2.k12.sc.us/teachers/mapritscores.asp

IMO, there is a difference between following a child's lead, etc. and "hothousing". Hothousing is when the parent actively drills information into the child because they want the child to know/do X early. I don't believe that any parent on this board does this, at least I haven't read any posts that have made me think this. I do think that it's the practice of Hothousing that gives parents like those on this board a bad name.

I haven't found the topic of hothousing to be divisive, then again I haven't found anyone who thinks hothousing is a good thing. Nor do I believe that children (GT or ND) learn in a vaccuum. I do stand by my conviction that if a parent has to drill a child on formal (sit down style)reading lessons for over 2 years so the parent can say "Janey started reading at age 4 because I taught her!" and not because the child had any interest in the subject then that *is* an example of hot housing and it *is* a negative thing. Offering tools and guidance, answering questions and yes even providing lessons based on the child's interests and abilities are wonderful things. The former, notsomuch, IMO.

Admittedly, I have trouble considering a child gifted or even advanced if a parent drilled a child daily for years on X skill before the child was mentally/physically able to make the needed connections to utilize the skill, because the parent wanted the child to learn it. Of course a GT kid can spend years digging deeply into a subject. I have just never come across one that needs years of drilling to be able to *utilize* (not internalize but more along the lines of rote regurgitation)the basic tenents of a topic.

I also believe that being able to discuss topics that have the potential to be divisive is a way to help test foundations. In fact discussing hothousing helped me to learn that *I* was not hothousing my children. I had been worried, after a few accusations from acquaintences that I was damaging my kids by hothousing them that I retracted almost fully from offering them guidance, tools for learning etc. I got to the point that I withdrew from playing with them, too. I was worried that I would "turn it into a learning lesson" (another accusation) by using descriptive words. "Please hand me the *red* block" vs. "Please hand me the block" or "Can I have some cards?" vs. "Can I have 3 cards?" etc. I finally realized the insanity of it and found that my foundation had been tested and strengthened and that I was doing what my children *needed* and what fit *them* all along.

BTW, I do agree that over-emphasizing the self-sufficency of a child when it comes to learning can make it harder to gain accomodations in a school setting.

Here's a chart with "gifted" (anchored at 95% by grade) and grade level medians.
http://www.nwea.org/assets/downloads/981/Placement%20Guidelines1.pdf

This is a pretty comprehensive source document with RIT to percentile conversion charts for each grade:
http://pickens.it.schoolfusion.us/m...ssionid=14d1e9266e4482d198ebc39c6e6bc9c3

Another important thing to consider is the growth profile. You'll see this if you ask for a copy of your son's NWEA Student Progress report.
http://www.powayusd.com/projects/ed...20Student%20Growth%20Report%20Sample.pdf
and
http://www.powayusd.com/projects/ed...udent%20Growth%20Report%20Sample%202.pdf

Here's a correlation chart to the California Standards Test:

http://www.powayusd.com/projects/ed...%20Correlation%20Chart%2008-09finalb.pdf

I guess I disagree. I'm not sure I can know what motivates someone else. I also wouldn't be surprised if being driven by pride in your child's accomplishments isn't biologically hard-wired. It makes sense: mammalian and avian parents teach their young. Hothousing could simply be an extension of that.

Also, I don't see what's wrong with teaching a child at a young age, provided the child isn't crying and miserable about it. In fact, parents who push their kids beyond their comfort zones are probably doing them a favor by allowing the kids to see for themselves that they can do things that aren't immediately easy. If this lesson starts at a very young age, it probably translates into a huge benefit later.


I've often heard that teachers hear "my child is gifted" many times, but I haven't seen an actual study or survey showing how often it happens. It's more likely that the simple rarity of gifted kids (say, IQ 130+) creates a bias.

This bias happens all the time with rare diseases. Doctors are loathe to believe that a patient has a rare disease (two common phrases in medical teaching: "If you heard hoofbeats in Central Park, think horses, not zebras" and "Common things happen commonly."). So, people with rare disorders are often stuck going from doctor to doctor trying to get the right diagnosis.

Educators may simply have this same bias: what's more likely: that a student has a 1:100 or 1:1000 etc IQ or that s/he's in the other 99+%?


Again, I don't know about other people's motivations. I also disagree, provided the kid isn't completely miserable.

We all have to do things that are difficult or unpleasant yet have a purpose (washing dishes, dealing with traffic, etc.). I don't see anything wrong with exposing any child to a subject that might be hard or not a ton of fun, in moderation.

What I don't agree with is pretending that learning is always fun and should always be driven by the student's interests alone. Sometimes the subject is not your favorite, but you have to learn it to get the degree/certificate/whatever.

Also, there are times when learning involves very hard work --- yet it can have a huge payoff. I'll only flex on this point if someone can show me someone who assimilates, for example, Paul Dirac's papers as casual easy reading.

Finally, I don't understand why only gifted kids seem to be allowed to benefit from extra parental tutoring. What's so wrong about trying to help any child stretch his limits? Why are only parents of (highly) gifted kids allowed to advocate for more challenging schoolwork? I get this "us and them" message loud and clear when people say that "those hothousers give us a bad name."

Who's a hothouser and who isn't?

I mean, parents and kids with IQs of 195 might consider parents of kids with IQs of 150 to be "hothousing" and giving the PG+++ kid and his parents a bad name.

Again, not trying to be offensive. Just trying to show another side to the story.

Val

No, we can't know what motivates another parent. But presumably that other parent knows his/her motivation. And to me, one's motivation is THE difference between hothousing and not. Can I judge someone else to be a hothouser? No. But I can know whether or not *I'm* hothousing if I am honest with myself. That's really more to the point here, I think.

Those "pushy parents" (whom I've also never met IRL, and so am working only on the stereotype here) are, at the heart of it, selfish. That's my (minor) problem with it. It's not about the child; it's about the parent's social standing. That's not in the child's best interest. It's stage parenting, just with school as the stage.

I don't think that anyone thinks that all of life should be fun. I KNOW that I don't! Following the child's lead doesn't mean you never introduce anything hard or that requires effort. It's more about gauging what a child is ready to learn based on his/her interests, finding that "sweet spot" of material that is challenging--and therefore "fun" because all kids, whether GT or not, are natural learners--but is not over their heads.

As an analogy, I think about the advice that was given to me about potty training. I was told that I could start working with him daily at age 1 and he'd be trained around age 3...or I could start working with him shortly before his 3rd birthday and he'd still be trained around age 3. My point is that when a child is ready to learn something, they'll learn it quickly and easily. Start too early and they'll learn it, but you and the child will spend a lot more time and effort on it. That's hothousing to me, and I think it is usually a waste of time because the child could be learning things that will come more easily.

To me, child-led learning is all about the sweet spot, not about "fun." Though, happily, fun often comes along for the ride.

To avoid hijacking this thread any further, come over to the general forum. I'm going to post a thread on 'hothousing'.