We live in PA, in an affluent, well-educated neighborhood. Our local elementary school's 5th grade class has about 25-30% of its students in the gifted program.... However, the state minimum IQ is 130, meaning top 2%. I realize that IQ scores would tend to be higher overall in such a neighborhood, but how could there be such a big discrepancy??? My 5th grader was admitted to the program in 1st grade (she scored FSIQ 138 and GAI 142), and having gone through the process I do know that the admittance criteria are quite lax... they use a matrix system which in in the end allows for IQ levels considerably less than 130 to be routinely admitted.

It is quite frustrating, because my daughter who really needs enrichment and acceleration, again gets lost in another group of kids, which really do not extra enrichment and would probably be just fine in the regular classroom. In other words the GT program is being diluted and just used as a status symbol for those being accepted.

Is anyone else experiencing similar issues?

In my school district (we live in an affluent and highly educated neighborhood with the highest scoring school district in Cal) there were lawsuits galore from parents who thought their kids needed to be in the gifted program. So, the school district moved the gifted programs to special schools and the admission to them is now lottery based because there were too many lawsuits challenging the IQ testing methodology etc. So, now, anyone whose child is lucky enough in the lottery can get into the gifted schools in the PS. And there is no gifted program in the regular PS.

I am wondering how do you know this? Is it listed somewhere on the internet or something? I'd be curious as to what our school's number is...

That just makes me want to scream.

I know approximately how many kids are in the grade, and how many are in the GT class... did my own calculations!

Oh! LOL... got it...

We have similar issues - too many kids who are redshirted who really are not gifted in the class and far less gifted education because of it. It is frustrating.

Sometimes it's as easy to figure out as asking your kid: "How many kids are in your class?"

Our state is a race to the top state, and as a result we now have more data published on each school and district, including the number of children identified as gifted and the number of children receiving gifted services. The state defines gifted as 95th percentile in reading OR math OR cognitive, and once gifted, always gifted. My district has 44% of kids with this categorization. 6% receive services because the district can control by changing ORs to ANDs.

These data are now available on the state board of ed website.

OP, I can see both sides of it. We have a large number of kids bleeding from the eyeballs with boredom because they hit two of the three bars. We also have kids bored stiff in their gifted intervention classes because the pace and depth still isn't enough.

Huh, ours is only 7% (it is on the internet), which makes sense because I definitely got the distinct feeling that although my son's school has a "matrix," it is still very hard to get in to the program (it really just boils down to WISC scores although they do accept outside testing). Anyway, we are in PA too.

ashley, that is just so ludicrous that I'd want to chuckle it away yet knowing that children are being hurt in the process makes it not so funny.

Oh and we have a lot of red shirting but red shirting means nothing to our GT program b/c they only use WISC and the Woodcock Johnson and/or WIAT... all of which are normed by age not grade level. Though it does seem like a lot people assume that it is a bunch of red-shirts in the program.

They use a combination of initial screening (KBIT), achievement scores, teacher/parent evals, and finally the WISC-IV in their matrix. There are 3 stages, and each stage has a minimum score to get through to the next.... minimum scores to get through are not very high.

Kids do not have to score 130 or above on IQ test to get in.

But everyone wants their kid in the program, when it is actually not really do any good for anyone involved (too many kids, not enough resources). So frustrating.

IN the case of my own district, YES-- the percentage of students identified in each school in our district is publicly available information. Right there on the website.

Just like Nutmeg's situation, our "GT" is pretty much a network of cronyism, TigerParenting, and the small-town/big-fish phenomena inherent in a community like mine.

Similar numbers of identified students, too. Now, while the local demographics (many faculty brats, and a terminal-degree rate hovering near 15-20% for the ADULTS in town) support the notion that the local IQ is probably around 115, that's a LONG way from saying that 30% of the students in our district are IQ>130, I think. Statistically, this is just an impossibility.

In addition, there is STAUNCH denial that there is any difference whatsoever between a student at the 90th percentile and one like my DD (and other kids on the forum here) who are at the 99th+.

Which brings us to "we don't need to do anything more. ALL of our classes are rigorous and challenging... because we have 30% GT students in our school."

Uhhhh-- but-- er-- oh, just-- nevermind. <--- which is how we got to where WE are. Homeschooling/virtual schooling and 3+ accelerations later. Actual school administrators in town recognize this problem for what it is-- entitled helicopteritis-- and privately admit that the situation makes it virtually IMPOSSIBLE for them to do right by HG+ children like my DD. They see a handful of them-- perhaps one every five to eight years-- and quickly send them packing either to homeschool or accelerate the heck out of them and push them into the local community college ASAP.

Local HS counselor all but admitted that he's encountered exactly THREE PG students in-district in thirty years (and he's probably seen ~30K students in those years, so that math seems about right to me). My DD is one of the three. So they know that what they are doing isn't right for those few kids, and they feel bad about it-- but they also know that they are skating on thin ice with a population much like the one referred to in Ashley's post. That population of parents who are 85th-95th percentile and 'striving' is a deadly force to be reckoned with, unfortunately. They want "the label" for their own kids, and frankly don't even stop to think about what it does for kids like ours. If they did, I'm not so sure that it would matter, anyway.

But I'm pretty bitter over this. I've paid a TON of property taxes into a system that is useless to us.

Which just goes to show that some sort of ability grouping is required. The 85 percentile kids probably really do need more than they get in a class aimed at the bottom half. But they don't need the same as the 99+ percentile.

I could only imagine how frustrating it would be to have a PG kid, and have to deal with such a situation.

Exactly...

Was thinking to post very similar.

Hk- I feel you about the taxes. My dh is asking if we should move:(

I guess we are of the minority...our (title I funded) elementary school of about 250 students has 2 identified gifted kids (one being our DD). DD7 will hopefully be #3 after we get results from her recent testing. There was one more student, but that child is no longer in the gifted program (for reasons I'm not aware of, but I have my guess). I would love to have a couple more kids identified so they can do some group activities together.
I don't see parents fighting to get their kids in the gifted program - this may be because they don't see the purpose or just that the gifted program isn't really "advertised". I also think most parents have faith in the school that they will do and are doing what is best for their child since they are the educators, so even if they thought their child was gifted if the school says they are not then that is that.

As a direct (historical) consumer of property taxes and as a current tax farmer, I thank you for your contribution to my personal welfare.

Keep up the good work!

Nutmeg,

Sometimes they include high achievers in the gifted class to have similar teacher student ratio with other class. But beileve it or not, there will be discrepant concentration of gifies. In our districts, some schools have less than 5% but some have about 18% (in better SE neighborhoods). BTW, it is published in the distict website.

And one HS has about 8% of seniors are NMS finalists or National Hispanic Scholars (48/586) and one HS has only 1 NHS out of >600 seniors.

This is the issue in my area. At the end of 2nd grade, about 20% of my DS's grade was IDed as gifted (there were about 20 kids total) for the 3rd grade. I don't live in an affluent, well educated area, but many of the kids who statistically would not be considered gifted - (ie would not be 130 or more (our state says top 98th percentile)are identified for the gifted program because they see putting them with the other 80% as a diservice to them. The interesting thing about the situation was they did a cluster grouping model for the gifted program but they took those 20 kids that they had over identified and put them in 3 different classrooms. We left that school before 3rd grade.

Our district seems pretty tough. DD has about 80 kids in her grade and 4 are identified as gifted and put into the "cluster group" (which probably isn't an appropriate name for what it is). For the special magent school kids have to have a composite score on an ability test of 132 PLUS score 98th-99th percentile on both reading AND math achievement tests. If a kid has math and not reading (or vice versa), chances are low they would be accepted. If their composite on the ability test is 139+ they are not as strict about the achievement tests.

DD does have other kids in her class who are not "identified" who do the enriched work if they are able. I doubt any kind of enrichment happens in the classes that do not have the gifted clusters. So there could be high-ability kids in the two other classes who do not get any differentiated work, simply because they missed the cut-offs by a couple points.

Our district is pretty tough as well. To qualify for testing for gifted program, kids need to be at 95th percentile in reading and math on fall MAP. They then take the wonderful CoGat. They must score in the 95th percentile. testing is in 2nd grade for services in 3rd. For our magnet (school within a school self contained classrooms), the child needs to score in the 98th percentile on fall MAP in both reading and math. They then take CoGat and must score in the 98th percentile. They then take the WISC and must be in the 97th percentile.

Here you need to be 130 or above on an IQ test (no achievement test), but there is another option for low-income/minority kids with slightly lower scores. I think the second option is not well known. You have to pass a pretest to take the IQ test.

I do not know of ANY kids who got around these rules, but I do know of some who tested several times.

Despite the fairly high bar, I think about 10-15% of the district is IDed. But there are demographic reasons for that.

Many of the children in DD's magnet would not qualify under these rules that require very high scores in both reading and math. I see how that makes the teachers' jobs easier, but it seems sad to me. Some kids' abilities are uneven, but it doesn't make them average.

My 6-year-old DS has a 141 WISC score for non-verbal and 114 for verbal. He is brilliant in math and visual-spatial ability but I doubt he will be able to get into the magnet when the time comes, unless that WISC verbal score doesn't really correlate with reading ability (or it was an erroneous score). His GAI is currently above the cut-off but he will need the reading and math scores over the 98th percentile. So far he has advanced reading ability and was reading well before Kindergarten but I don't know if it will last. So here is a kid who will probably need to be subject accelerated a few years for math, and will be ahead of some of the kids in the magnet for math, but won't qualify. Who knows if he'll even qualify for the cluster group!
The other thing that really irks me is that i think it is possible for parents to prep a kid for the CogAT and it's a bad test anyway, esp. for 2e kids. So are the kids who are scoring 139+ really gifted or were they prepped? Who knows! And how many 2e kids are being left out?

Totally agree.

I know! Poor 2e kids and kids of people who didn't prep! My ds was given a GAI of 142, but the tester said after VT, that score should increase 10-15 pts.

It just makes no sense. They know or have a good idea who needs extension. Instead of putting them together to make it easier they put one in each class! Surely putting them at least in pairs wouldn't upset anyone.

Our "GT" program isn't really GT either. It's been approximately 15% of the grade for my kids although it may vary a bit either way for other grades based on how many students/classes for that grade. I do think that due to a somewhat high concentration of professionals that DS/DD's GT classes are probably in the 90 percentile.

All things considered, I am actually okay with that many kids in the GT classes because there is strength in numbers. Since first grade and until this year (fifth grade), DS/DD has been in stand-alone GT classes. Due to implmentation of Common Core standards, the district/school has separated and evenly distributed all the GT students into mixed ability classrooms for reading/language arts but left the math GT group intact. Any student who tests at the appropriate level prior to each reading/language arts unit, including but not limited to the former GT students, gets put in the high level group in each classroom. The hope is to make the high level work available to all students but the reality has been that pretty much the same GT students qualify. The difference is that all students in each classroom share some instructional time and assignments as well. It's been particularly eye-opening for DS, who was shocked to see how some students stuggle and had to fend off one or two students who tried to beg/borrow/steal his papers so they can copy his answers.

I don't ever think there can be too many kids in a GT program. A GT program size should never be defined by a percentage or a cut off number of students, rather, the number of students should be defined by how many NEED the services offered within the program. That may mean adjusting the program to meet the needs of varying numbers of students from year to year yes.

My kids' school admits to doing this. They take the top 3 kids from each grade and make sure they are all in a different classroom the next year (until they are forced by the district to do cluster grouping in third grade, but even then they don't necessarily put them in the same class). The goal is to make it "fair" to all the teachers. Another thing the principal is doing with grades that have the cluster group, is that he is putting the kids at the rock bottom in the same class, so that the ability levels average out to the same as the other classes. Maybe that's why the teacher has NO TIME to do anything with the cluster group. I think every single disruptive boy in the grade is in DD's class. She can only think of about 4 boys who are NOT disruptive.

Quote is from Blackcat, in the post above, but apparently I did it incorrectly and can't edit it now.



Our elementary did this, too. While the district is not huge, it was not until 7th and 8th grade that my DD met the few kids who are probably her nearest academic peers (and who have become good friends). A huge relief- we knew they were probably out there, but it seemed impossible that they had not crossed paths before this.

When my DS was in the same school, a few years later, he was actually grouped in a class with several similar kids for a few years- this has made all the difference socially, as they have a tight circle of friends and find each other even though they are not always grouped in classes.

Yes, unfortunately grouping the gifted with intellectual peers was largely discontinued in the wake of No Child Left Behind, with any remaining practice discontinued in the name of closing the achievement gap and/or closing the excellence gap.

The way in which this is said to be "fair" to teachers is by the artificial connection of teacher evaluation with student achievement as measured by scores on standardized tests. Unfortunately there is little acknowledgement of the ways in which this is not fair to teachers, including the unrealistic expectation of being able to simultaneously teach to the broad range of abilities and readiness within one classroom. By unifying in promoting ways to be more fair to teachers and pupils, parents may be able to bring about change. There is a saying: "What you reward, you get more of." Some have suggested we may need to reward providing opportunity. Gifted kids, high achievers, and ALL kids, thrive when they have opportunity to achieve. We may want to reward the creation of opportunity to achieve, in all its forms.

I believe research has shown that flexible cluster grouping by readiness and ability benefits kids at ALL levels... if I recall, the gifted and high achievers may challenge each other to remain engaged and learning, while gen ed pupils may feel more comfortable to ask a question or offer an answer which may not be correct without the gifted and high achieving kids present. Without fear of being wrong or standing out, ALL kids were more likely to develop a growth mindset and flourish.

Applying quotas to education based on statistics is not logical. By analogy, applying quotas to medical practice based on statistics may help illustrate this: If statistics show that a certain percentage of children are diagnosed with a particular condition nationally, then it would be cause for concern if pediatricians began to model their own practice or case load after these statistics... for this would indicate that some patients may be diagnosed and treated unnecessarily while others may be lacking needed treatment. Better to diagnose according to the symptoms the patient presents with, rather than modeling to statistics.

When some say there are too many kids in GT programs, and they are expressing in a sound-bite that there are a broad range of abilities which precludes the outliers from receiving appropriate curriculum and placement... the answer may again be flexible cluster grouping by readiness and ability. Gifted is not one-size-fits-all. The book from Prufrock Press on Advanced Academics may be of help in guiding teachers/schools/districts to creating a better educational experience for both teachers and pupils.

The best answer that I've heard to the "unfair to other students" statement is a story along these lines: A student athlete falls over. The mandatory AED defibrillation equipment is nearby. Is it "fair" to the other students for the coach to turn his attention from the majority of the team to help this ONE student? Utilizing the defibrillator would mean this ONE student may be getting more attention in the short-term. What is the ethical answer?

The answer is "yes", it is fair to the other students to serve this ONE student because it is NEEDS-based. This ONE student NEEDS the defibrillation, and needs it NOW. The others do not have the same NEED.

It is not a perfect analogy because in a school setting it would not be an either-or approach... both the rest of team and the one with the NEED could be served, by flexible cluster grouping by readiness and ability.

Possibly the NEED is more obvious in the above example, as compared with an educational setting: The gifted student who does not receive appropriate intellectual challenge and support according to their NEED sustains damage internally before it shows externally and interpersonally in terms of underachievement, perfectionism, poor self-esteem, self-harm, and/or generally displaying attitudes mirroring those which the child has been subject to throughout the educational experience... which may be characterized as dismissive indifference, invalidation, undermining... (attitudes, which when adopted and exhibited by the child are termed "bad attitude"). There are also things which kids don't learn, if they are not appropriately challenged.

There is a famous poem "Children Live What They Learn" by Dorothy Law Nolte. This applies to the influence of school as well as to home life, due to the fact that children spend so much of their time in the educational setting and are receiving feedback from a large number of individuals.

There is also a T-shirt with a saying by Stephanie Tolan:
"You don't have the moral right to hold one child back to make another child feel better."

I hope that parents in the USA will unite to change and reform our educational system before it is too late. Legislatively protecting and expanding homeschool rights and parental rights may be key to maintaining parental and family influence over the public educational system both here and abroad.

My son is in a Title 1 school with about 400 students - he is a young 10 (turned 10 in June) in 5th grade. (he does go to 6th grade math). This year, so far, he is the only identified gifted child in the once a week pull-out. They do have a couple of other kids in there to keep him company who haven't been tested. Honestly, I don't know "how" gifted my son is. I am still in denial that he is gifted, as opposed to a "high achiever". We chose not to put him in the gifted magnet school in 2nd grade - but next year, he will, hopefully, be in the new gifted middle school program. I'll be interested to see what the other kids who make the new program are like - and how he compares to them. The school he is currently at have been wonderfully accomodating to him - and he has always been the smartest kid in the school - but, again - I honesty don't know how he compares to others. I do not believe he is PG - but where he falls - I don't know. I DO think that many parents will be trying really hard to get their high achieving kids into the new program - can't wait to see how it all plays out !!

I agree. I do think, however, that when 15% or more of an UNDIFFERENTIATED schooling environment is being grouped as "gifted" then that raises different red flags about what is going on there.

It is a quota of a different sort at that point.

I'm pretty sure that nobody here wants kids at the 90th percentile to be excluded from appropriate instruction-- just that maybe the kids who are 98th+ would do better if THEY were getting appropriate education, too, and that it's not likely that it is identical for those two groups.

I sure wish that all students' needs were met.


It's also possible that the reason is related to teacher skills.

My mom was a great teacher for kids who had specific LD's and she was also strongly preferred as a placement for ADHD children because of the low-drama, routine-driven, highly-structured way that she ran her classrooms... but the upshot is that she usually had about 20-30% of a class being kids who had those kinds of challenges.

Her classroom would have been a hideous placement for an HG+ child without such challenges, however. Not sure that administrators would have seen that, though.

I am having the exact same issue over here in South Florida. It's a fairly affluent city, and all of a sudden a huge percentage of the children are "gifted." My DS is in 1st grade. He's at the top of his class. His teacher told us at our conference that he is one of the truly gifted kids out of the bunch. I do believe that most of the kids in his class are probably advanced and bright, but the problem is that my DS is still not being challenged in his gifted classroom, and I believe that part of the issue is because the other kids are not at the same level as he is. I feel your frustration. When parents just want their children to be in the gifted classes whether or not they really belong there, it waters it down for the children that truly need a more enriching environment. I think that there are some teachers out there who are good at individualizing the work for the different levels of the children, but my DS's teacher is definitely not one of them. I think the only thing you can do is try to talk to the school about making sure your child is properly challenged. I've tried this, but unfortunately I'm hitting road blocks. Good luck

I live in VA and have two recently identified. Our school district sets their own bar for gifted, currently at 85%. Other neighboring school districts are more like 95-96% on standardized testing.

I also found through calling around that each school district can use whichever tests they want to identify. If we were to move to another district, they could require our kids to test into their program.

I knew by looking at the class list that they had finally ability grouped. I got the same speech about differentiation in the classroom, but it seemed pretty nebulous as described because I wasn't given specifics on just how it's differentiated compared to what everyone else is doing in class. We do our best to provide extra enrichment at home as best we can for our 3rd grader, but try not to overwhelm him. He does take piano, which is a challenge, though he's making great and fast progress.

We live in an affluent, well-educated neighborhood, like the OP. By my own calculations, the G&T program at our school included 3% of the students before the appeals process began, and after appeals, 5%. The way our "selection" matrix is written, the number of gifted will vary every year, depending upon how many qualify.

The program seems limited (it is not a "magnet" addressing all subjects, just a class that meets daily), but it seems light years better than what we had before programming started. We consider ourselves fortunate.

Our state has no mandated gifted education.