Indigo, I have run across the criteria for various schools in trying to understand the criteria for my DC's school. 98% CUT scores for achievement testing seem high (and no, I've performed no formal study) - especially in light of 2e issues, and other factors mentioned by PPs.
A large percentage of the gifted population is 2e (I seem to recall a statistic of as high as 1/6th of the gifted population, I could be off on this, though). They are no "less gifted," than the rest of the gifted population.
"Earned" was perhaps a poor choice of words - "attained," is that better? I am feeling a bit picked on here...
I should have clarified, "my program," was meant to describe a program I would design (if I could be queen of the world, I am being a bit tongue-in-cheek here) and not the program utilized by my DC's school. DC's uses different tests - so I do not think one can compare.
Actually, I believe that gifted characteristics (extreme curiosity, unusual interests) may INDEED go unnoticed if harsh cut-scores are utilized, without much other thought. I do think that too many school personnel tend to still believe most gifted students will typically display compliant, high achieving behavior. Many programs with "cut score" criteria (ours) also do NOT encourage the submission of portfolios or other data in their selection process. Actually, such unsolicited submission may be viewed as attempting to unduly influence the selection process, so any such additional submission could backfire.
Yes, the goal is NOT the label, as though it is an accomplishment. My point was more that some of the "intellectual peers of similar readiness and ability," may be missed by some of the selection methods being described.
