... 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...
Thank you for clarifying... when you mentioned this was higher than most you see, I was hoping you might share what you found in terms of a number? Now I think I understand correctly you were speaking of more of an impression or feeling formed, rather than a number or range of numbers you found? Please forgive me for asking again, but might you explain to me what you mean by the quality of the data?
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.
As 1/6th would be 16.67%, some may say this is not a "large percentage" of the gifted population.
2e Students with
slow processing speed and/or low working memory (resulting in the calculation of GAI in addition to FSIQ) may not have the "gifts" of high processing speed and high working memory; They may have difficulty with a fast-paced curriculum. 2e kids may need or benefit from different instruction (detailed in an IEP), and may receive accommodations (detailed in a 504).
I understood this was not about labels but rather about teachers/schools/districts attempting to make the best match (or least-worst fit) between students' NEEDS/abilities and challenge-level curriculum, teaching students in their zone of proximal development?
Considering IQ scores for a moment (rather than achievement scores):
What research indicates about identification procedures is that you should match the identification procedures to the intervention programs. That is, if the program is going to require a kid to do stuff that relies on WM and PS, don't use GAI for identification, because you're going to end up getting kids in the program who then can't handle the work, and you're going to exclude kids who should be in the program.
This describes
matching a child to a program. For any children who are not a match to this program, parents may wish to think in terms of meeting the child's needs by
matching the program to the child.
"Earned" was perhaps a poor choice of words - "attained," is that better? I am feeling a bit picked on here...
Please accept my apology if you feel a bit on the spot when I ask you to clarify things which you say that I do not understand.
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.
I would join you if we could have EVERY kid at their own pace in each subject! Each child would have time and support to explore areas of interest, then there would be time to study other things we may need to know to be well-rounded. By every kid, I mean all levels, no one is excluded.
DC's uses different tests - so I do not think one can compare.
Understood. Meanwhile our world is full of apples-and-oranges comparisons.
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 understand your concern. I have personally shared that concern, until over the years, many have communicated the existence of a bit of flexibility which may be available through teacher recommendations.
I do think that too many school personnel tend to still believe most gifted students will typically display compliant, high achieving behavior.
That may be, and it is rather inexplicable due to the large number of lists of common characteristics of gifted children, easily found online, describing something quite different than that.
Many programs with "cut score" criteria (ours) also do NOT encourage the submission of portfolios or other data in their selection process.
Agreed. This would be an advocacy effort.
Actually, such unsolicited submission may be viewed as attempting to unduly influence the selection process, so any such additional submission could backfire.
Unfortunately there is always the possibility of advocacy not achieving the desired result. That being said, some schools may appreciate an honest attempt at advocacy when a parent may have evidence that the identification process was flawed, and that other credible evidence exists of the student's achievement at the requisite level. For example, this may be preferable to a lawsuit alleging bias, to letting a child fall through the cracks, to a family leaving a school, to casting aspersions on attempts to serve gifted pupils resulting in disbanding gifted programs.
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.
Thank you for clarifying. My point is that if a student was high in reading, not in math, they could be in a high reading group matched by readiness and ability not chronological age (for example, 6th-7th level)... possibly the same student would be served well in math with others studying 3rd-4th level compacted into one year... etc. EVERY student throughout the school could be served at the best match (or least-worst fit) for each subject.
