As gifted advocates, we have to concede that early testing is unreliable, and misidentification (in either direction) at young ages will inevitably be common. So instead, the focus needs to be on how can schools provide all students the opportunity to learn at their own pace, no matter how fast or slow, without needing to identify them in advance. Schools have to embrace the idea that large differences in ability are very real, and that they will translate into large differences in achievement, if they are willing to allow that to happen.
Yes, that makes sense. Except so much as the offerings are often thin on the ground and the tests are used as gates.
Or rather they are on the upper end. Schools actually seem better at identifying weaknesses and stepping in quickly to mitigate them. DD had a mild lisp as a young child and the school:
1) Identified the issue
2) Notified us immediately
3) Gave us a written plan
4) Sent her for free speech therapy during the school day with a well-trained and qualified teacher
5) Followed up with us frequently and communicated transparently
This is the exact opposite of how they handled her giftedness, which was much more obvious and extreme than her tiny speech impediment.
