I'm not sure science lends itself as much to radical acceleration of the child is not well rounded.
Dottie, I went into the meeting with the same thought. Without seeing their WJ III test data yet, I had thought that math would be a better subject acceleration than science because of the writing and group lab work. He scored fairly high on most of the math subtests: Broad Math, Math Calculation, and Applied Math were all in the 99.9th%. But they would not consider a subject acceleration in math because his Math Fluency was only at the 47%, which came in at the 2.7th grade equivalent. Math Fluency was defined as "written problems involving basic addition, subtraction, and multiplication. This is timed, to see how many problems he could complete in 3 minutes." So most of his other scores were in the Jr. High level of math by grade equivalency, but they would not consider even a one-year subject acceleration in math.
It seems like writing is the common hold up. But they were not as concerned about it for science.?? It doesn't make a lot of sense?
