Cocomom,
Since your son was group tested, perhaps you could print off some information about gifted kids and group testing (an example:
http://www.hoagiesgifted.org/tests_tell_us.htm ). You might then either write a letter or request a meeting and present this as something that was shared with you. Then raise the question as to whether this might be a factor for your--now twice--teacher referred child. Perhaps request that the administrator/gate keeper gather a bit more information from the referring teachers regarding your child's demonstrated need for something beyond the typical curriculum. You might even take the approach like: "I understand that this program has set criteria. I guess I'm wondering what the instructional plan will be in place of his admittance to the program. I'm concerned that both of his teachers felt that there was a need not being fully met by the general classroom/curriculum. If the program isn't an option, I'm wondering what the plan will be for meeting his needs in the coming year. I want my son to continue enjoying/benefitting from school, and I have a lot of respect for his previous teachers' and their observations". Or something like that
Given that both referrals originated with the teachers rather than with you the parent, you probably have a leg up on those of us who have to come in and challenge the perceptions' of our childrens' teachers. You might also take the approach of asking for the administrator's experience. "I'm obviously pretty new to this. Have you had kids in the past who didn't test well but then participated in the program and performed well? If so, would you be willing to let my son give it a try?".
A final question for you to consider: is this a good program? Will it give your child something that he will really benefit from? How much you advocate could have a lot to do with the answer to that question. If this is about an hour of enrichment a week, then waiting another year and accumulating more evidence of the mismatch between curriculum and need is probably not a problem. If this is a matter of subject acceleration, however, it will be more important to advocate because so many tests are impacted by what a child gets exposed to instructionally. If a year from now he is going to have his scores evaluated in comparison to same age peers who have recieved above-level instruction for a solid year, then this testing outcome is more likely to repeat itself. It concerns me that so few tests seem to have a way to incorporate exposure to material in their scoring. It seems to me that even where tests are not achievement based, outcomes are still likely to impacted by the variety of experiences a child has. After all, content is not just content: it is also opportunity to think about and analyze information. I would tend to think that the greater a child's range of experiences, the more developed those abilities should become. My DS, for instance, was given a math test in K that was supposed to be "ability" not "acheivement" based. He did poorly on it and his K teacher was distressed when she talked to me about it because she felt that she hadn't exposed him to some of the material he would have needed in order to understand what was being asked. He was slated for a great 1st grade teacher, and there is no real "program" here, so I just let it stand. This year, his second grade teacher requested evaluation based on classroom performance, and lo and behold, he tested at the 99th on the regular scale and the at the 97th on the gifted scale on the same test. It's my belief that maturity played some role, but I also strongly suspect that by the time he retook this test, he had a broader,stronger store of knowledge to draw from and apply to the novel tasks and problems he was given.
