I got some stuff from AGATE. Bad news for IEP in NY, though PA seems to recognize it. I am posting below what I got.

NYS has no mandate nor funding for Gifted Education (see http://www.davidsongifted.org/db/StatePolicy.aspx), one of only a handful of states in the US that is so pitiful. This means that IEPs are not granted for gifted children, and gifted children have no protection under the law. School districts are not required to provide programs or services for the gifted, and their is no standard of service or identification set. The only thing NYS requires by law is that districts must identify students as gifted and notify the student's parents/guardians. HOWEVER, that identification process could be ANYTHING: 10 pushups; walking a balance beam; etc.

I agree, the OLSAT is not going to accurately measure the abilities of a HG child, and in fact, with a ceiling of 150, it is more likely than not to be off by several points. It is also known to be off as much as 15 points (from what I have read and been told) if a child is gifted with a learning disability. I am not that familiar with NYS identification process or system of services as they stand today, but most districts have more than one measure (teacher recommendation, parent nomination, Renzulli Scale, portfolio evaluation, etc.) to use in identifying a gifted student. IEPs are not, however, awarded to a gifted student in NYS. PA is one state that provides this service for GT kids, but in NYS one can't even get an IEP for a GT kid with learning disabilities. (Well, maybe somewhere someone sued and got an IEP, but they would have to sue, because it just isn't done here.)

Hope that helps someone.

Ren

All I have to say Ren, lucky you that you live in the City, since you do have options there. Your DD may not have IEP, but she may be able to attend a gifted school.

I think the big problem with our current school system is that it simply CAN'T work for gifted kids. I refer to the system as "industrialized education" because it tries to put a maximum number of bodies through the system as efficiently as possible.

This approach doesn't really work for anyone, but it's especially disastrous for the ones on the high-ability side of the curve, and the more able the child, the less the system can meet his/her needs in individual subjects.

Any kid getting As in, say, 2nd grade math could perform at a much higher level, yet this concept doesn't even occur to a lot of teachers. It happened with my 2nd grader. They offered him a grade skip for next year and then tossed him some 3rd grade books. One of the teachers was pretty suprised when he just started blasting through the 3rd grade math book with no instruction from her. It was trivial for him!

The worst part is the continual dumbing-down of the curricula, which must be mind-numbing for the brightest kids. The facile work may contribute to a hurried approach to work, to not reading problems carefully, and may hinder the development of study skills. All of these things create serious problems down the line, and schools likely have no clue that *they* are creating them by ignoring the needs of bright kids. After all, he's bright and he'll be okay, right?

It's no wonder that graduate programs have trouble finding US students to fill their slots; we don't bother with the bright ones and many probably lose their way long before grad school.

Val

Oh, sing it, sister! I agree wholeheartedly, Val. And I think it's tragic, a word I do not use lightly.