i am probably going to be starting a parent's group for my son's school district. and i've been working on gathering information on the district's GT programs. i contacted the administration office for information on the criteria used for inclusion in the program and was given a screenshot of a rubric.
[img]https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B0RQvhp02UTNMnlsNWs0Ymlta3NsaTlZWTNycENSR2otS2h3/view?usp=sharing[/img]

when i asked for the form that feeds into the "Student Performance Criteria" i was told it's confidential and for internal use only, that the rubric was all parents need. :\

is this typical? it seems completely absurd to me.

The best-case scenario would be that they intend to measure performance via standardized tests, and they don't want to tip off parents as to which instruments they'll be using, to eliminate parent prepping.

I'd ask for more clarity around the two non-reading level items again. Presumably, you have a legal right to request placement, and any appeals you'd make would have recourse to review of the criteria.

Maybe go in with Dude's line about prepping and say that you appreciate they are trying to minimize cheating. But then ask for clarifications about what the student score breakdown involves (weight of different grades?/behaviour?/Iowa Assessment score?), standardized tests, and the role of teacher judgment while allowing them the latitude to conceal the specific standardized test they use.

It all seems quite strange.

they provide the names of the assessments they use, so that isn't it.

they won't provide the Student Performance Criteria form, which from what i understand is an questionnaire for the teacher to fill out.

is it legal for them to not disclose the tools they're using?

They named the standardized instrument in criterion two. (InView is an ability assessment, much like CogAT or OLSAT.)

The performance criterion may include teacher observations of behaviors that children can be taught to do.

But yes, on principle I heavily favor transparency in decision making.

My guess is that it is something like this -
https://www.pearsonclinical.com/psychology/products/100000180/gifted-rating-scales-grs.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gifted_Rating_Scales

and the whole form is copyrighted.

If you have a student that actually shows what they are capable AND a teacher that knows more than the standard stereotypes about "gifted" then it might work. For PG 2E kids that have shut down etc - they probably aren't going to score very high.

I can't speak to the legality of it. I will say that it is hard to appeal something that is top secret.

My thinking was that the In View might be something that is very difficult to get hold of, but the instrument for "Student Performance Criteria" might be easy to find.

If "Student Performance Criteria" is indeed a subjective questionnaire filled out by the teachers, then the problem with those is that they're full of implicit/explicit bias, and keeping that confidential is a benefit to the school in cutting down lawsuits.

this is the one time people are allowed to see the form: if their child isn't admitted to the program and the parents/guardians appeal.



this is my gut impression, but i have no basis for it. i know it's a questionnaire -they said that much- but the content is completely undisclosed.

hmmm.... much to think about... and legal stuff to research... and time to file an OPRA request and see what turns up. :\

thanks for the thoughts and feedback.

It's almost certainly not the GRS (because of the way the scores are grouped in the rubric), but it could be one of the other common rating scales.

Rating scales for giftedness do have flaws, as you can tell if you've ever read the manual of any one of them, in which they rip all the other scales, but they are still better than teacher nomination.

Another possibility is that the student performance criteria are a set of activities that students will be asked to do at a later stage in the process. One of my old districts had a performance assessment, in which nominees were invited to participate in a day at the self-contained GT building, where they engaged in group and individual semi-structured activities while being observed and rated by the teachers of the gifted. Which did have the advantage that, whether or not they were accurately selecting for the most gifted students, they were definitely selecting for the ones most likely to be successful in the program.

missed this my first go around. it seems strange to me, as well. they were willing to share the rubric and information on the InView and reading assessments. they even went so far as to explain that the qualifying score varies by school. the minute i asked for more information on the Student Performance Criteria, the tone changed and they stopped sharing. and then repeatedly came back with parents don't need access to it. and when i asked why, all they would say is parents don't need access to it. :\ does not "feel" right at all.



yeah... i think i was mistakenly thinking they were for transparency, as well. at least they said they were. we'll see how round 3 goes.

There can also be issues with the slide rule moving from year to year. It's not always that if you meet X criteria you're in the program. Depending on the district and school, they may only allow Y number of students in a program, so meeting X criteria this year doesn't necessarily mean next year the criteria won't be X+10. So they may tell you what the assessments used are, just not what the cut-off point is as it may vary from class to class, year to year.

I just recently noticed that districts that had their criteria available only 5 years ago mostly no longer do, which I found odd and disappointing. Our district also posts no particular criteria and avoids answering questions about exactly what gets you into the hicap program. They administer the CoGAT and an achivement test, and there are bahavior checklists (to be completed by the kid, parent, AND teacher, because why not go totally overboard?), and some other requirements. But they just pick the top X many kids to fill up however many slots they have available, so it changes from year to year. They seem to strongly favor older kids.

in WA State the code requires a clearly defined and written assessment process. You should always be able to get a copy of that procedure. I believe all procedures and policies must also be public and published but if not a freedom of information req. would also do.

WAC 392-170-055 Assessment process for selection as highly capable student — must use multiple objective criteria
(1) Students nominated for selection as a highly capable student, unless eliminated through screening as
provided in WAC 392-170-045, shall be assessed by qualified district personnel;
(2) Districts shall use multiple objective criteria for identification of students who are among the most highly
capable. There is no single prescribed method for identification of students among the most highly capable;
and
(3) Districts shall have a clearly defined and written assessment process.

What is the cutoff cumulative number of points needed for acceptance?

The rubric seems biased to me in favour of teacher pleasers and the non-2e in that the rubric is weighted 2:1 against the standardized test.

If I had a boisterous (normal energy level) gifted boy as a child I would be particularly interested in seeing the minimum number of points required.

Having said that, given that their assessment seems weighted towards performance and not potential it may be just be an enrichment program anyway. With that being the case I would know straight off the bat that it would be unlikely to suit my hypothetically potential>performance child and not be too broken up if my child was not selected.

Oh, believe me, I know. Some other parents have been using FOIA this year and we've collected a good bunch of other data. The nature of the entrance requirements is waaaay down on our list of issues to tackle, though. Waaaay down there.