There are a lot of pros & cons about using AT, I think the biggest pro is it is very inexpensive to purchase achievement tests and any teacher is qualified to administer it. I think that pro outweighs all other reasons for or against AT as an ID.
I'm not opposed to AT as
part of the way to id gifted kids per se. I am just bothered with situations like ours where dd#2 tests very highly on IQ tests but isn't ided as gifted b/c her grade level achievement scores aren't consistently high. Using grade level AT as a way to rule kids out who would otherwise qualify is not reasonable IMHO.
I am not too sure on using it as a sole criterion. We have one instance I know of due to discussions with the parents in which their child has not been IQ tested (as, understandably, most haven't) and scored in the avg range on the group ability test (scores ranging from the 40-60th percentile on various subtests and around 50th for the composite) but is still ided as gifted due to advanced scores on one NCLB state test and the parents and teacher filling out behavioral scales. Now I know that group ability tests aren't fail-safe & my one dd who has taken one did much more poorly than she did on IQ (composite somewhere around the 85th-88th percentile if I recall correctly). However, a child who has
no indication that s/he is gifted except for a higher than avg grade level achievement test shouldn't be ided as gifted -- again IMHO.
