Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums General Discussion Kindergarten redshirting on 60 minutes tonight

What's true for the right side of the bell curve -- mental age, not chronological age should determine placement -- is also true for the left side.

A child with an IQ of 80 will have a mental age of 4 when he is 5 years old. It may make sense to delay putting him in KG until he is 6, when his mental age will be 6*0.8 = 4.8, especially if most of the other kids in KG have mental age >= 5 and the curriculum is designed for such children. The low-IQ 5yo may belong in preschool instead. Concerns about stigmatization should weighed against a child's frustration of being in a class that is over his head.

Yes and no here. Placement in GT/honors/accelerated classes is based nearly entirely on achievement in the district my girls attend. The district GT page specifically states that a GT id doesn't mean placement in GT classes, that achievement and work habits need to be in place. Kids without that id are also placed in those classes if the achievement is in place. A formal id does require two separate areas of indication that the child is gifted. Those two areas can be achievement (grade level normed, so being older may help here), ability (one part of the CogAT or OLSAT that hits the 95th and is age normed), performance (grades, teacher recommendation, etc. which are also potentially benefitted by being older), or behavioral characteristics (which are, again, influenced by the perception of the teacher who is identifying those characteristics).

So, for instance, a child could be identified as gifted in language arts based on As in reading and an advanced CSAP/TCAP (CO's NCLB tests) score in reading or writing even if the verbal part of the CogAT is not above average and the child has never taken a IQ test. S/he could also be identified as gifted in language arts, like my dd11, b/c she has a 99.7th VCI score on the WISC and 99th+ individual achievement scores on tests like the WIAT. Both of these kids get the same GT reading class and the later child actually may not wind up in the GT reading class if, like my dd and another child I know, the child is 2e and have behavioral issues or erratic achievement. My dd did stay in GT reading despite 2e, but I know gifted kids who have not. I also know gifted kids who are underachieving and also wind up with no services beyond supposed in class differentiation.

And over here, there's a matrix score required to receive the GT label. One of the components is an IQ test, and the other two are achievement tests (language arts and math). The first is age-normed, and the other two are grade-normed.

The state tries to cast a wide net for GT, so it doesn't miss anyone. So at a certain IQ level, achievement results don't matter. As you slide down the IQ scale, achievement matters even more... to the point where a 1SD high-achiever can be admitted to GT with high achievement scores and a staff recommendation.

And that's where the redshirt manipulation factor comes in, because a more mature high-achiever pushed by a tiger mom is exactly the kind of kid who will get a staff recommendation.

This is the type of scenario I was referencing with my earlier remark.

This is the type of thing I was referring to as well, and it is done in the state we reside in ( which I believe is the same as the poster).

Well, we live in a district where some of the kids in the GT program are in the 50th percentile for ability testing, and the average percentile for ability testing is the 70th percentile. Virtually all these kids are included in the GT program because of their scores on state testing, MAP testing, and teacher recommendations. So, the GT net is huge and kids who are redshirted have an advantage. Rather than a score cutoff, there is a set number of students that can qualify for each school. Every kid deserves the kind of enrichment that kids in the GT program get, but the quality of the enrichment can be affected when you're targeting it at students at different ability levels, and it means that an EG kid still may not have a peer group or a challenging environment and may still need acceleration beyond the GT program.

What really gets my goat are the parents who brag loudly that their kids are subject or grade accelerated when they were redshirted in the first place.

OK, I was coming from the perspective of living in a school district where there is a matrix that is used for qualifying for the gifted programs which includes ability scores as well as achievement plus teacher recs. Where we're at, if you don't meet a specific ability score, it doesn't matter what the rest of your matrix is in elementary school. In secondary schools, there are two tracks - honors classes and gifted magnet program. The honors classes are based on achievement only, for the gifted magnet you still have to have high ability scores.

I am really surprised to read that in some places the average ability scores for GT programming are in the 70th percentile for ability. Also surprised to read of a state trying to cast a wide net so that no one is missed - that would be the polar opposite of the school district I'm in lol.

polarbear

I don't think 70th percentile is the norm in many places, but it is an example of how some districts have other criteria which are much more important than actual ability testing scores and how redshirting can confer upon some children the label of being "gifted" by virtue of the fact that they older. It can be interpreted as trying to meet the academic needs of as many students as possible, but when gifted programming is designed to meet the needs of high-achieving vs. gifted, the needs of some of the kids (at both ends) are surely not being adressed properly.

The district in which I live is the worst of both worlds, it both limits the number of students admitted to the 1 GT class to 15 students and highly considers achievement testing and teacher recommendations, though ability testing is also a component. Redshirting even a slightly above average student can give that child a huge advantage in GT entrance.

FWIW, none of this affects my child since he attends a private school (where redshirting is just as bad, but the whole curriculum is advanced anyway). I just don't think it's fair to the kids in our public school to have parents unfairly gaming the system. It's also too obvious who the redshirted kids are because they have to play league sports (also huge in my area) with their agemates, so other parents clearly see what's going on. Absent extraordinary circumstances, it just doesn't pass the smell test for me. Just my personal opinion, and obviously there are many different points of view on this subject.

ETA: BGbarnes, I'm not questioning your choice, btw, and it sounds as though it worked out well for you. Just answering your question: I do not think the risk of an ADHD misdiagnosis should automatically indicate redshirting. [/quote]

DeeDee- I don't think it should automatically indicate Redshirting either but only the parent knows what is best for each individual child and should not be prevented from GT services if they qualify. It is much better being one of the mature ones vs being the immature one getting in trouble all the time. I actually chose not to Redshirt my gifted son when the Doctor suggested it do to what she thought was ADHD and experienced my son being the youngest and very immature. I only "Redshirted" when my son got seriously ill, missed over 30 days of school and we had no idea what his recovery was going to be like over the next year. It was not my plan. He technically was held back due to absences not for Redshirting purposes. However, having experienced K, 1st and 2nd being an immature youngest smart kid and the older smart kid in 2nd and 3rd-there is NO QUESTION it works so much better for my son- maturity wise being older in the class-even though that was not the reason he was held back. Since his brain has healed and is back to functioning back at his accelerated pace(it took almost 1 1/2 years to recover-easily his entire 2nd 2nd grade year was about recovery-mentally,emotionally and physically and relearning what was lost during his illness)- I honestly did not know if he was still going to have a gifted mind after he recovered- he had lost so much when he was sick. Now that his brain is turbo charged again not even the 4th grade class would not have the right curriculum in the classes that he needs acceleration in-(Spelling he definitely needs grade level-OUCH!) but the school does a good job of managing him and we supplement outside so letting him develop those positive social skills and self esteem beats the alternative of probably getting picked on. However, it is interesting to note that my sons birthday is after the baseball cutoff (June 1st is the age cut off) and we always had to play up a year to play with his friends from school before he got sick- quite the opposite of the redshirt for sports kids mentality. My daughter is the one we held back-repeated Kindergarten for maturity reasons-not academic. Yes- I Redshirted her-best decision I ever made for her and she helped make the decision. I have not tested her in any way yet as she does not present as gifted like my son did. With my son it hits you in the face when meeting him . She will get testing done in the next month- just for our reference. She is a good student- smart but not sure if she is gifted and if she is, it is in very different ways than my son.
So I have experienced this from many different angles- choosing not to redshirt when recommended. Being forced to due to illness ( I actually was given the option of having him go forward even though he missed so much school because he scores were so high but he was just so sick- I picked the safe route and if he missed a lot of school again the next year- it would not matter as much.....) and choosing to Redshirt with another child. Every single decision was based on the individual child's need and never once did the thought come into my head about is this going to help him get into a GT program. I think in Texas most parents do it for sports vs. getting into the GT program. Just to mix it even more-I should mention that my step son ( we really use the word bonus instead of step) that I got when he was 12 is the absolute youngest in his grade- 17 Senior and was in the GT program since 1st grade-Duke TIP kid, is a great student, has a great GPA, ACT,SAT offered scholarships to every school he applied to. He is the most mature Senior- level headed teenager I have ever met and he is the absolute youngest in the grade. So it all depends on the child- the parents knows what is best for their kid. All of mine had to be handled differently- since they are all different kids. I know I have been pretty vocal on this topic but I have had a lot of experience with it in a number of different ways and at the end of the day the child should not be punished for a parents decision and it is the parents right to make the decision that is best for their child.