Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums Identification, Testing & Assessment they don't want to test for GT below grade 3

DS8, who taught himself to read at age 2, and is probably 99.99th percentile in math, was measured as just plain average at age 4. Testing at age 7 was closer to the truth. I definitely believe that these tests can be highly inaccurate at young ages. On the other hand, we as parents saw obvious signs at very young ages, so it's not a case of being a late bloomer.

As gifted advocates, we have to concede that early testing is unreliable, and misidentification (in either direction) at young ages will inevitably be common. So instead, the focus needs to be on how can schools provide all students the opportunity to learn at their own pace, no matter how fast or slow, without needing to identify them in advance. Schools have to embrace the idea that large differences in ability are very real, and that they will translate into large differences in achievement, if they are willing to allow that to happen.

We saw signs too from an early age in DS, but not everything was advanced and his development was very uneven. So His IQ score at age 3.5 was overall average, even though he was advanced in some areas of the test. At age 6, everything was just shifted up about 20 points. I think it was a combination of the test being more accurate, but he also was developing at a more rapid pace than other kids his age. They were slowing down and he was just getting started in terms of speech/language at least.

If he had the same test again right now almost 2 years later, I think his verbal score would probably be higher and his PRI score would be the same or lower.

Our school district was the same

Well, I think there are two separate but related issues here. First, testing before around age 9 tends to yield variable results for at least a significant subset of children. Second, children actually have varying growth trajectories with the early bloomer and the late bloomer as extreme cases in point.

The problem with an early identification system is that you will end up with a subgroup of children who may have trouble keeping up by 4th or 5th grade as well as a group of unidentified children who are actually more capable than the previously identified gifted.

The students in the GT stand-alone classes at our elementary are not truly gifted as this group includes more than 15% of each grade. However, one way our school has gotten around the mis-identification issue is by having an unofficial GT class starting in 1st grade, with the GT class becoming official only in 3rd grade. Furthermore, even some kids who secured a spot in the official 3rd grade GT class are not officially identified as GT. Having had three children go through this systems, I have seen enough movements in the composition of the classes to justify the school's wait until 3rd grade for official identification. I think maybe around 1/4 to 1/5 of the classes get moved in either direction. Having said all that, I do not have direct experience as all three of my children were in stand-alone GT classes from 1st grade.

Anyhow, in answer to your direct question, it actually is not "nonsensical to think that a child is not gifted in second grade but suddenly would benefit from services when older." This is particularly possible when you consider that we are talking about not testing gifted as opposed to not being gifted.

I think the tougher issue for parents of a young child who seems quite clearly gifted is what to do with them in the meantime when the school has no services or very limited services in grades K-2.

Absolutely!
Exactly! I think we're essentially unanimous about that around here. Above I saidBut generally schools won't. We need to understand all the reasons why. There are some relatively "innocent" reasons such as ignorance, apathy, incompetence. (There may also be budgetary arguments, though we shouldn't find them particularly convincing. Does it really cost much more to merely let children learn at there own pace?)

But there are also some quite "sinister" reasons, megaphoned by the likes of Gladwell and his ilk, which is essentially an extremist nurture-and-not-nature ideology. These people believe assert that children arriving in Kindergarten with more advanced skills are doing so as a consequence (exclusively, in the most extreme forms of this ideology) of their more privileged position in society. Essentialy these children are said to be ahead because they've been riding on a faster moving conveyor belt, before school age, and that once school has started, it is time to let the less privileged kids catch up. In this ideology it is unthinkable that kids who are ahead (due to unfair privilege) could be given even more privilege by continuing to be placed on a faster moving conveyor belt. Instead, the advanced children need to be slowed down or stopped. (To be clear, this not really about socioeconomic privilege. In the nurture-extremist position, the mere fact that one child is more intellectually advanced than another is, in and of itself, proof that the first child has been the undeserving recipient of unfair advantage, and this unfairness must be rectified.) What I'm describing might sounds like a caricature, but one should not underestimate the strength of the faction within education that acts with all its might, motivated by views like this.

Yes, that makes sense. Except so much as the offerings are often thin on the ground and the tests are used as gates.

Or rather they are on the upper end. Schools actually seem better at identifying weaknesses and stepping in quickly to mitigate them. DD had a mild lisp as a young child and the school:

1) Identified the issue
2) Notified us immediately
3) Gave us a written plan
4) Sent her for free speech therapy during the school day with a well-trained and qualified teacher
5) Followed up with us frequently and communicated transparently

This is the exact opposite of how they handled her giftedness, which was much more obvious and extreme than her tiny speech impediment.

This has definitely not been our experience. I have been banging my head against the wall with our district for years both in terms of special ed and gifted services. I can't even count how many times I've had to call "Compliance" with the State or an advocacy group in terms of my kids having special needs. Out of the 20 or so special ed staff that I've encountered, only a few of them have went out of their way to help. I think services vary widely between districts for both special ed and gifted services.