Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums Learning Environments "Tracking" ?

I think a lot of us agree that a child's score on an IQ test can be an underestimate based on a variety of reasons.
Not likely a child can test artificially high on the new IQ tests unless he/she is given answers or coached, which, hopefully is not an issue currently due to the newness of the tests.

Kriston typed:
"High GT numbers"

Maybe this is the issue...Do you know the numbers of JUST the G students?

Our District does not lump T with G. They are very snarky about the terms and how they are used. I remember being swiftly corrected by Admin for lumping both together; big no-no.

I see it done here all of the time tho. It makes me see District's point about maintaining, I don't know, purity [for lack of a better word right now] in the terms.

We have a TAG meeting where we discuss enhancement for the Talented kids and then we have a Gifted Meeting [SNAP] where we discuss programs specifically for Gifted kids. Now, a G student can be part of T but a T student can't be a part of G unless they test into the group. Does that make sense?

RPM9,
I like the way your district seperates the definitions. I think it may allow for more and better programs for more kids. Please keep us posted on your opinion on how it all works, I find the concept very intriguing.

Ahhhhh, I think you're on to something. Curious to know from Kriston now.

Not really. Not to me. Sorry. Am I just dense? I'm not trying to be!

What I do not understand is how the district delineates between gifted and talented. I get the gifted testing, I think. IQ only, right? So is there a second test for talent? Is the achievement test used to define talent and IQ used to define giftedness? I just don't understand the difference or how it is demarcated as it pertains to the school and the programs.

And yes, Dottie, thanks for the clarification: I do use "GT" as a standard abbreviation for "gifted." I don't really think about "talent" at all, I guess. I don't think our schools do either, for what it's worth. (Not much, at this point!)

I think they're on the right track by keeping things very tight. I've been witness to shady dealings because this parent knows that PTO President or that parent threatens this Administrator and then you end up with kids in a program and you're scratching your head as to HOW it happened as they are clearly out of place AND, worse, taking a slot away from a truly deserving Gifted kid. Grrr!

Keeping Giftedness as close to a black and white, clear cut score keeps things simple. It's "Just the facts, ma'am" now stop jumping up and down. You're not going to get your way.

Devil's advocate alert:

I've been witness to shady dealings because this parent knows that PTO President or that parent threatens this Administrator and then you end up with kids in a program and you're scratching your head as to HOW it happened as they are clearly out of place AND, worse, taking a slot away from a truly deserving Gifted kid. Grrr!


How would anyone know if a child is out of place in a gifted program? Clearly you couldn't be privy to this child's testing results.

Well, I don't think tests are the be-all-end-all. They're not perfect indicators. I think human common sense has to factor in.

That's not to say that I want everyone in and no standards, and I hate the "old boy" network. But I think there is a grey area, and I'm okay with exploring that a little. People are not black and white. "Just scores" may be simple, but simple isn't always in the best interest of the kids.

I guess I would rather err on the side of inclusion just a wee bit than exclude kids who belong. I'm not going crazy here! But there are kids who score a 129 who fit a lot better than kids who score a 130. Personally, I like Dottie's district's "multiple indicators" over "black and white."

Also, FWIW, if you have a strenuous program for GT kids, then I think kids who don't belong will usually realize it and drop out, provided the program doesn't "dumb down" to help them fit. Maintain standards, and the right kids will wind up where they belong.

LOL you guys have been busy. WHen I commented about a kid w/ FS128 and VCI of 132 and hence getting into the program, I wasn't making any judgment on whether the child should or shouldn't be in the program, just that if that criteria is used, I would expect the numbers in the program would be higher. I've read of very few places that will accept the GAI for the WISCIV and have never heard of a district only using VCI or PRI until now.

I've read several times and been told from teachers etc that the top 25-30% of a class could use enrichment. The curriculum and pace of instruction is geared below that level. So yep I think the aforementioned kid could use enrichment/differentiation, enhanced curriculum at a faster pace.

[quote=Kriston][quote=RPM9]Kriston typed:
So is there a second test for talent?
[end quote]

No, not really. That's the thing. Anyone who wants to can go to the Enhancement Programs for Talented kids. Heck, I know a kid who can blow spit bubbles. That's a talent, right? <sarcasm> So, now you have parents who take their kids to the Talented programs who now want Gifted services for their sprout.

That's why when I saw you and others using GT I thought "Gifted Talented" and I'm thinking, flippin' heck, when do our straight-up Gifted kids ever get a d@mn break?

My misunderstanding.