s/o - DC privates are not filled with gifted kids

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I'm the OP of this thread and my opinion is that private schools don't have to serve anyone they don't want to. They aren't required to in any way and we shouldn't hold it against them for not doing so. They should be up front about this when parents inquire and they might well be in most cases.

I do think that sometimes it would be relatively inexpensive to allow some of their students to progress to higher grade courses should it be appropriate or do more ability grouping to allow for deeper and broader instruction. I wish they would be more open to that and maybe some are.

My main point is that if you have a child like this you should not assume that these schools are set up to accomodate such a child. I think these boards give the impression that might be so but it's not.

I agree it would be relatively inexpensive to hire a resource teacher for 95th-99th percentile kids. Once the school has paid for the new teacher's healthcare and pension and books and materials, what would this cost, about $100K or $120K? Not peanuts, but probably doable.

I think this would be a great thing for these 95th-99th percentile kids. And it might be a plus for the school too, because the school could make this part of its mission, and use it as a bragging point with prospective parents.

But I can totally see the downside for the school in doing this. First, imagine the fierce lobbying from every single family to get their kids into the "elite" group, because of some assumption that the Ivies will pluck these kids first - I've seen this lobbying first hand, and it already happens with the existing, more limited ability groupings (leading to "teacher peeve" threads, but I digress). Second, imagine the parents who want their fair share - "those kids got a resource teacher, so I want a resource teacher for my kid who struggles with ADD or executive function," which is a valid request, and how does the school respond given that money isn't unlimited. Third, what about the kids who aren't put in the new, super-high ability group - do they think they aren't as talented, and will their parents complain?

So yeah, I agree with you that most privates haven't made this their mission, and I can understand why they leave this mission to the magnets.

[Anonymous]

Your child can qualify for the CTY on-line math classes as early as age 5. Hopkins lists on its website a number of different tests that are acceptable to establish that your kid qualifies for CTY. My son struggled a bit initially with the format of the math class, so I generally sat in the room with him (understanding how to graph on the program that CTY uses was particularly frustrating). However, about 1/3 of the way through the class he completely got the hang of it; he's on his 2nd class and breezes through the lessons in 10-20 min before I get home from work (and he is no math genius). If the kid understands the concept, then the lesson will be very short (10-11 min); if he appears to have any difficulty, he will be given additional problems drilling that concept in that same lesson - he should not complete a lesson without grasping each concept presented. In addition to the accelerated grade-level classes, CTY offers problem solving classes - 1 for 1&2 grade and 1 for 3rd &4th grade. I expect we will try one of these in the winter, to get some more practice with different applications, and to keep from getting too far ahead. The real downside to the classes that I see is that a student can complete 3 grades worth of math in a year without a whole lot of effort (my son has to do at least 2 lessons/week, which boils down to all of 30-40 min tops), and I'm not sure what the point of that is - I do struggle with why we are doing this and I have no good answer, but if nothing else, it's 40 min less on the wii.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Your child can qualify for the CTY on-line math classes as early as age 5. Hopkins lists on its website a number of different tests that are acceptable to establish that your kid qualifies for CTY. My son struggled a bit initially with the format of the math class, so I generally sat in the room with him (understanding how to graph on the program that CTY uses was particularly frustrating). However, about 1/3 of the way through the class he completely got the hang of it; he's on his 2nd class and breezes through the lessons in 10-20 min before I get home from work (and he is no math genius). If the kid understands the concept, then the lesson will be very short (10-11 min); if he appears to have any difficulty, he will be given additional problems drilling that concept in that same lesson - he should not complete a lesson without grasping each concept presented. In addition to the accelerated grade-level classes, CTY offers problem solving classes - 1 for 1&2 grade and 1 for 3rd &4th grade. I expect we will try one of these in the winter, to get some more practice with different applications, and to keep from getting too far ahead. The real downside to the classes that I see is that a student can complete 3 grades worth of math in a year without a whole lot of effort (my son has to do at least 2 lessons/week, which boils down to all of 30-40 min tops), and I'm not sure what the point of that is - I do struggle with why we are doing this and I have no good answer, but if nothing else, it's 40 min less on the wii.

I've heard good things about the classes. The only downside is the cost which isn't as easy to swallow if you're already paying $28K tuition.

I think the point is that your child enjoys it and it's a productive use of his time!

[Anonymous]

Our experience with 2 99+ kids in two Top 3 DC privates is that not all teachers can differentiate, and that the 80-95% child is the sweet spot. Some of the more gifted kids channel their energy into music, sport, drama (or all of them). The schools are great in English/writing/History, and those teachers have tended to differentiate better (or it's easier). Science and math have often been problematic. Everyone knows who is fast or slow in math, but the schools don't want to let the kids advance, or progress at different rates. The slowest classes are tiny, so no one falls too far behind without getting extra support. But that means the faster classes are big, so they dip further into the pool, so they have to slow down. And it drives my kids (and me) crazy: why are they being deprived of appropriate instruction? Why isn't there a "travel science" or "travel math" option?

[Anonymous]

Age of learning to read is NOT an indicator of giftedness. Any time within the normal range (say 3-8) means nothing much, kind of like the age at which a child learns to roll over or sit up. I don't have time to find the citations; if you'd like them, ask and I'll do it later.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Age of learning to read is NOT an indicator of giftedness. Any time within the normal range (say 3-8) means nothing much, kind of like the age at which a child learns to roll over or sit up. I don't have time to find the citations; if you'd like them, ask and I'll do it later.

Actually early reading is a strong indicator. HOWEVER, not reading early doesn't mean a child is not gifted. Many highly gifted children learn to read around the average timeframe or later if they have LDs like dyslexia.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Another poster on the pet peeve thread mentioned that it might be better to spin off this current debate of gifted issues and I agree.

I think my main issue with the the Gifted vs Profoundly Gifted arguments that take place on DCUM is that so many people are under the impression that DC area privates are FILLED with "run of the mill" gifted kids with IQ's around 130 to 140. Because of this untrue belief they feel like these kids (the ones that are actually 98 percentile and higher) are served appropriately is said schools. This is not true and these kids needs aren't usually met with the standard curriculum. There are a few lucky ones with talented teachers who can find ways to do it. But the rest of them are usually underchallenged and allowed to coast in the lower grades. It is true that the DC area has a higher percentage of gifted kids than elsewhere in the country but this does not equate to classes full of them in our schools.

I've also heard that ERBs in top DC privates in lower grades usually rank the top performers around the 80th percentile which equates to an IQ around 115 to 120 tops. Early WPPSI scores used in PK & K admissions are unreliable at that age and influenced by enrichment by parents. ERBs are far more accurate.


A 130 to 140 IQ child (98th & 99th percentile) is far different from a typical bright and motivated child in a DC private.
Here is an idea of what children with these scores are actually doing in the early years.

3.Level Three
They know what adults are telling or asking them by six months. You say a toy, pet, or another person, and they will look for it.
By the time they are barely 12 months old, they can get family members to do what they want before they are actually talking.
By two years, many like 35+ piece puzzles, memorize favorite books, and know the entire alphabet - in or out of order!
By three years old, they talk constantly, and skip count, count backwards, and do simple adding and subtracting because they like to. They love to print letters and numbers, too.
They ask you to teach them to read before five years, and many figure out how to multiply, divide, and do some fractions soon thereafter.
Most of these children are a full two to five years beyond grade level by age six and find school too slow.
There are one or two Level Three children in every 100 in the average school. They are rarely in the same elementary class and can feel very, very lonely.

So when I am referring to gifted kids I am not referring to profoundly gifted kids. They are such a rare thing that many teachers will never encounter such a child.

The info above is from Deborah Ruf, PhD who is an expert in gifted education. She has a book titled, "5 Levels of Giftedness - School Issues and Educational Options".

Here is the website that I took the above information from.

http://talentigniter.com/ruf-estimates


gifted children don't ask you to teach them to read, they simply teach themselves at about age 3-4.

I didn't, and tested over 150 on three IQ tests.

[Anonymous]

So rereading through all of this...

I hear the point people are making that the schools don't have to serve anyone they don't want to. Yep, that's definitely true. And I can see how a PG kid (150+) might not be able to be served in a private school that isn't totally onboard with working with them.

I feel differently about those 98-99% kids. First, there are so many of them. Each grade must have 3-5 of them! Its not like they come around every 5-10 years like the PGs.

Second, these are the kids that the same schools tout when they are older. They show off the kids' college acceptances, National Merit Awards, etc - and use that as a selling point to other parents in admissions tours. They seem to be exactly the kind of kid the schools want, and they fete their accomplishments when they are older, but they just leave them to languish in those first 5 years. That's kinda a bummer.

And finally, I think I am frustrated because it would take so little to address their needs. The schools don't need to poach resources from needy kids; they just need to structure things a little differently. It would mean acknowledging that not all kids are the same smart at everything. But the schools already know this (they collect all sorts of data on this and keep tabs, whatever they tell parents). So why the farce?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So rereading through all of this...

I hear the point people are making that the schools don't have to serve anyone they don't want to. Yep, that's definitely true. And I can see how a PG kid (150+) might not be able to be served in a private school that isn't totally onboard with working with them.

I feel differently about those 98-99% kids. First, there are so many of them. Each grade must have 3-5 of them! Its not like they come around every 5-10 years like the PGs.

Second, these are the kids that the same schools tout when they are older. They show off the kids' college acceptances, National Merit Awards, etc - and use that as a selling point to other parents in admissions tours. They seem to be exactly the kind of kid the schools want, and they fete their accomplishments when they are older, but they just leave them to languish in those first 5 years. That's kinda a bummer.

And finally, I think I am frustrated because it would take so little to address their needs. The schools don't need to poach resources from needy kids; they just need to structure things a little differently. It would mean acknowledging that not all kids are the same smart at everything. But the schools already know this (they collect all sorts of data on this and keep tabs, whatever they tell parents). So why the farce?

Yes, there are some things a private school could get out of doing a better job for these 98% kids. The biggest argument is that it's good for the kids themselves, and that's reason enough by itself.

However, I doubt private schools really need/want the other advantages you're pointing to. Private schools already attract maybe 4-5 98% kids in each grade, without having to do anything extra. Some schools with strong applicant pools could probably fill every class with these 98-99% kids -- but they don't, because they want a diversity of talents, including musical, artistic, theatrical and athletic talent, not to mention satisfying some of the demands for spots for legacies and siblings and political appointees' kids. These schools already send lots of kids to the Ivies because of Ivy legacy status and athletic skill and just being the school with Obama's kids. So what does the school get out of treating the 98% kids better, besides attracting more 98% kids, which it doesn't need?

But from the school's POV, there are some definite downsides to what you're suggestion. To cut and paste from above:

But I can totally see the downside for the school in doing this. First, imagine the fierce lobbying from every single family to get their kids into the "elite" group, because of some assumption that the Ivies will pluck these kids first - I've seen this lobbying first hand, and it already happens with the existing, more limited ability groupings (leading to "teacher peeve" threads, but I digress). Second, imagine the parents who want their fair share - "those kids got a resource teacher, so I want a resource teacher for my kid who struggles with ADD or executive function," which is a valid request, and how does the school respond given that money isn't unlimited. Third, what about the kids who aren't put in the new, super-high ability group - do they think they aren't as talented, and will their parents complain?

Plus, you make it sound so easy. "The schools don't need to poach resources from needy kids; they just need to structure things a little differently." I don't know what this means.

The biggest problem, IMO, is something that you dismiss. You write that schools already know "not all kids are the same smart at everything" so it's a "farce" that they don't "acknowledge" it. OMG!!! (and I'm religious) Can you see a top 3 school telling 95 families their kids aren't as smart as the 4-5 kids who got into the super-accelerated math class? Not to mention adding, this is part of the school's plan to attract more of these 98% kids, and identifying them clearly by putting them in special classes, so the Ivies know who they are, so we can boost the school's already high Ivy admittance rate? It's one thing to separate a class of 100 into 3 broad groups of 33 kids each, parents fight teachers on this but for the most part they are down with it, especially if the lines between ability groups are kind of fuzzy and there's always the possibility of switching groups next year. But to create a sort of overclass of 98% kids? This is something that will never happen.

[Anonymous]

But the kids know already, AND they aren't served by having their learning interfered with when a 99 kid asks a complicated question, or asks about an alternative way to approach a problem that just confuses the rest of the class. And the 99 kids, when bored enough, get disruptive.

However, sadly, 13:31, your post rings true.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:But the kids know already, AND they aren't served by having their learning interfered with when a 99 kid asks a complicated question, or asks about an alternative way to approach a problem that just confuses the rest of the class. And the 99 kids, when bored enough, get disruptive.

I think most of these concerns are overstated. I don't know many 99% kids who are really disruptive. Also, when you mention the 99% kid confusing the other kids with a complicated question, this sounds like exactly the sort of differentiation you're asking for, so I'm a bit confused.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:But the kids know already, AND they aren't served by having their learning interfered with when a 99 kid asks a complicated question, or asks about an alternative way to approach a problem that just confuses the rest of the class. And the 99 kids, when bored enough, get disruptive.

However, sadly, 13:31, your post rings true.

I think most of these concerns are overstated. I don't know many 99% kids who are really disruptive.

Also, when you mention the 99% kid confusing the other kids with a complicated question, this sounds like exactly the sort of differentiation you're asking for, so I'm a bit confused.

[Anonymous]

Second, these are the kids that the same schools tout when they are older. They show off the kids' college acceptances, National Merit Awards, etc - and use that as a selling point to other parents in admissions tours. They seem to be exactly the kind of kid the schools want, and they fete their accomplishments when they are older, but they just leave them to languish in those first 5 years. That's kinda a bummer.

I agree with most of this post, PP, but I wanted to take issue with this point. I think it's erroneous to posit that these are the same children.

Some of the kids going to Stanford are 'lifers,' but many many are not. Many of those NMFs and top-20 college kids come in at middle and even high school (from DCPS and MoCo, usually). I'm always beating this drum on these boards, but again: those kids admitted at age 14 ARE exceptionally bright, in almost all cases. Age 4? Not as much.

Still, these K-12 schools shouldn't let their brightest 4th graders languish.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Second, these are the kids that the same schools tout when they are older. They show off the kids' college acceptances, National Merit Awards, etc - and use that as a selling point to other parents in admissions tours. They seem to be exactly the kind of kid the schools want, and they fete their accomplishments when they are older, but they just leave them to languish in those first 5 years. That's kinda a bummer.

I agree with most of this post, PP, but I wanted to take issue with this point. I think it's erroneous to posit that these are the same children.

Some of the kids going to Stanford are 'lifers,' but many many are not. Many of those NMFs and top-20 college kids come in at middle and even high school (from DCPS and MoCo, usually). I'm always beating this drum on these boards, but again: those kids admitted at age 14 ARE exceptionally bright, in almost all cases. Age 4? Not as much.

Still, these K-12 schools shouldn't let their brightest 4th graders languish.

Again, I'd like to see the stats on these. What percentage of lifers go on to become NMSF? What percentage of those accepted in 9th grade do the same? Are you merely guessing?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Second, these are the kids that the same schools tout when they are older. They show off the kids' college acceptances, National Merit Awards, etc - and use that as a selling point to other parents in admissions tours. They seem to be exactly the kind of kid the schools want, and they fete their accomplishments when they are older, but they just leave them to languish in those first 5 years. That's kinda a bummer.

I agree with most of this post, PP, but I wanted to take issue with this point. I think it's erroneous to posit that these are the same children.

Some of the kids going to Stanford are 'lifers,' but many many are not. Many of those NMFs and top-20 college kids come in at middle and even high school (from DCPS and MoCo, usually). I'm always beating this drum on these boards, but again: those kids admitted at age 14 ARE exceptionally bright, in almost all cases. Age 4? Not as much.

Still, these K-12 schools shouldn't let their brightest 4th graders languish.

It also assumes there is a direct link between giftedness and achievement. There isn't. Being a NMF also requires a good work ethic. For every gifted kid with high achievement, I can show you an underachiever. The view on this thread seems to be high IQ = high achievement = Ivy accept. I wonder how many people putting forth this view have actually been in a group of only gifted kids? They don't all get As and become NMFs. I spent my entire high school career in such a group. Everyone had an IQ of over 130; most of us way over. Very few of us went to prestige schools, and even fewer had the kind of accolades some seem to think are automatic for gifted or profoundly gifted kids.