Where are you sending your high IQ child

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
I live in DC, which doesn't even have a gifted program in the system at all. I'm assuming they will teach to the median and everybody else just has to deal.

This is why we left DCPS, even though we were in what was supposed to be one of the best upper NW DC public schools -- the level of instruction was just way to low and the teachers were very unwilling to differentiate or provide adequate enrichment or acceleration.

Although I like Rhee's actions so far, I don't see anything in her plans (except for one mention of a GT middle school) that indicates that the level of instruction will rise nor any emphasis on an increase in the performance of kids already testing at advanced or showing above grade level skills.

This applies to more than GT. I think about a 20-30% of my child's DCPS class could have handled more advanced instruction. Since they didn't get it they were bored and tended to goof off, distract or act out.

Teaching to the median means 50% of the kids are under-served or unserved.

[Anonymous]

Or that only the 1% spot-on the 50th percentile is being appropriately served....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In general, I think 130 and above is considered a "gifted" cut off. Certainly the world is much different for someone at 130 and for one at 150. 150 being "very gifted" go to any IQ website and they differentiate the categories for you.

When I was in school (a LONG time ago), my IQ of 120 was the cutoff for gifted programs. Funny how times change. My brother had an IQ in the 130s and was placed in GT classes and failed out quickly (he had no motivation at all to do the work).

[Anonymous]

My son tested in the high 140's - he doesn't seem, "gifted" to me....clever, bright, maybe........he is 7y.o.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I live in DC, which doesn't even have a gifted program in the system at all. I'm assuming they will teach to the median and everybody else just has to deal.

This is why we left DCPS, even though we were in what was supposed to be one of the best upper NW DC public schools -- the level of instruction was just way to low and the teachers were very unwilling to differentiate or provide adequate enrichment or acceleration.

Although I like Rhee's actions so far, I don't see anything in her plans (except for one mention of a GT middle school) that indicates that the level of instruction will rise nor any emphasis on an increase in the performance of kids already testing at advanced or showing above grade level skills.

This applies to more than GT. I think about a 20-30% of my child's DCPS class could have handled more advanced instruction. Since they didn't get it they were bored and tended to goof off, distract or act out.

Teaching to the median means 50% of the kids are under-served or unserved.

Has anyone been able to show that teaching to the median under serves the upper half?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My son tested in the high 140's - he doesn't seem, "gifted" to me....clever, bright, maybe........he is 7y.o.

Chances are that you are not around a lot of kids who are actually average. And since he is your child, chances are he "just" seems clever and bright because he is similar to the rest of your family.

High 140s is technically gifted--so if he is being well served by his school, lucky him!

[Anonymous]

Has anyone been able to show that teaching to the median under serves the upper half?

I have wondered about this myself and have not found the definitive study. You'll see experts quoted in NYTimes articles who'll say that mixed ability classrooms have been proven to lift the scores of the lowest-scoring kids, and these experts will go on to say that the highest scoring kids "are not hindered" or something politik like that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Has anyone been able to show that teaching to the median under serves the upper half?

I have wondered about this myself and have not found the definitive study. You'll see experts quoted in NYTimes articles who'll say that mixed ability classrooms have been proven to lift the scores of the lowest-scoring kids, and these experts will go on to say that the highest scoring kids "are not hindered" or something politik like that.

As somebody who tested at 149 and had an absolutely miserable public school experience even in the gifted program offered where I grew up, I am not waiting for the study. I begged my parents to send me to private school, but they thought that was just something rich people did, not us middle class folks.

My kids will not be in DCPS. One has already tested as gifted and is in an independent school. The 3 year old hasn't taken the WPPSI yet, but I'll re-evaluate if she somehow scores in the 100 range.

[Anonymous]

We live in NW DC and DD loves her school, but her K teacher told us that intellectually she is in the 'top 1% of any child I have seen' and we need to get her somewhere open to accelerating her. Her WPPSI scores support this. Right now she is doing the CTY accelerated math program but it is hard to fit it in every night. We applied to Private schools last year but didn't make it off the wait list - and really couldn't afford it, anyway. My email is scurcuru at yahoo.com if anyone has other suggestions or specific public schools in MoCO that they would recommend.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I certainly wouldn't discount behavioral issues, but it sounds like the teachers at the school aren't helping things, either. At our Montgomery County public school we were able to request an extra round of testing for our child in one subject. It gave the teachers a great deal of additional info because it showed how far ahead our child was in that area. They are now serving as advocates for our child, and we couldn't be more pleased.

Have you asked them to do more testing? If they won't, some private testing (possibly achievement tests?) might give you more ammunition for conversations with the school.

Unfortunately, I think the responses will vary from school to school, with some schools being more helpful than others.

At our MoCo school we also ask the language teacher to test our child in reading at a way above grade level that the teacher wouldn't have normally done. It helped show how far ahead our child was in reading and was the key to getting further services and teacher advocacy. So do ask about reading assessment scores,unit assessment scores, and pre-MSA scores (although the latter wouldn't occur in K), etc., anything that might show whether your child already knows the material before a math or reading unit is started. These pre and post unit assessments are common practice in MoCo teaching.

[Anonymous]

Does anyone have an opinion regarding whether Montessori schools serve high IQ children well?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone have an opinion regarding whether Montessori schools serve high IQ children well?

If it is a well run Montessori classroom, I think it could be a good fit, as it would allow the child to learn at her own pace.

Good article describing one highly gifted child's experience with a Montessori program:

http://www.hoagiesgifted.org/montessori.htm

Interesting survey on what school options parents of highly gifted children tried, and which schools they felt were a successful match for their children. It mentions Montessori as one option that worked for some children.)


http://www.growminds.com/ed_options/summary.html

[Anonymous]

A negative view on whether Montessori schools are good for highly gifted children brings up the point that although children are free to choose which tasks they want to do, in at least some schools, they need to work through the materials in order -- some are reserved for the 3 year olds, some for the 4 year olds -- kids aren't allowed to do things until the teacher says they are ready.... which was a problem for these children:

http://nswagtc.org.au/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=209&Itemid=74

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Has anyone been able to show that teaching to the median under serves the upper half?

I have wondered about this myself and have not found the definitive study. You'll see experts quoted in NYTimes articles who'll say that mixed ability classrooms have been proven to lift the scores of the lowest-scoring kids, and these experts will go on to say that the highest scoring kids "are not hindered" or something politik like that.

That is true, and it has been shown time and time again.
Remember, as a former home school mom, the academic day for an elementary school student is max 1 hour for K, and 3 hours for 5th grade, gifted or not. So, most of any child's school day is social. They are learning by hanging around others with different abilities. My dd took care of her younger brother, then went to the store and talked to the clerk and so on, then played outside for hours.
Relax, it is a time of discovery for kids. They need lots and lots of hours to discover the world around them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Has anyone been able to show that teaching to the median under serves the upper half?

I have wondered about this myself and have not found the definitive study. You'll see experts quoted in NYTimes articles who'll say that mixed ability classrooms have been proven to lift the scores of the lowest-scoring kids, and these experts will go on to say that the highest scoring kids "are not hindered" or something politik like that.

That is true, and it has been shown time and time again.
Remember, as a former home school mom, the academic day for an elementary school student is max 1 hour for K, and 3 hours for 5th grade, gifted or not. So, most of any child's school day is social. They are learning by hanging around others with different abilities. My dd took care of her younger brother, then went to the store and talked to the clerk and so on, then played outside for hours.
Relax, it is a time of discovery for kids. They need lots and lots of hours to discover the world around them.

High ability kids won't show evidence of being "hindered" in a class that is taught to the "median" -- because their progress will be measured in most studies by grade level performance tests. The kids at the high end will score "proficient" on these tests, no matter if their instruction is on grade level or above. Testing and tracking "above proficient" results over time isn't usually a priority for most people studying mixed-ability grouping, I don't think. The usual focus is how well the kids at the low end will fare in such classes.

But the best way to test whether mixed ability grouping hinders the higher ability kids would be to test them on above grade level achievement tests. Say you have a few third grade classes, with several children who are able to work on a 4th or 5th grade math level, or above. Imagine two different types of instruction: One geared to third grade math, with all the kids together, and some "enrichment" for the faster kids; versus a different model where some kids are insturcted on fourth and fifth grade math. Now test both groups at the end of third grade on 4th grade math. I would definitely expect that there would be more children in the accellerated class who scored proficient on the 4th grade test, versus children who had not been instructed in the material at all. I would also expect that those children who were able to handle the above grade level work would have a better opinion of math, and would have enjoyed it more in school.

The trouble is, no one cares if kids perform "proficiently" on above grade level material. No school is in danger of losing its funding because its advanced kids aren't scoring advanced enough. No one is going to be doing a lot of research on these kids.