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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.