Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, my upcoming 3rd grader got into 2 GT classes next year.

There is no such thing in APS.

Fine, my kid got identified in both math and verbal - are you happy. You're just mad My kid's NNAT > Your Kid's NNAT

Uh, no. But thanks for playing. Lovely parting gifts for you backstage and all that...

My point is there's no "GT class" in APS. The designation is not worth anything really at all, at least not in my experience. Considering they hand out the designations like candy in APS, they just build advance work into the curriculum as the default. Other than some invitations to summer programs, nothing really happened to my kid after her designation.

I hear this a lot, but it’s difficult for parents to know what the differences are without a side by side comparison of what different kids are working on in class. One of my kid’s teachers once showed me three variations of an assignment that kids were working on in a 6th grade English class. Even the kids didn’t necessarily know the difference since it was called “the fillintheblank assignment” for everyone, and adhered to the same rubric and deadlines. But there were differences in the materials the various groups were assigned.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's strange at some schools. The more affluent and type-A the school, the more shadiness with the program. That's because these people start lobbying in Kindergarten to have their kids in the program and there are only so many available spots.

My firstborn fit every profile of GT. He had numerous teacher recommendations from preschool, early elementary. He always had top grades---straight As when they started getting grades without ever having to study. He had all kinds of interests and is forever asking questions. He even would score 600 on SOLs and based on CoGat scores the school was required to evaluate him for GT. He never got in. He is also very well-behaved. He had friends in the program that never completed assignments. My son would do all of the work for their group projects. They didn't get the grades my son did, but parents were very big donors. My son was put in Gt services in Middle School and he works several grade levels ahead.

My youngest is a good student. He is a pleaser, good grades/straight As, etc.---but I don't think he goes above and beyond---not a true seeker of knowledge, doesn't think on a very deep level like older sibling. His test scores were not as good (still good) as brothers and he was put in the program in third grade and has GT in Math and English.

The only thing I can come up with besides favoritism is that my older son was very shy in early elementary school where my younger son is not at all. He is a talker. I think when they screen/interview the kids that made a big difference.

Kindergarten identification is ridiculous. A lot of that is the type of preschool and early worksheets.

True separation/intellect starts happening by 3rd/4th grade. A lot of those 'brilliant' kindergartners are struggling down the road and the parents are doing all of their projects.

So you’re saying administering the nnat in 2nd grade is too soon?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, my upcoming 3rd grader got into 2 GT classes next year.

There is no such thing in APS.

Fine, my kid got identified in both math and verbal - are you happy. You're just mad My kid's NNAT > Your Kid's NNAT

Uh, no. But thanks for playing. Lovely parting gifts for you backstage and all that...

My point is there's no "GT class" in APS. The designation is not worth anything really at all, at least not in my experience. Considering they hand out the designations like candy in APS, they just build advance work into the curriculum as the default. Other than some invitations to summer programs, nothing really happened to my kid after her designation.

I'm sorry your school had such a poor implementation when your child was there. That hasn't been our experience at all, and APS has done a lot in the past couple of years to improve the program.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, my upcoming 3rd grader got into 2 GT classes next year.

There is no such thing in APS.

Fine, my kid got identified in both math and verbal - are you happy. You're just mad My kid's NNAT > Your Kid's NNAT

Uh, no. But thanks for playing. Lovely parting gifts for you backstage and all that...

My point is there's no "GT class" in APS. The designation is not worth anything really at all, at least not in my experience. Considering they hand out the designations like candy in APS, they just build advance work into the curriculum as the default. Other than some invitations to summer programs, nothing really happened to my kid after her designation.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's strange at some schools. The more affluent and type-A the school, the more shadiness with the program. That's because these people start lobbying in Kindergarten to have their kids in the program and there are only so many available spots.

My firstborn fit every profile of GT. He had numerous teacher recommendations from preschool, early elementary. He always had top grades---straight As when they started getting grades without ever having to study. He had all kinds of interests and is forever asking questions. He even would score 600 on SOLs and based on CoGat scores the school was required to evaluate him for GT. He never got in. He is also very well-behaved. He had friends in the program that never completed assignments. My son would do all of the work for their group projects. They didn't get the grades my son did, but parents were very big donors. My son was put in Gt services in Middle School and he works several grade levels ahead.

My youngest is a good student. He is a pleaser, good grades/straight As, etc.---but I don't think he goes above and beyond---not a true seeker of knowledge, doesn't think on a very deep level like older sibling. His test scores were not as good (still good) as brothers and he was put in the program in third grade and has GT in Math and English.

The only thing I can come up with besides favoritism is that my older son was very shy in early elementary school where my younger son is not at all. He is a talker. I think when they screen/interview the kids that made a big difference.

This is the first I have heard this; I don’t believe that it is true. There aren’t “spots” in the program.

You are correct, there is no quota. Everyone is evaluated individually, and if you qualify, you qualify, regardless of how many of your classmates do as well.

Nope. At our school there are a certain number of kids that can work with the GT teacher. There is a cap. They don't have resources for more. They would have to hire an additional GT teacher.

That, if true, would be a serious problem, against policy, and should be taken up with school administrators and/or the school board.

GT resource teachers now work primarily with classroom teachers to provide services to GT kids. They’ve moved away from pull out services, so there shouldn’t be a cap on how many kids the GT teacher “can work with.”

Agreed. I'd like to know which school this is, because that is a serious policy violation and should be reported to the administration.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there any percentile breakdown of when or what year kids get identified?

I’d check the apsva GT page but don’t recall that kind of info.

I think our GT person gave numbers at some point but I can’t remember.

From my very unscientific observations:
K-1 - 5-10% of a grade gets some GT services
2-3 - 15-20%
4-5 - 20-25%

At a high performing school.

I heard similar numbers from our GT person. But, at least in K-1, the number of kids (at our specific school) actually identified is much lower.

I’ve had kids at two elementary schools with very similar profiles. At one the numbers were very similar to the above, but at the other there was less IDing kids before 2nd grade.

I’m the PP who posted my estimates. For K-1, that range might be high. For the year I have the best info I calculated 6%. Mostly parent identified.

How would you even know this if you don't work at the school? What's the difference in K-2 for being "identified as gifted" vs. just being in the highest group for a subject. e.g. my son was in the top math group in K and that group worked with the gifted teacher. So, I guess that means he was "identified as gifted"? We didn't ask them to do it, the teacher just saw that was the level he was at. I don't see why the label matters vs. having instruction appropriately differentiated which they should be starting in K regardless. Did we just get lucky with a school/teacher that differentiates well in the early years?

I do think there is some giftedness that can be ID'd early but having the formal process later seems appropriate since so much levels out over time in the early grades. My tops-in-math DS was also a very strong reader in K but never enjoyed it and was on grade-level by 3rd grade. He continued to be very advanced in math and recent neuropsych testing for other issues showed that he is at a very high percentile in all the math elements tested. We never drilled him and his preschool was not academic. But, DH and I are both in math-related careers and generally counted a lot, played with numbers with him. He still loves math and I'm amazed at his ability to glance at an equation and solve it immediately in his head. He clearly stands out in that subject more than other subjects.

In contrast, DD was average in math in K and a little behind in reading. She wasn't a solid reader until end of 1st grade but then her reading ability exploded in 2nd grade. By 3rd grade she was ID'd as gifted in all areas (DS was only in math). But again, it seemed to me she was having instruction at an appropriate level throughout school before and after the "gifted" label.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's strange at some schools. The more affluent and type-A the school, the more shadiness with the program. That's because these people start lobbying in Kindergarten to have their kids in the program and there are only so many available spots.

My firstborn fit every profile of GT. He had numerous teacher recommendations from preschool, early elementary. He always had top grades---straight As when they started getting grades without ever having to study. He had all kinds of interests and is forever asking questions. He even would score 600 on SOLs and based on CoGat scores the school was required to evaluate him for GT. He never got in. He is also very well-behaved. He had friends in the program that never completed assignments. My son would do all of the work for their group projects. They didn't get the grades my son did, but parents were very big donors. My son was put in Gt services in Middle School and he works several grade levels ahead.

My youngest is a good student. He is a pleaser, good grades/straight As, etc.---but I don't think he goes above and beyond---not a true seeker of knowledge, doesn't think on a very deep level like older sibling. His test scores were not as good (still good) as brothers and he was put in the program in third grade and has GT in Math and English.

The only thing I can come up with besides favoritism is that my older son was very shy in early elementary school where my younger son is not at all. He is a talker. I think when they screen/interview the kids that made a big difference.

This is the first I have heard this; I don’t believe that it is true. There aren’t “spots” in the program.

You are correct, there is no quota. Everyone is evaluated individually, and if you qualify, you qualify, regardless of how many of your classmates do as well.

Nope. At our school there are a certain number of kids that can work with the GT teacher. There is a cap. They don't have resources for more. They would have to hire an additional GT teacher.

That, if true, would be a serious problem, against policy, and should be taken up with school administrators and/or the school board.

GT resource teachers now work primarily with classroom teachers to provide services to GT kids. They’ve moved away from pull out services, so there shouldn’t be a cap on how many kids the GT teacher “can work with.”

Anonymous wrote:Any good preparation program available for NNAT and CogAT test?

If a child is a good fit for GT services he doesn’t need to be prepped for the tests. Doing so could lead to difficulties in the long run.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's strange at some schools. The more affluent and type-A the school, the more shadiness with the program. That's because these people start lobbying in Kindergarten to have their kids in the program and there are only so many available spots.

My firstborn fit every profile of GT. He had numerous teacher recommendations from preschool, early elementary. He always had top grades---straight As when they started getting grades without ever having to study. He had all kinds of interests and is forever asking questions. He even would score 600 on SOLs and based on CoGat scores the school was required to evaluate him for GT. He never got in. He is also very well-behaved. He had friends in the program that never completed assignments. My son would do all of the work for their group projects. They didn't get the grades my son did, but parents were very big donors. My son was put in Gt services in Middle School and he works several grade levels ahead.

My youngest is a good student. He is a pleaser, good grades/straight As, etc.---but I don't think he goes above and beyond---not a true seeker of knowledge, doesn't think on a very deep level like older sibling. His test scores were not as good (still good) as brothers and he was put in the program in third grade and has GT in Math and English.

The only thing I can come up with besides favoritism is that my older son was very shy in early elementary school where my younger son is not at all. He is a talker. I think when they screen/interview the kids that made a big difference.

This is the first I have heard this; I don’t believe that it is true. There aren’t “spots” in the program.

You are correct, there is no quota. Everyone is evaluated individually, and if you qualify, you qualify, regardless of how many of your classmates do as well.

Nope. At our school there are a certain number of kids that can work with the GT teacher. There is a cap. They don't have resources for more. They would have to hire an additional GT teacher.

Anonymous wrote:Any good preparation program available for NNAT and CogAT test?

Any good preparation program available for NNAT and CogAT test?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's strange at some schools. The more affluent and type-A the school, the more shadiness with the program. That's because these people start lobbying in Kindergarten to have their kids in the program and there are only so many available spots.

My firstborn fit every profile of GT. He had numerous teacher recommendations from preschool, early elementary. He always had top grades---straight As when they started getting grades without ever having to study. He had all kinds of interests and is forever asking questions. He even would score 600 on SOLs and based on CoGat scores the school was required to evaluate him for GT. He never got in. He is also very well-behaved. He had friends in the program that never completed assignments. My son would do all of the work for their group projects. They didn't get the grades my son did, but parents were very big donors. My son was put in Gt services in Middle School and he works several grade levels ahead.

My youngest is a good student. He is a pleaser, good grades/straight As, etc.---but I don't think he goes above and beyond---not a true seeker of knowledge, doesn't think on a very deep level like older sibling. His test scores were not as good (still good) as brothers and he was put in the program in third grade and has GT in Math and English.

The only thing I can come up with besides favoritism is that my older son was very shy in early elementary school where my younger son is not at all. He is a talker. I think when they screen/interview the kids that made a big difference.

This is the first I have heard this; I don’t believe that it is true. There aren’t “spots” in the program.

You are correct, there is no quota. Everyone is evaluated individually, and if you qualify, you qualify, regardless of how many of your classmates do as well.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Kindergarten identification is ridiculous. A lot of that is the type of preschool and early worksheets.

True separation/intellect starts happening by 3rd/4th grade. A lot of those 'brilliant' kindergartners are struggling down the road and the parents are doing all of their projects.

My son was writing down lists of prime numbers in K. He got identified as gifted in APS. I guess that was ridiculous.

PP didn’t say that early GT identification and actual giftedness are mutually exclusive. But in some cases early identification is premature.

Some kids are precocious. They are doing things far ahead of their peers at an early age. Many parents mistake this for giftedness, and are disappointed when other kids catch up to them in early elementary and their kid is no longer the one leading the pack. It happens in sports, too. Some of those kids, like yours, are gifted, but some are not.

I think the difficulties in identification at the elementary level is an argument in favor of a model like APS's as opposed to a segregated, AAP-style model. Not only does it make it easier for them to err on the side of inclusion rather than exclusion (because it's simply pulling out one more child with the rest of the group rather than having that child occupy a specific classroom seat to the exclusion of someone else), but if a child is included who perhaps shouldn't have been, it's not like they're put in a class where the whole curriculum is moving too fast for them and they start to struggle needlessly in school, they simply rely on their pull-out peers a bit more as they do the group work and most likely still getting something out of the experience.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Kindergarten identification is ridiculous. A lot of that is the type of preschool and early worksheets.

True separation/intellect starts happening by 3rd/4th grade. A lot of those 'brilliant' kindergartners are struggling down the road and the parents are doing all of their projects.

My son was writing down lists of prime numbers in K. He got identified as gifted in APS. I guess that was ridiculous.

PP didn’t say that early GT identification and actual giftedness are mutually exclusive. But in some cases early identification is premature.

Some kids are precocious. They are doing things far ahead of their peers at an early age. Many parents mistake this for giftedness, and are disappointed when other kids catch up to them in early elementary and their kid is no longer the one leading the pack. It happens in sports, too. Some of those kids, like yours, are gifted, but some are not.

Anonymous wrote:It's strange at some schools. The more affluent and type-A the school, the more shadiness with the program. That's because these people start lobbying in Kindergarten to have their kids in the program and there are only so many available spots.

My firstborn fit every profile of GT. He had numerous teacher recommendations from preschool, early elementary. He always had top grades---straight As when they started getting grades without ever having to study. He had all kinds of interests and is forever asking questions. He even would score 600 on SOLs and based on CoGat scores the school was required to evaluate him for GT. He never got in. He is also very well-behaved. He had friends in the program that never completed assignments. My son would do all of the work for their group projects. They didn't get the grades my son did, but parents were very big donors. My son was put in Gt services in Middle School and he works several grade levels ahead.

My youngest is a good student. He is a pleaser, good grades/straight As, etc.---but I don't think he goes above and beyond---not a true seeker of knowledge, doesn't think on a very deep level like older sibling. His test scores were not as good (still good) as brothers and he was put in the program in third grade and has GT in Math and English.

The only thing I can come up with besides favoritism is that my older son was very shy in early elementary school where my younger son is not at all. He is a talker. I think when they screen/interview the kids that made a big difference.

This is the first I have heard this; I don’t believe that it is true. There aren’t “spots” in the program.