Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And here I thought Arlington parents looked down their noses at GT programs, at least here on DCUM...

We don't look down our noses at GT programs, some of us just prefer the integrated model over the segregated one and have chosen to stay in APS rather than move to FCPS as a result.

Some of us actually prefer the segregated model, and the GT label provides at least a little bit of assistance in getting visibility into whether there is sufficient in-class differentiation.

Good for you, sounds like FCPS is a better fit for you than APS. Isn't it great that we have choices in this area?

Does APS not track because it can't handle so many high maintenance type a parents insising johnny belongs in the "smart class"? Fwiw, the gifted class in my elementary was a one afternoon a week pullout and, thank god for it. I was bored out of my skull in my usual classroom. Looking back I feel a bit of imposter syndrome regarding my debatable "giftedness", but my Iowa tests showed me three grades ahead. I suppose everyone thinks those are bs now or advantaged middle class white kids like myself. Probably some truth to that. But def true I was twiddling my thumbs for a good portion of elementary school and I imagine a lot of aps students are too absent tracking.

Pretty much everyone’s IOWA test had them three grades ahead at my nova school back in the day.

Makes sense, given that this area has long been among the wealthiest and best educated regions in the country. Midwest in the early 80s, was a little different i imagine. Lake woebegon it was not.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And here I thought Arlington parents looked down their noses at GT programs, at least here on DCUM...

We don't look down our noses at GT programs, some of us just prefer the integrated model over the segregated one and have chosen to stay in APS rather than move to FCPS as a result.

Some of us actually prefer the segregated model, and the GT label provides at least a little bit of assistance in getting visibility into whether there is sufficient in-class differentiation.

Good for you, sounds like FCPS is a better fit for you than APS. Isn't it great that we have choices in this area?

Does APS not track because it can't handle so many high maintenance type a parents insising johnny belongs in the "smart class"? Fwiw, the gifted class in my elementary was a one afternoon a week pullout and, thank god for it. I was bored out of my skull in my usual classroom. Looking back I feel a bit of imposter syndrome regarding my debatable "giftedness", but my Iowa tests showed me three grades ahead. I suppose everyone thinks those are bs now or advantaged middle class white kids like myself. Probably some truth to that. But def true I was twiddling my thumbs for a good portion of elementary school and I imagine a lot of aps students are too absent tracking.

Pretty much everyone’s IOWA test had them three grades ahead at my nova school back in the day.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And here I thought Arlington parents looked down their noses at GT programs, at least here on DCUM...

We don't look down our noses at GT programs, some of us just prefer the integrated model over the segregated one and have chosen to stay in APS rather than move to FCPS as a result.

Some of us actually prefer the segregated model, and the GT label provides at least a little bit of assistance in getting visibility into whether there is sufficient in-class differentiation.

Good for you, sounds like FCPS is a better fit for you than APS. Isn't it great that we have choices in this area?

Does APS not track because it can't handle so many high maintenance type a parents insising johnny belongs in the "smart class"? Fwiw, the gifted class in my elementary was a one afternoon a week pullout and, thank god for it. I was bored out of my skull in my usual classroom. Looking back I feel a bit of imposter syndrome regarding my debatable "giftedness", but my Iowa tests showed me three grades ahead. I suppose everyone thinks those are bs now or advantaged middle class white kids like myself. Probably some truth to that. But def true I was twiddling my thumbs for a good portion of elementary school and I imagine a lot of aps students are too absent tracking.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And here I thought Arlington parents looked down their noses at GT programs, at least here on DCUM...

We don't look down our noses at GT programs, some of us just prefer the integrated model over the segregated one and have chosen to stay in APS rather than move to FCPS as a result.

Some of us actually prefer the segregated model, and the GT label provides at least a little bit of assistance in getting visibility into whether there is sufficient in-class differentiation.

Good for you, sounds like FCPS is a better fit for you than APS. Isn't it great that we have choices in this area?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And here I thought Arlington parents looked down their noses at GT programs, at least here on DCUM...

We don't look down our noses at GT programs, some of us just prefer the integrated model over the segregated one and have chosen to stay in APS rather than move to FCPS as a result.

Some of us actually prefer the segregated model, and the GT label provides at least a little bit of assistance in getting visibility into whether there is sufficient in-class differentiation.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And here I thought Arlington parents looked down their noses at GT programs, at least here on DCUM...

We don't look down our noses at GT programs, some of us just prefer the integrated model over the segregated one and have chosen to stay in APS rather than move to FCPS as a result.

Anonymous wrote:And here I thought Arlington parents looked down their noses at GT programs, at least here on DCUM...

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Parents talk. Kids talk. I spend time in the classroom. But good point - I don't know if all of the kids were officially "labeled" in K-2. There were small groups who did get pulled out to meet with the GT instructor. Personally, I just think most of those kids were just precocious readers. And had parents who pushed for GT from day one. One kid was seriously gifted though in all subjects. Still is today - amazing kid.

My kids both tested well, but I just think they are "bright" and not "gifted". They (mostly) enjoy working with the GT instructor so it's all good. But if they didn't want to do it I would never push them into it. I personally don't think GT is a huge deal in elementary school. Like you said, there is already enough differentiation to meet the needs of most of these kids.

Anonymous wrote:

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:

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.