No, no. I'm sorry. NOT in my District. No way. More like 1%.

I've read posts here saying 20-40%. I'd have to go searching for posts...

I could see 20-40% would be "Talented" in some way but full on tested as Gifted? I dunno. The avg is 1-2%, iirc.

Just to clarify, because that 20-40% number could be confusing to some...

Allegedly 40% of the kids in my particular district test as GT (top 2% of the population). Frankly, I am not sold on our district's numbers. I think ebeth's district claims similar figures, and maybe someone else (can't recall...???). But our districts are unusual, and such high numbers can actually work to the detriment of HG+ kids, since schools don't tend to have a good understanding of LOGs, so they tend to say "All our kids are GT, why should yours get special treatment?"

But obviously the national average of GT kids in any given district is...2%! YMMV.

Oh, and some districts define services for a larger "chunk" at the top: 5% or 10% or even 15%. If they define GTness based on who they serve, then that might inflate figures, too. That's not the case in our school. They use the 130 cutoff that supposedly defines the top 2%. We do live in a well-educated suburban environment with lots of graduate degrees. I'm sure the number of GT kids is higher than average, but 38% higher? I'm skeptical!

Oh, and they take math and verbal scores for IQ and/or achievement, not just full scale IQ, like some places. That probably boosts numbers, too.

[quote=Kriston]Just to clarify, because that 20-40% number could be confusing to some...

Allegedly 40% of the kids in my particular district test as GT
[end quote]

40% with 130 IQ or above, yes?

How many children in your District?

Public school?

Yes, the public school district. They claim 40% of their population tests as GT, or 130 or above on *either* achievement or IQ tests in *either* math or verbal. (I think. I'm not an expert about what they accept, so take some of this with a grain of salt. I'm not sure how the achievement tests factor in exactly, but I know they give them and use them, as that's how they do the state-mandated GT IDing in 3rd grade.)

I AM sure of that 40% figure because the school official in charge of the GT ID process spoke to our parents' group. She was questioned long and hard about it, as you might imagine!

I think some districts use only full scale IQ to determine GTness, and that would miss a large chunk of kids. The non-GAI scores often pull down the FSIQ. Also accepting achievement test scores and not just IQ probably changes things...although maybe this is how most districts ID? I don't imagine they give out IQ tests, do they? Dunno.

Our public school district serves nearly 8000 students according to their webpage.

And in case it matters, DS7 went to K and about 6 weeks of 1st grade there before we ran into serious problems and pulled him out for homeschooling. He will be HSd again this year, so we're not currently in the district.

I see a lot of local data, and while I rarely see achievement scores over 130 for "ND", I do see a surprising amount of kids IQ-ing in the 100-110 range (that seems to be accurage) that have a stray achievement score as high as 125-ish, especially in the 2nd/3rd age range. FWIW

I agree Kriston - 40% sounds high!!! Especially if they are taking 130 cutoff. But as you say, if they are only using VCI or PRI or achievement, that would increase the numbers. You could have many kids w/ FSIQ of 125 and VCI or PRI of 131 right?

Sure, Dazey.

And if you take achievement scores, too, without IQ scores, you add in even more kids. Some of those could be hothoused or "overachievers" (meaning goal-oriented kids who work much MUCH harder than the average kid--I hate that word, but I don't know a better term for that sort of insanely hard and driven worker), not truly GT according to the definition. I suspect there are a lot of these, frankly. We're in that sort of area.

Add in extra MG kids based on demographics, too, and the numbers are bound to be higher than average. But THAT much higher? Hmmm...

Right Dazey, but in my opinion, those kids should probably be included....if other factors warrant their inclusion. Taking any one score limits the accuracy of any placement (on either side of the "gate"). While our district has "tough" standards, all said and done I think it helps focus the program on those kids that truly need it.

I HAVE seen descriptions though of districts that legitimately have quite a few 98th percentile kids. I still think 40% might be a tad high, but I can think of one in particular that easily has 25%, and probably most in the top 10th percentile.

Our district boasts a more modest 4-5% that probably only includes half of the truly qualified kids. We definintely have the demographics that gives us more than the statistical 2-3%.

I agree. I have no problem with including those 131 PRI or VCI kids.

I don't really even have any heartburn about including the achievers. I suspect the GT pullout is just what those kids need...not to mention the fact that the program isn't good enough to warrant being terribly protective about, frankly.

But I don't like that they use those high numbers to claim that they don't need to do anything special for HG+ kids. That is NOT okay with me! If you claim 40% GT, then I think you HAVE to recognize LOGs!

That's not okay with me either Kriston, and even with our mere 4-5% and "tough" entry standards, DS clearly needs something more.