Kriston and I are in the same state and I know that our community has very high levels of kids who are identified as gifted. The last report from our gifted teacher (to a parent conference) claimed that 50% of the total number of kids had been identified as gifted. (If you have x number of kids in the district and y number of gifted kids then y/x is 50%.) But careful... That does not means that half of all of the kids are gifted. It means that if my kid is gifted in math and receives a math pull-out class, and a reading pull-out class, and he is in a High IQ cluster, then he is counted three times. So that inflates the numbers quite a bit. (good for the back-patting aspect of the district!)

And so yes, all kids are tested by generic tests like the CogAt and IBST in third grade. I believe that you have to be in the top 95% in either math, or reading, or have scored a 130 or above on the IQ test to be in the gifted program. So they count kids who are good at math or reading along.

I found out that the average IQ of our students is just under 120. So you only have about a 10 pt. IQ difference between the normal kids and the gifted kids in the High IQ group. Our neighborhood seems to match fairly well to 'Neato's in that people move here because of the schools. And the community prides itself on the quality of the schools. But... They design their classroom instruction and pace to be quite challenging for the 120 IQ kids, and they have pull-out classes for the kids who are labeled gifted. (If you can call spending 8 weeks planning a birthday party for a centennial at a local senior citizen center as a cluster pull-out class... <fume, fume, fume!>
(Can you tell that I'm not happy with our pull-out classes?)

But they make no differentiation between LOG. I keep trying to point out to someone (anyone!!) that if 10 pt. separate the ND kids from the GT kids (and they should get extra instruction), then what do you do with kids who are 10 pt and beyond the gifted kids!!!

Okay, that is my very first time (I think!) of using the mad icon. But I really get infuriated with the blank stares that follow that statement.

Interesting. I'm not sure if this multiple-counting of the same kid is what's going on in our district or not. Hmmm... Must do some research, as that does change things significantly!

"Figures often beguile me," Twain wrote, "particularly when I have the arranging of them myself; in which case the remark attributed to Disraeli would often apply with justice and force: 'There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.'" [1]

Mark Twain (1906-09-07). "Chapters from My Autobiography". North American Review 186. Project Gutenberg.

Ebeth, I hear you on the face! A speaker I listened to recently said that "ND" just couldn't understand the exponential changes that the bell curve bring about. He suggested their thinking and understanding is more linear, and that "10 points" is just "10 points". Most schools don't really consider the huge jump between something like 130 and 140 and what that might mean. I think our school sees it as stricly an on/off at that magical 130 mark. Or maybe they just pretend to, to simplify their role.

Interesting though about counting kids twice. I'm really starting to appreciate our school's rather "strict" entrance criteria, all said and done. It would be nice if they factored in some common sense (ie, the kid with mutliple indicators suggesting 130+, but a few ill-placed 129's), but I'm grateful to be on the other side of that hurdle. For example, one of DD13's friends claims a 128 IQ (she was turned down), and just pulled a very high score on the SAT for math (higher than all the GT students). Is she really that different than the child who hit the magical 130? I do realize lines have to be drawn, but it does tend to get complicated.

I think a lot of us agree that a child's score on an IQ test can be an underestimate based on a variety of reasons.
Not likely a child can test artificially high on the new IQ tests unless he/she is given answers or coached, which, hopefully is not an issue currently due to the newness of the tests.

Kriston typed:
"High GT numbers"

Maybe this is the issue...Do you know the numbers of JUST the G students?

Our District does not lump T with G. They are very snarky about the terms and how they are used. I remember being swiftly corrected by Admin for lumping both together; big no-no.

I see it done here all of the time tho. It makes me see District's point about maintaining, I don't know, purity [for lack of a better word right now] in the terms.

We have a TAG meeting where we discuss enhancement for the Talented kids and then we have a Gifted Meeting [SNAP] where we discuss programs specifically for Gifted kids. Now, a G student can be part of T but a T student can't be a part of G unless they test into the group. Does that make sense?

It just hit me too, the difference between grade level achievement testing, and "generic" achievement testing (talking WJ/WIAT here). A well nurtured, attentive and perfectly normally developing child can easily get a 95th or two on something like the TerraNova or ITBS, as this is just "perfection" on grade level material. If those tests are used, numbers could really get inflated. These scores are quite different from 95ths on the WJ or WIAT, especially in the older grades (note those scores are still easy to get on some of the less abstract subtests).

I like how PA law calls for "multiple indicators".

Hmm, might we have a semantics problem? I typically use "GT" for "gifted"...our school actually uses "talent" in their labeling, but we rely on IQ scores for entrance. I am not making any reference to "G" as "gifted" vs "T" as "talented" in using GT, and I suspect Kriston is using it in a similar manner?

RPM9,
I like the way your district seperates the definitions. I think it may allow for more and better programs for more kids. Please keep us posted on your opinion on how it all works, I find the concept very intriguing.

Ahhhhh, I think you're on to something. Curious to know from Kriston now.