[Ohiogift] Early entrance to kindergarten assessment

Fri May 10 13:44:16 EDT 2013

Hmmm..  I want to make sure I am understanding this correctly.  So, the revised language lets the district use their regular screening process to allow kids born before January 1 to enter Kindergarten?  Or, does it allow the district to develop their own new screening process for that purpose outside of the acceleration process?  What was the rationale for the change and who was involved in crafting the language?

I'll be honest.  I have some concerns about changing the language that currently exists.  Let me be clear - the opinions I am about to voice are based solely on Colleen Grady's email introducing the idea of this language change.  I have not read the language myself, so this is just a gut reaction.  The positive that could come is that some kids could have an easier time getting into Kindergarten if they just have to meet the regular district screening process, and it would certainly reduce the workload on psychs and coordinators.  But, there are some unintended consequences I could see happening for those kids born between the entrance cut date and December 31. 

1.  If districts can arbitrarily decide to allow kids who meet the screening (or not allow them), it becomes more subjective than the current acceleration policy and removes the advocacy voice of the coordinator.  So, some kids who should go could be left out.

2.  If districts HAVE to allow kids who meet the basic kindergarten screening criteria, it places some kids who may lack the maturity/cognitive ability needed to be successful.  The basic kindergarten screener was really not meant to determine if a child is ready for kindergarten or not for the purpose of actual admission.  Looking at the acceleration research on early entrance and the outcomes of that process versus others makes me concerned that kids who don't go through the full process will struggle later.  (An anecdotal admission - I shared yesterday about our longitudinal data.  A lot of those kids with average cog scores that we did not fully assess/place and who are middle of the road in their current grade levels would likely have gotten into Kindergarten if they just had to pass that basic K screener.  If they are average - and in some cases lower - in their current grade, what would it have been if they had entered a year earlier?)  If these kids who meet a less rigorous K screener but wouldn't qualify under the IAS get placed and struggle later, it both hurts the child and hurts other future kids by reinforcing those negative stereotypes so many educators already hold about acceleration.

3. If districts HAVE to allow kids who meet the basic kindergarten screening criteria, it will create an influx of kids and really overtask many districts who don't have the manpower - or in the case of most of my districts - the physical space to handle that many kids.  I could see districts then making their criteria more rigorous anyway.  So, then we would have tougher - and arbitrary - criteria from districts for the August-December kiddos, which could then over-filter kids who might be shown to benefit from early entrance if they went through the IAS and had a gifted advocate on their behalf (even if the child isn't gifted).

I feel like this kind of wording could lead up on a path right back to where we were before the state acceleration policy.  And, a change this late in the game would literally mean kids screened this spring would have one set of admission criteria and kids whose parents wait until July would be assessed under different criteria.  Now we have an equity issue.  Add to it that it has taken us 7 years to make as much progress as we have in getting districts to follow the state policy regarding acceleration and early entrance (and we still aren't fully there).  I worry that changing the rules will be multiple steps backwards in getting educators to recognize the value of early entrance where appropriate.

I would definitely need to hear more about the what, why, and how with all of this before I would ever voice any endorsement of it.

Colleen Boyle, PhD
Gifted Coordinator and Educational Consultant

On May 10, 2013, at 10:40 AM, Colleen Grady <cdg.gradyllc at gmail.com> wrote:

> The language related to kindergarten entrance is being revised and will likely go into HB 59 (budget bill).
>
> The revised language will permit the enrollment of a student into kindergarten (community schools and districts) provided they will be age 5 by January 1 using a district screening process. This will be considered early entrance since students will not be age 5 prior to teh August or September deadline adopted by the school or district. In addition to that option, students who will not be age 5 by January 1 (no age limitation) may also be admitted to kindergarten under the acceleration model utilizing the IAS. 
>
> And yes, ODE knows they will need to communicate the correct information immediately. I will suggest that once the language is finalized that ODE notify districts and then follow up with instructions as soon as the bill passes.
>
>
> On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 11:27 AM, <Ms118rbts at aol.com> wrote:
>
>     I agree. We have had a few instances of siblings in the same grade and has not stopped the acceleration.  One just has to help all involved (not just the accelerated student) through the process.
>     Sally R
>      
>     In a message dated 5/9/2013 5:53:08 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, boyleconsulting at me.com writes:
>
>         The WISC GAI score has been covered in ODE's FAQ for gifted ID for a few years now. It isn't addressed in the IAS, but there is no reason an evaluator shouldn't consider it during an acceleration eval. (And frankly, I see no need or the IAS to be revised with it. It is silly that they charge a ton of money for a "revised" document that has 1-2 new sentences in it like they did with the last revision.)
>
>         The sibling contraindicator, in my opinion, is something to seriously discuss, but I don't think it is a slam dunk close the door for some kids. Now, I've not had an early k referral where this was an issue, nor have I had a profoundly gifted early k referral. But, should a case arise, I think it is worth a conversation but not necessarily immediate exclusion. 
>
>         The 115 IQ is a completely different story. Because we are talking about putting a child in an advanced placement compared to typical development, there is a very real need for a child to be at that cognitive level to handle internal accommodations needed in the process of adapting to the group of older kids. So, if I encounter a child without the 115, I do not continue the process nor do I call a committee. If the child gets 115 but doesn't get the 10 total points on the assessment rating, I also stop without finishing the IAS or committee. I explain the criteria and supporting research to the parents, I offer an interpretation of the child's strengths and weaknesses from the cog test (and achievement if given), and I give suggestions of things the parent can do at home to continue the child's development. But, I don't do any other testing. I know i am putting myself on the line by sharing the publicly, but i think the rationale is defensible and in line with the approved IAS. I can't justify putting a small child through that nor pulling teachers and principals from classes the last week of school for meetings that are a definite no. Plus, districts with Aug. 1 cutoffs or all day kindergarten tend to get more referrals (at least in my experience).  When responsible for large districts or multiple districts, coordinators need a way to manage the load without depriving kids of needed opportunities.  If it is an older child considered for whole grade acceleration, that is different since there are In-school options that can still be discussed. But for early K, where there are no other school options within the district, the conversation really stops at that point. 
>
>         After doing this for several years, data seems to confirm how i handle this. My referrals have cog scores clustered between 95-105 (usually kids who miss the cutoff by a couple of days) and 120 or higher (usually miss the cutoff by a month or more). Scores between 105 and 120 are rare in my early k referrals. I've gone back and reviewed the later grade testing of kids I have reviewed in any way with this process.  Every child I stopped after a cog score less than 115 has a 2nd or 3rd grade cognitive score within 1 SEM of the original score and has achievement scores ranging from 35%ile to 85%ile.  Every child I screened completely through with the IAS and did not place also has a cog score within 1 SEM of the original cog score and usually is scoring in subject areas between 75th%ile and 95%ile (I get an occasional subject area ID from some of those kids, but not new cog IDs).  Kids who go through the entire process and are placed usually have cog scores within 1 SEM at a minimum, and some who may have had a 125 or so on the original cog test end up cog ID later on.  Achievement scores usually fall between 85%ile and 99%ile in the accelerated grade level.  So, it seems to be working well and placing the right kids. 
>
>         Colleen
>         Sent from my iPhone
>
>         On May 9, 2013, at 5:07 PM, Anne Flick <anneflick at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>         That is interesting Colleen.  I would love to learn criteria you have found that helped you in the process to consider for a student with IQ<115.
>>
>>         Another point is that the WISC publisher now notes that GAI is more accurate than FSIQ for some gifted children.  I'm not sure if the 3rd ed. of the IAS includes this updated protocol.
>>
>>         Another IAS automatic contraindicator for acceleration is if the child would be placed into a grade at the same level or a level above an older sibling.  Plenty of families of PG children have ignored this caveat with no issues in their families.  Some kids are so profoundly gifted that it would be cruel to hold them behind a sibling, and where sibling difficulties arise, they manage them because the younger child's academic needs are so extreme.
>>
>>         Karen, thank you for sharing your district's resources.
>>
>>         Anne
>>
>>             the IAS also says right at the beginning that acceleration shouldn't be considered if the IQ score is below a 115 or if the total of the ratings for the aptitude, achievement, and ability scores is less than 10. So, depending on the child's tested ability, a modified process may be very appropriate.  (This should be child specific and based on objective criteria, not at a district whim.)
>>
>>
>>             Colleen Boyle, Ph.D.
>>         _______________________________________________
>>         Ohiogift mailing list
>>         Ohiogift at lists.service.ohio-state.edu
>>         https://lists.service.ohio-state.edu/mailman/listinfo/ohiogift
>         =
>
>         _______________________________________________
>         Ohiogift mailing list
>         Ohiogift at lists.service.ohio-state.edu
>         https://lists.service.ohio-state.edu/mailman/listinfo/ohiogift
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     Ohiogift mailing list
>     Ohiogift at lists.service.ohio-state.edu
>     https://lists.service.ohio-state.edu/mailman/listinfo/ohiogift
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Colleen D. Grady
> 440-376-1325
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osu.edu/pipermail/ohiogift/attachments/20130510/0f3bfee4/attachment.html>