<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=US-ASCII" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 9.00.8112.16476"></HEAD>
<BODY style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 10pt" id=role_body
bottomMargin=7 leftMargin=7 rightMargin=7 topMargin=7><FONT id=role_document
color=#000000 size=2 face=Arial>
<DIV>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.</DIV>
<DIV>Sally R</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>In a message dated 5/9/2013 5:53:08 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
boyleconsulting@me.com writes:</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: blue 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px"><FONT
style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" color=#000000 size=2 face=Arial>
<DIV><SPAN></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>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.)</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>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. </DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>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. </DIV>
<DIV><BR><SPAN
style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(26, 26, 26, 0.296875); -webkit-composition-fill-color: rgba(175, 192, 227, 0.230469); -webkit-composition-frame-color: rgba(77, 128, 180, 0.230469)">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. </SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Colleen</DIV>
<DIV>Sent from my iPhone</DIV>
<DIV><BR>On May 9, 2013, at 5:07 PM, Anne Flick <<A
title=mailto:anneflick@yahoo.com
href="mailto:anneflick@yahoo.com">anneflick@yahoo.com</A>>
wrote:<BR><BR></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">
<DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #fff; FONT-FAMILY: times new roman, new york, times, serif; COLOR: #000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">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.<BR><BR>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.<BR><BR>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.<BR><BR>Karen, thank you for sharing your district's
resources.<BR><BR>Anne<BR>
<DIV><SPAN></SPAN><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: rgb(16,16,255) 2px solid; MARGIN-TOP: 5px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px">
<DIV
style="FONT-FAMILY: times new roman, new york, times, serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">
<DIV
style="FONT-FAMILY: times new roman, new york, times, serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">
<DIV dir=ltr>
<HR SIZE=1>
<FONT size=2 face=Arial><B><SPAN
style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold"></SPAN></B></FONT>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.)</DIV>
<DIV class=y_msg_container>
<DIV id=yiv3875555247>
<DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV><BR>
<DIV>
<DIV
style="WIDOWS: 2; TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; TEXT-INDENT: 0px; LETTER-SPACING: normal; FONT: 16px Helvetica; WORD-WRAP: break-word; WHITE-SPACE: normal; ORPHANS: 2; COLOR: rgb(0,0,0); WORD-SPACING: 0px">
<DIV>Colleen Boyle,
Ph.D.<BR></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV></DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">
<DIV><SPAN>_______________________________________________</SPAN><BR><SPAN>Ohiogift
mailing list</SPAN><BR><SPAN><A
title=mailto:Ohiogift@lists.service.ohio-state.edu
href="mailto:Ohiogift@lists.service.ohio-state.edu">Ohiogift@lists.service.ohio-state.edu</A></SPAN><BR><SPAN><A
title=https://lists.service.ohio-state.edu/mailman/listinfo/ohiogift
href="https://lists.service.ohio-state.edu/mailman/listinfo/ohiogift">https://lists.service.ohio-state.edu/mailman/listinfo/ohiogift</A></SPAN><BR></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV>=<BR><BR>_______________________________________________<BR>Ohiogift
mailing
list<BR>Ohiogift@lists.service.ohio-state.edu<BR>https://lists.service.ohio-state.edu/mailman/listinfo/ohiogift<BR></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV></FONT></BODY></HTML>