[Oz-gifted] tests in the public system

[Narelle W]

Trouble is each school or teacher will only accept certain "evidence" but 
reject others. I had a recent experience where only the basic skills tests 
results were considered "standardised" and therefore acceptable as evidence 
of giftedness by my dd's school. Individual teacher's opinions were also 
given extreme weight. I presented other evidence of even higher ability, 
such as APTS, IQ tests ( WIPPSI, WISC 111, & UNSW competitions) all of which 
were rejected as unreliable and therefore meaningless. Very frustrating to 
have outside testing rejected so quickly, considering the financial costs 
and time involved over the years. End result- all those distinctions in the 
comps mean nothing as said child "has trouble spelling", "is very shy so 
doesn't perform well at public speaking", "doesn't get A+"  and so on 
therefore she "can't be gifted". <grrr>. I can't understand why the school 
is so keen to focus on the negatives rather than the strengths of their 
students. Also if the kid is not a teacher pleaser and has switched off 
learning years ago, it is an impossible task to convince staff of potential, 
particularly when they reject almost all of  the evidence that is presented 
to them.

Narelle

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Rose Churches" <rosechurches at hotmail.com>
To: <keith.mcguinness at bigpond.com>; <oz-gifted at rite.ed.qut.edu.au>
Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2006 11:15 AM
Subject: Re: [Oz-gifted] tests in the public system


>
>   I agree Keith, the problem is then how do we convince schools that
>   these young children require access to individual programming etc.
>
>   In my experience most schools insist on some kind of empirical
>   evidence.
>
>   Rose
>   Rosemary Churches
>       ______________________________________________________________
>
>     From:  Keith McGuinness <keith.mcguinness at bigpond.com>
>     Reply-To:  keith.mcguinness at bigpond.com,
>     oz-gifted at rite.ed.qut.edu.au
>     To:  oz-gifted at rite.ed.qut.edu.au
>     Subject:  Re: [Oz-gifted] tests in the public system
>     Date:  Wed, 20 Sep 2006 16:32:17 +0930
>     >sol1 wrote:
>     > > Reliability in psychological tests refers to consistency or
>     stability in
>     > > measurement, not prediction of adult IQ or anything to do with
>     ceilings.
>     >
>     >Yes but we don't know what sense the term "reliability" was being
>     >used in, in this particular case. It may well NOT be the sense
>     >you are referring to. (EG precision and accuracy are used
>     >interchangeably in casual conversation but, in statistics, they
>     >mean two quite different things.)
>     >
>     >Studies show that measurements of IQ at, say, age 8 are usually
>     >better correlated with adult IQ than measurements at, say, age 5.
>     >(If I am remembering correctly; I don't have my psych tests book
>     >with me.)
>     >
>     >This is the main reason, as far as I know, why results on older
>     >children are regarded as more "reliable" indicators of potential.
>     >
>     >Keith McGuinness
>     >
>     >_______________________________________________
>     >oz-gifted mailing list
>     >oz-gifted at rite.ed.qut.edu.au
>     >http://lists.rite.ed.qut.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/oz-gifted
> _______________________________________________
> oz-gifted mailing list
> oz-gifted at rite.ed.qut.edu.au
> http://lists.rite.ed.qut.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/oz-gifted