Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums Active Threads This Week

Welcome, Lizz! (Even though I'm a dark roast person myself!)

If you've been lurking for a bit, you've probably seen some of my old posts, in which case you may know that we have homeschooled. While not formally identified, some of ours are almost certainly 2e (I'm a professional evaluator). One stayed in schools through a series of tiny private schools who were flexible and willing to collaborate with us, ultimately homeschooling during the secondary years. Others were homeschooled from the start, but have gone on to the public high school where I am employed.

Different families find that different schooling arrangements work better for them. If I were to give you any advice, I would say to observe your children closely, and stay flexible. Each child may need different things. The same child may need different things at different times. Prioritize your child's growth and development as a whole person. With every child, but especially with 2e learners, there will be moments when something besides academic development is a more urgent need. Actually, becoming a healthy human is always a more urgent need! Academics and intellectual development are just one component of health. If you need to put academics on the back burner because something else is currently more critical, it's okay--you can get back to it at some point. There's more than one way to do nearly everything. Finally, a child who knows they are loved, knows how to love, is growing, is healthy, is happy--is enough. Look at what helps your children to be this version of themselves, and what are impediments, and that will tell you what you need to address.

Welcome Vagee!

The most important piece of perspective is that this test is a screening measure. It's not intended to diagnose giftedness or delay--just to sort out who might benefit from further evaluation with a more comprehensive assessment. Note that the cutoff for GT at this age is >92, but the max score is only 100. So the space in which to spread everyone from 120 to 220 is only 8 points. This is by design, since the primary purpose of the instrument is to identify young children at risk, so they can have access to early intervention and remediation. The at-risk cut-off is 71--so almost 3/4 of the range is reserved for possible delays.

So in answer to your three questions:

1. Neither. The screening score and the behaviors simply suggest watching and possibly future evaluation.
2. Extremely common. Young children experience a wide range of growth trajectories across different domains of development, and further, are notoriously difficult to assess with any consistency. The usual rule of thumb is to consider cognitive measures more stable only beginning around age 9 or so.
3. Depends. My bias is always to start from observation in a very young child. Until you have a more nuanced read on when her skills are most accessible to her, evaluation will have a less promising return on investment, since there is a high likelihood that an unfamiliar examiner will not get optimal performance from her. TBH, none of the areas of inconsistency you've described seem out of the range for a child of her age. The level of support I would think appropriate is just that of attentive parenting.

Is there a time to evaluate? Of course there can be. (I'm a professional evaluator, so naturally I would think so!) I typically say that evaluations are warranted when
a) there is a question to be answered/problem to be solved (e.g., is there an obstacle to learning or development that appears to be present? are we questioning a disability of some kind?); or,
b) when it will aid in access to a necessary resource (e.g., higher-level classes, GT programming, specialized summer camps).

A few more thoughts on the "inconsistencies":
-One of my sibs habitually said, "I don't know" as a young child despite knowing answers that most would consider quite sophisticated, apparently because knowledge that is not comprehensive of all possibilities (in the universe! throughout all time!) is inadequate knowing. That sib was reading at 2.
-It may be that your DC is more socially-aware than some age-peers, and consequently more vulnerable to peer pressure at an age when many others are still just emerging from parallel play.
-The nature of variable engagement you describe is not uncommon in high cognitive and inquisitive learners, who typically have high intellectual stimulation needs. But it's also pretty typical of all small children. Keep in mind that kindergarten standards in most states expect students to manage 5-10 minutes of sustained listening.
-She is describing relatively slow retrieval fluency. At this age, I hesitate to ascribe it to any actual concerns, but it's probably worth keeping an eye on it.

You’re not wrong to be concerned—but you don’t need to panic or overhaul everything.

Right now, home enrichment is enough, especially since he’s happy and engaged. That’s a strong foundation. But the school is likely underestimating him because they’re equating ability with written output, which doesn’t work for kids with profiles like his (especially if Developmental Coordination Disorder is confirmed).

The key isn’t pushing for a “gifted label”—it’s pushing for small, practical adjustments:

Let him show knowledge verbally or digitally.
Reduce time pressure on writing.
Give access to more challenging thinking, even if output is limited. Space Waves

If he stays happy and stimulated, you’re in a good place. If he starts getting bored or frustrated, that’s when to push harder.

I was amazed by my child's concentration! Instead of the initial goal of 10 questions, they managed to answer a whopping 278. What I liked most was that they are building confidence from the most basic knowledge before tackling more difficult challenges.

Hello everyone,

I came across this thread while researching Brigance results and was hoping to get some guidance from those with more experience.

I’m trying to better understand my daughter’s development rather than label her. She is currently 5 years old. On her most recent Brigance III screening (at 4 years 9 months), she scored 98, with a gifted cutoff of 92. Her breakdown was:

* Cognitive: 130
* Language: 121
* Physical: 111

At 3 years 9 months, she previously scored around 83%.

What I’m trying to understand is how to interpret this alongside her current behavior, which feels somewhat asynchronous.

**Strengths:**

* Advanced vocabulary and grammar for her age
* Can hold complex conversations and ask thoughtful, sometimes abstract “what if” questions
* Strong interest-driven learning (e.g., animals—she can go very deep and retain a lot of information)
* Shows good reasoning and curiosity when engaged

**Areas of inconsistency:**

* In structured settings, she may say “I don’t know,” even when she later demonstrates that she does know the answer
* Can be influenced by peers and sometimes follows behavior she knows is not appropriate
* Engagement depends heavily on interest—she may disengage if something feels repetitive or not challenging
* At times seems to struggle with retrieving information on demand (she once described it as her “brain being full and not knowing what to take out”)

Because of this, her performance can appear inconsistent depending on the situation.

I’m trying to understand:

* Does this pattern align more with high ability or emerging giftedness?
* How common is this type of inconsistency at this age?
* What should I be focusing on as a parent right now (evaluation, support, or observation)?

I’m happy to share more details if helpful, and any guidance or advice would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you.

Yeah. The funding environment is very different from past generations. Back in the day, you applied to a program, and if accepted, funding was taken care of by the department for your first year, while you had the time to sample and get to know PIs in the department (some programs have historically done rotations the first year). It wasn't critical to have studied up on the potential PIs (which DC actually did--read through each one's most recent half-dozen publications, and then specifically referenced their research interests in the admissions essays).

I agree that there are pros and cons either way with the name school vs just-respectable school path. In our case, I think DC benefited from being a big fish in a small pond, because every recommender had a lot of specific and in-depth knowledge as a result of the opportunities that were not just available, but for which DC was actively recruited. (One mentor kept tossing scholarship opportunities this way, to the point that DC felt embarrassed about having to somehow bring up that between living at home and a full scholarship, there really wasn't anything to use the scholarships on--and there were other kids who needed them a lot more.) This amount of personal attention and faculty investment would have been pretty hard to come by at a larger and more competitive school.

But for some students, the name school is the first time they have an environment that fits them intellectually, not so much because of the level of instruction, but because of the peer group. That alone can be invaluable. Different situation and level, but I can remember students at my work who came from significantly disadvantaged backgrounds (on multiple levels) for whom a big plus about coming to our school with its mixture of very diverse communities was meeting peers for whom college and financial responsibility (let alone many other aspects of life) were viewed not aspirationally, but as a given. Never having encountered any adults who had successfully traveled those paths, it was not only hard for them to imagine living that life themselves, it was hard to even voice these as goals when many of the peers from their home communities actually ridiculed or discouraged them from pursuing them.

Persevering in your goals and dreams is hard enough for young adults without having to do it alone, or even with opposition. I think the college environment is sometimes as critical in that respect as it is in the educational content and experiences conveyed.

Good to hear of your child's success in this environment. My daughter did her undergrad in 3 and then another year for your Masters. And she is writing a thesis paper. I think that is becoming more common. If you leave then your masters takes 2. If you stay, then 1 more year. Getting the opportunities is key. Big trade off, top school, very competitive to get those opportunities, sometimes being the bigger fish in a smaller pond is better.

But funding now for doctoral programs is really tight. One of her professors that wrote her a reference letter said that when she applied for a PhD, she did not bother to connect with potential PIs, she just applied and it was taken care of.