Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums Active Threads Today

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.