|
0 members (),
286
guests, and
16
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,453
Member
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,453 |
I know that some here may hate me for saying it but charlatans like Jay Gould have misled an entire generation. The refusal of GT coordinators to accept IQ scores is beyond me - discounting effects where a minority of high SES status parents basically cheat the IQ test process by taking the same test multiple times inside 2 years.
I find it hard to not come to the conclusion that it boils down to this (pure unadulterated political correctness):-
a) no one wants to be shunned as a racist or even appear to be racist
b) non Jewish, non White, non Asians have an average IQ that is fully one SD below average meaning that roughly 84% of that population have below average intelligence
c) insisting on everyone having an IQ 2 SDs above average to enter GT programs will naturally expose school districts to accusations of racism (see point (a)).
I fully expect some on this board to saddle up on their high horses and sally forth against me just for stating the above but that is genuinely how I see it. I welcome a well reasoned argument showing me just where my logic is flawed... Interesting. Do you have some references for (b). Please, let's not go there. As Bostonian says, we've discussed group differences in IQ here before (more than once, actually), it always generates heat, and it doesn't generate light because the main purpose of this board is to discuss the needs of individuals. Point taken - having read all of the posts in the thread that Bostonian directed me to, I see that this will just turn into a quasi-religious bickering match - I am going to delete my original post
Last edited by madeinuk; 07/13/13 11:45 AM.
Become what you are
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 2,007
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 2,007 |
I know that some here may hate me for saying it but charlatans like Jay Gould have misled an entire generation. The refusal of GT coordinators to accept IQ scores is beyond me - discounting effects where a minority of high SES status parents basically cheat the IQ test process by taking the same test multiple times inside 2 years.
I find it hard to not come to the conclusion that it boils down to this (pure unadulterated political correctness):-
a) no one wants to be shunned as a racist or even appear to be racist
b) non Jewish, non White, non Asians have an average IQ that is fully one SD below average meaning that roughly 84% of that population have below average intelligence
c) insisting on everyone having an IQ 2 SDs above average to enter GT programs will naturally expose school districts to accusations of racism (see point (a)).
I fully expect some on this board to saddle up on their high horses and sally forth against me just for stating the above but that is genuinely how I see it. I welcome a well reasoned argument showing me just where my logic is flawed... Interesting. Do you have some references for (b). Please, let's not go there. As Bostonian says, we've discussed group differences in IQ here before (more than once, actually), it always generates heat, and it doesn't generate light because the main purpose of this board is to discuss the needs of individuals. Point taken - having read all of the posts in the thread that Bostonian directed me to, I see that this will just turn into a quasi-religious bickering match - I am going to delete my original post You know, we should be able to assemble the best available data and studies and put them together on a thread without getting into bickering.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2012
Posts: 267
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2012
Posts: 267 |
Do you think it is that these administrators genuinely believe that "high IQ doesn't mean gifted"?
Or is it that they are wary of outside testing-- maybe via being burned a few times by parents who 'shop' for "high enough" results? (We have seen that and definitely heard about a lot more of it.)
I realize that no scrupulous administration of a standardized tool like WISC should result in falsely elevated scores... but... what about unscrupulous administration?
Honestly, I simply SO don't see the point in that, but apparently there are parents who do. They seem to think that whatever means necessary to get "the label" will make it a self-fulfilling prophecy for the child's future.
So I guess I can see, if a district/school had been burned by that even once, they might be VERY suspicious of "outside testing" that didn't match up with in-house numbers-- regardless of the fact that those in-house numbers might be on a group achievement test. In our case, the testing was done by the school psychologist, so it wasn't a case of being wary of outside testing. I'm still baffled by it.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2013
Posts: 62
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2013
Posts: 62 |
I haven't read through this entire thread. But I just wanted to share our experience, getting tested by someone in NYC. We do not live in NYC, but someone highly recommendeded going into the city to be tested by an approved Hunter tester. After my son finished the test and I went back to see the tester, she immediately commented that it was clear that we hadn't prepped our son and how wonderful and refreshing it was for her to test a truly, legitimately PG child. She went on and on about how many parents cheat. That was the first time that I had even heard of parents cheating on an IQ test! I guess I was naive! Then I felt sad for this woman...here she was passionate about gifted education and passionate about really helping gifted children and families...and she is stuck REGULARLY working with parents who are trying to cheat the system. Sad
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2013
Posts: 63
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2013
Posts: 63 |
This is so sad. I suppose these parents don't care that they are harming their children in the process as well?
How will the unfairly diagnosed PG child feel when he/she arrives at Davidson and is no longer one of the brightest or the best? This unscrupulous cheating tells the children that it IS ok to lie. not to mention, this mentality is precisely what harms the truly gifted students.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2012
Posts: 267
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2012
Posts: 267 |
In our case, the testing was done by the school psychologist, so it wasn't a case of being wary of outside testing. I'm still baffled by it. Just out of curiosity, how does this school define giftedness if scoring 160 isn't it? The school didn't deny that DS was gifted, just that he wouldn't be considered for the GATE program until he had taken the test given to the rest of the kids in the spring. It's possible we could have pushed the issue, had we chosen to stay. Anyway, my point is, for me, he defined the phrase "gifted child." I know other children who are cognitively higher functioning or more of a prodigy in their area of talent but he has always had that aura to him that made him very special/gifted. DS is exactly not this. He does not appear to be gifted much of the time, and some adults who know him casually (e.g. his Scout leader) don't believe it. And yet he has special gifted needs just as much as those kids who exude giftedness in the way you describe.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 2,172
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 2,172 |
The school didn't deny that DS was gifted, just that he wouldn't be considered for the GATE program until he had taken the test given to the rest of the kids in the spring. It's possible we could have pushed the issue, had we chosen to. Ours did. We were specifically told that IQ scores at 99.9th didn't necessarily mean gifted b/c IQ alone doesn't necessarily mean that someone is gifted. To be gifted, there has to be a "body of evidence" with "proof" in more than one area (other areas include achievement, personality characteristics, etc.). The fight we had to fight as well was for the district to even accept that IQ was a fair stand in for an ability score. Up to that point, they were only willing to take group tests and were quite sure that group tests were a better measure of ability and not sure that IQ measures ability or aptitude at all. They will now take IQ as well as group tests, but only for reading and language arts ids and only if coupled with high achievement. I will tell you that getting any support for my 2e kid has been like pulling teeth and we had to pay over $1000 to have her IQ retested on multiple separate measures (WISC IV, SB V, RIAS) and show that she was still in the upper 90s on multiple different IQ tests for them to agree that the first WISC scores weren't disproved as "good guessing" by group scores not quite making the GT cut and achievement scores being wildly erratic.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 690
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 690 |
The school didn't deny that DS was gifted, just that he wouldn't be considered for the GATE program until he had taken the test given to the rest of the kids in the spring. It's possible we could have pushed the issue, had we chosen to. Ours did. We were specifically told that IQ scores at 99.9th didn't necessarily mean gifted b/c IQ alone doesn't necessarily mean that someone is gifted. To be gifted, there has to be a "body of evidence" with "proof" in more than one area (other areas include achievement, personality characteristics, etc.). The fight we had to fight as well was for the district to even accept that IQ was a fair stand in for an ability score. Up to that point, they were only willing to take group tests and were quite sure that group tests were a better measure of ability and not sure that IQ measures ability or aptitude at all. They will now take IQ as well as group tests, but only for reading and language arts ids and only if coupled with high achievement. I will tell you that getting any support for my 2e kid has been like pulling teeth and we had to pay over $1000 to have her IQ retested on multiple separate measures (WISC IV, SB V, RIAS) and show that she was still in the upper 90s for them to agree that the first WISC scores weren't disproved as "good guessing" by group scores not quite making the GT cut and achievement scores being wildly erratic. Shocking, really. You must have been so frustrated.
Last edited by KADmom; 07/14/13 09:20 AM. Reason: long-winded and preaching to the choir
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2012
Posts: 267
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2012
Posts: 267 |
The school didn't deny that DS was gifted, just that he wouldn't be considered for the GATE program until he had taken the test given to the rest of the kids in the spring. It's possible we could have pushed the issue, had we chosen to. Ours did. Ouch! 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 5,181
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 5,181 |
Exactly-- it's as though in the effort to pursue a growth mindset for our children, we've neglected the fact that while attainment is a destination, the means-- and PACE-- of getting there is probably not terribly mutable for an individual when you get right down to it.
I can't will my child onto a different developmental trajectory by feeding her more or promoting special exercises or anything. It is what it is. That's not to say that I think that her current physical development is static, or that it isn't important to provide her with good nutrition and physical activity that promotes good health.
It's just that no amount of wishing and cajoling/preparation will actually MAKE her develop faster if that isn't her genetic destiny.
I don't know why we persist in believing that all children are cognitively lumps of clay in this fashion. They simply are NOT.
Where we live (and, it sounds like, where Cricket is, as well, and also eastcoast) people are shocked when they come face to face with the reality of a child like DD. They've very plainly heard it all before.... from parents. But they've also very plainly not SEEN too many kids who are really like her.
She's a cheetah being educated alongside well-conditioned border collies, and she knows it. Sure, most dogs aren't bright enough to do what Border Collies do (B.C.'s are amazingly clever-- for dogs) but no Border Collie can match a cheetah. Nor is it easy for a cheetah to muster the enthusiasm, willingness to please, or stamina that border collies are famous for. Unfortunately, gifted programs and AP coursework have become more and more geared toward stamina and work ethic, not genuine rigor/depth academically. It's the same old M.O.S. 'differentiation' strategy. This is NOT good news for cheetahs, and we're systematically crippling them as a society by expecting them to be just some form of super-Border Collie. Border Collies are a lot easier to train. A lot easier to live with-- a lot more adaptable, easier to feed, more... domesticated.
DD's own favorite recent analogy is that she's a llama among sheep and-- at least in the upper-grouping track that she is generally on-- goats. The trouble is that llamas still have to hide their long necks to fit in with the goats. Anyone that knows camelids knows better than to treat a llama like a sheep or even a goat. That's not going to end well; llamas are intelligent, sensitive and autonomous in ways that neither of the other two creatures are... and the fact that they have superficially similar housing and care needs doesn't change it. KWIM?
Schrödinger's cat walks into a bar. And doesn't.
|
|
|
|
|
