Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums General Discussion What is giftedness?

I recently got in trouble with a group of parents in a gifted group for saying that giftedness in kids is in the top 2%. Some feel it is 10%, others believe it is a way of thinking and gifted traits- regardless of an average IQ and achievement.

I have to admit that I find it annoying to be in a group for the gifted when the kids aren't gifted (either not tested or tested with no gifted IQ). My two kids are confirmed HG+ and I get made to feel like a pompous show off for saying they are. It's one thing to say your kid's smart, but to label them profoundly gifted when no test has confirmed it is unfair to those whose kids are actually gifted.


I guess what I'm trying to say is why label them as "PG"? Why not just "really advanced" or "really intelligent"?

Is it just me who feels this way?

I'm confused, are you using PG and gifted as synonyms? Generally, gifted refers to somewhere around 125-130 IQ (depending on school district) and PG to 145+ IQ. Population-wide they are the top 5% and 0.01%, respectively. But, in your local area 125 might be the top 20%, and if you live in Los Alamos it might qualify you for remedial work. It's all relative.

When I'm tempted to feel all woe is me about how much harder I have it than someone whose child is MG or optimally gifted I remind myself how individual kids are. You really can't sum up the entirety of a child in a number. Maybe their kid has executive function issues, or the most incredible knack for telling a story, and therefore school is a trial for them too. Even two kids with the same FSIQ can have both wildly differing strengths AND interact with the world in wildly different ways. And they can all be cool, amazing little people.

Maybe take this fight as a good reminder to listen with an open heart (I sound like a yoga teacher, but you know what I mean). It is hard to realise that even in a group of parents supposedly dealing with the same issues that you're not all dealing with the same issues. I'd have to hold my tongue around you the same way you have to hold your tongue around these people, and the parent of the athletically talented kid has to hold their tongue, or the incredible musician's parent, etc, etc. Or we could all accept that everyone's different and be supportive of each other. Maybe this person who's annoying you feels terribly inadequate themselves and is trying to build up their kid to compensate? I dunno, I just don't think you can go far wrong being kind and gentle with people, including yourself.

No, I mean they believe their child has an IQ over 160, despite average IQ test results.

I thought that joining a gifted group that is for highly gifted children meant that the kids would IQ's of 135+. But I'm told that I shouldn't be so pompous for thinking that. That IQ tests aren't the only way to prove giftedness.

I don't care of they think their child is brilliant, smart, genius, or the results might be wrong. Annoys me that they use the term "profoundly gifted" despite having no evidence. I believe gifted terms should be used once confirmed as being so.

They're the reason teachers think we all believe our kids are gifted.

Gifted is typically the top 2%, approximately IQ 130-132 and up. This page of Hoagies Gifted Education Page summarizes it well: What is Highly/Exceptionally/Profoundly Gifted? What Does It Mean?

While I would tend to agree, some may say that their "evidence" is a match in behavior characteristics to common lists of gifted traits, rather than evidence of IQ test scores as a measure of being intellectually gifted.

Others believe that high achievement, as a result of participation in a large number of opportunities afforded through high SES, or hot-housing by Tiger Moms, are evidence of giftedness. They may associate "prominence" with gifted.

Possibly in response to those who ascribe to hot-housing, including extensive IQ test prep, there has been an attempt to refine that gifted kids don't just learn more information (and repeat it back like parrots, following rote memorization) but rather they process information differently, creatively, making many connections which others may not have considered. Many have come to understand that gifted is a way of thinking. This reinforces that hot-housing doesn't make a kid become "gifted". However, over time some have deconstructed and analyzed the creative thinking process, and children can now be taught/coached in this as well.

Some kiddos, when tested, are found to be globally gifted (gifted in each area assessed by IQ tests), others are found to have slow processing speed and low working memory and may have a General Ability Index (GAI) calculated if the Full Scale IQ (FSIQ) is found to be invalid. Conversely, some "obviously gifted" kiddos may have exceptionally high processing speed and large working memory, but other scores may be average.

Then there are fabulously talented kids, like Jackie Evancho, who would easily be described as a "gifted" singer, regardless of IQ tests.

Here is an archived definition of gifted as asynchronous, developed by The Columbus Group.

This archived article includes a chart comparing high achievers, gifted learners, and creative thinkers

I agree. If I joined such a group I would expect the kids to have been assessed OR the siblings of those who had been 0R were not old enough/cooperative enough to test. I would alternatively accept 'working multiple level above expected for age without obvious hot housing (fine line but I don't think you can hot house an average kid past a certain point). It would be a bit like joining a dieting club for those with a serious weight problem and finding it full of people who put on a couple of pounds over Christmas. Although that is fairly common as one persons serious is not the same as others.

I also agree that it doesn't help with teacher's impressions.

Eta. Having a science background I tend to only accept objective testing not parent based assessment against checklists. One persons energetic is different to another's. I know in my case I wildly underestimated my kids' IQs.

dusty, my personal philosophy leans towards multiple-intelligence so I am fine with parents who believe that their child is gifted even though IQ test scores fall within the average range. I am thinking of a 2nd grade student I have been getting to know. He isn't academically driven and he is probably an average student but he is a natural leader, widely popular, and has that charisma you cannot teach or learn. If his parents say their son is socially gifted, I wouldn't disagree. Children could also be athletically, musically, or artistically gifted and those things will not show up on IQ tests.

Drive to learn, imagination and creativity are also traits that are not measured by standard IQ tests. So, if parents feel their children are exceptional based on those qualities, then okay, I get that too but...that's really different from insisting that a child's IQ is above 160 when the actual score is within the average range. That would confuse me but I probably would leave it alone.

What are the parameters for joining the group that you are in?

Is it more of an informal social group? Do you have to have a specific IQ score to join? Do parents self nominate? Is it for advocacy or finding peers for your children with common interests?

Personally, I don't think you are a "pompous show off" for saying your kids are highly gifted. However, if the group is open to anyone who is, lets say in the top 10%, then that's how the group defines giftedness. I totally get what you're saying about levels of giftedness and the top 2%, but if members of your group have children who are not in the top 2% I wouldn't expect them to react happily to being told that they shouldn't be allowed to be in a group where they fit membership criteria.

I'm a bit confused by someone insisting that their child is PG despite having average test results but perhaps their child is gifted in a different area such as music or art or an area not measured by IQ tests?

My DD5 hasn't been formally tested yet. I've learned to be very, very guarded about sharing her academic progress. I know you're probably disappointed because you thought your group would be a safe place where you could feel comfortable talking about your kids. Obviously the people in the group have a different perspective then you. I would take the good out of what it has to offer and keep looking for a better fit.

ETA I agree this makes advocating at school much more difficult. DH and I also never refer to DD as gifted outside of this forum, which is my sanity saver, as she has yet to be formally identified.....though she has been recently flagged at school.

I disagree about it making advocacy more difficult. I thought an insanely high test score would shock the school staff who'd been trying to patronisingly humor me while continuing as normal. You know, show that it wasn't me, it was a legitimate, impartial, verified quantifiable difference. Nope! They knew exactly how big the difference was (the about to retire teacher said "didn't you realise? I've only had one or two other kids like this in 40 years"). Test scores are nothing against educator apathy. My kid would have been better off if I'd been a pushy status-seeker, or if there'd been a pushy status seeker in the class.

But, I am old and cynical!

I think the term gifted is the issue here. Gifted can come in many variations. I think if the parents want to say gifted without testing that's fine but I personally wouldn't say a child was PG or HG unless testing had determined it. I know there are people on this board whose children tick all the boxes but haven't been tested yet for whatever reason, they still know their child is gifted based on their child's behavior. My brother is definitely gifted (and likely 2e) and was tested several times in elementary school but didn't test gifted. He also didn't test well on the SATs. He is still brilliant and got a doctorate in a highly scientific field and was told that he had solved problems they had been trying to solve for over 10 years in the department. So IMHO testing while it is the gold standard for educational purposes it is not necessarily a one size fits all situation. I think the criteria should be whether the child appears to need this group and fits in. BUT I am personally concerned with accuracy. If a child has not been formally tested, or did not test into HG they should not be referring to their child as HG or PG. The concept of HG and PG are constructs used to describe a child who has been tested and found to have a particular IQ - I'm not sure they can apply without testing since they are related to scoring (others may disagree, and that's fine). That said, I do believe in multiple intelligences too, and so if a child doesn't necessarily look gifted they still may be gifted. My DD does not look gifted compared to my DS, however I had her tested at the same time and she tested higher than he did (to my utter surprise). I realized I had a sleeper on my hands...

You are not elitist if you say you have a HG child. You have had your child tested and this is what you have - and you have a child who thinks very differently than most children and you are trying to support that by finding peers. This is difficult to do if the other kids haven't been tested so I think you need to trust that if a child is not gifted it will soon be obvious to all and that child will end up leaving the group anyway.

So what is the criteria set for this group? It sounds like the people in the group have differing opinions on what giftedness is in the first place...

While we are on the topic, I have been feeling like I shouldn't really participate in this forum because I do not have a PG child. How do people feel about people with children who are only gifted or HG participating?