DS8, who taught himself to read at age 2, and is probably 99.99th percentile in math, was measured as just plain average at age 4. Testing at age 7 was closer to the truth. I definitely believe that these tests can be highly inaccurate at young ages. On the other hand, we as parents saw obvious signs at very young ages, so it's not a case of being a late bloomer.
As gifted advocates, we have to concede that early testing is unreliable, and misidentification (in either direction) at young ages will inevitably be common. So instead, the focus needs to be on how can schools provide all students the opportunity to learn at their own pace, no matter how fast or slow, without needing to identify them in advance. Schools have to embrace the idea that large differences in ability are very real, and that they will translate into large differences in achievement, if they are willing to allow that to happen.
