I'm curious as to what informs your view that the DYS mission is to serve HG+, rather than Profoundly Gifted?
I believe that they are synonyms, at least the way Davidson defines profoundly gifted... See
their FAQ for how Davidson uses the term.
HG+ is not synonymous with PG, specifically PG is farther to the extreme right tail of the bell curve as compared with HG. HG+ is an attempt to be more inclusive, by combining kiddos with lower scores (HG) together with kiddos in the PG range.
The
link you provided is to a document titled "Frequently Asked Questions: Profoundly Gifted Students & Gifted Education", and is a mash-up of topics, some focused on giftedness in general (without regard to LOG), and some focused on PG: "
Profoundly gifted individuals score in the 99.9th percentile on IQ tests and have an exceptionally high level of intellectual prowess. These students score at least three standard deviations above the norm on the bell curve..." This is how Davidson has defined Profoundly Gifted (PG). Again, this is not synonymous with Highly Gifted (HG).
... the way I've seen many parents identify their child's LOG here (many seem to find HG+ a more comfortable term than PG)...
This is an attempt to be more inclusive, by combining kiddos with lower scores (HG) together with kiddos in the PG range.
Everyone does not use the term PG in the same way. Even the Hoagies page you've recently linked to says that there is no common agreement on how any of these levels of giftedness are actually defined.
There is agreement that Profoundly Gifted is 145+, 3SD from the norm. HG is not as far to the extreme right tail of the bell curve. HG and PG are not synonymous.
Not too many years ago, kiddos who were globally PG (as measured by PG scores in each area) were labeled Profoundly Gifted.
Then parents whose kiddos who measured one score in the 99.9th percentile against a backdrop of MG began describing their kiddos as PG.
Parents with kiddos on the ASD spectrum began describing their kiddos as PG, based on similar behavioral traits.
GAI was created and replaced FSIQ in some cases.
Now many gifted kiddos are described as PG, or at least HG+.
As inclusion increases, are the globally PG children well-served? Or is there a growing notion that "they'll be fine on their own", and that other children are more in need of gifted advisory services?
You could certainly argue that Davidson paints the HG+ group with a broad PG brush, and I would agree with that.
Where does Davidson define HG and/or otherwise "paint the HG group with a broad brush"? I find no Davidson reference to "HG". As you have said, "HG+ isn't a term they use, ever."
But you can't take something that Davidson clearly defines (their notion of PG) and then apply your own definition of PG to it and then suggest that, somehow, Davidson is not targeting their program at HG+ kids.
1) Davidson has clearly
defined PG this way: "
Profoundly gifted individuals score in the 99.9th percentile on IQ tests and have an exceptionally high level of intellectual prowess. These students score at least three standard deviations above the norm on the bell curve..."
2) I have not applied my own definition to PG. I have quoted Davidson, and provided
links to the sources.
3) I did not "suggest, somehow, Davidson is not targeting their program at HG+ kids." Actually, it was you who said that Davidson is targeting HG+, and I questioned your source,
quoting Davidson webpages as stating they serve the
PG population, which is farther to the extreme right tail of the bell curve.
There is good and bad in everything... inclusion is great, so long as new populations do not supplant the profoundly gifted kiddos which Davidson set out to serve.
Being that Davidson itself is still the organization setting criteria and determining acceptance of applicants to their programs, I don't think you have to worry about that. More likely it seems to me that people generally dislike change if it even has the potential to adversely affect them.
Yes, that is what "
supplant the profoundly gifted kiddos which Davidson set out to serve" means. Several posters have commented on this concern, throughout this thread.
