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.
That is not my understanding. Can you please provide examples which lead you to believe that the term HG+ is meant to include kids who have scored lower than a 145? Because I cannot find anything that suggests that.
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.
Who is agreeing about this? Here's
another source ("adapted from Hoagies") that suggests that PG is 6 or more SDs from the norm. There is a school for the "highly gifted" in California whose cutoff score is the 99.9th percentile. Call that what you will, but please don't call that agreement.
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?
Yes, and no.
I think having a kid score within the error range of 145 or higher on a standardized intelligence test means two things. First, it means that it's
very likely that they will have educational and advocacy needs that go beyond (or sometimes
well beyond) what most schools can provide. Second, it means "forcing the issue" of treating the child as a unique learner with unique needs and meeting them where they need to be met. DITD clearly must feel that they can help provide with the needs of the global PG kid as well as the one-index PG kid or the PG kid with a high IQ index but not high achievement. We should be celebrating that notion that they can cast their nets wider now than when the program first started.
