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.
You are
repeating yourself. Please see that I have already addressed your challenge, in
this post.
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?
The
DYS criteria and the
Hoagies chart approximating equivalent FSIQ scores and LOG agree on this. These were the sources of identification criteria previously introduced into the discussion.
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.
I have not called that agreement. You have introduced new resources into the conversation as though to obfuscate the issue.
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.
Some may say that schools
could provide for the educational needs of these students with flexible cluster grouping by readiness and ability, without regard to grade level or chronological age.
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.
There is always the possibility that legal action has caused the greater inclusion.
We should be celebrating that notion that they can cast their nets wider now than when the program first started.
Inclusion is great, so long as new populations do not supplant the profoundly gifted kiddos which Davidson set out to serve.
