Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums General Discussion Too Many Geniuses or Not Enough?

Indeed. But those alternatives should ONLY be used in instances where it's clear what the other portions of the profile should look like, not the mythology that is currently being embraced.

You make a good point. In NC, identifying giftedness is mandated and is part of public school policy. That said, unless there's a reason or a request for an individual test such as the WISC IV, a group test is given and we know how fallible a test like the CoGat is in identifying giftedness. Or at least it can seriously underestimate a gifted child's intelligence. It's quite expensive for the school to administer the individual tests, so I can understand why they don't use it for identifications, but the other methods seem to be blunt instruments at best..at least the way I understand them.

FWIW, our DS11 was identified as gifted in Kindergarten. An achievement test was administered and he needed to score in the top 99% in order to receive the 2nd highest level of services which is a pullout program in our district. The highest level is pullout plus independent learning guidance. He was tested in the beginning of first grade and scored in the 98% for verbal. He didn't qualify. His first grade teacher's assistant was the one who told the gifted teacher, test him in math--he's advanced in math. He scored a 99% and got into the program that way. (There were other criteria, but more subjective: teacher's recommendations, creativity display, etc)

5 years later he took the Explore Test and showed us that perhaps he wasn't mild to moderately gifted as we'd thought. We asked for an IQ, and the results confirmed what we learned on the EXPLORE test. Ironically, his VCI was significantly higher than his PRI. A flip-flop from the achievement test used to identify him, though his most recent achievement test corresponds with his IQ results, so most likely the change is due to asynchronous growth.

For some reason, I think the requirements have lowered to 95% in our county, but I'm not sure. I'll have to ask.

Yes I accept introverts can be and often are leaders. But for me I am only willing to lead if I a) think I am the best person for the job, and b) the task at hand is worthwhile. I am not going to fight someone who has a "I have to be the centre of attention" attitude to be the leader in some one hour busywork activity.

I also think it is difficult for a child to maintain a facade of motivation, enthusiasm and engagement when for the fifth time this week they are being asked to do maths that they were able to do a couple of years earlier.

I have a low SES but a good education - here I was able to get the approved gifted testing person to do a private test for $240. I think bringing costs down might be more useful over there.

And finally I was talking to someone last night whose daughter did one of the few gifted things available here. She had to push to get her daughter in because everyone nominated was a high achiever - then the gt person let the mother of a non-gifted uninvited child who also pushed get her way. That mother complained to my friend that the work was far to hard for kids this young. My son is eligible next year but I can't help thinking it will be watered down and therefore no longer aimed at kids above the 99 percentile.

Absolutely! What I am arguing is that, when the scores exist and are qualifying or above, the child should not need other "proof" b/c high IQ in and of itself "proves" that the child is gifted even if he is not a high achiever, a leader, etc. In our instance, even with DYS eligible GAI on the WISC, which is well above the 95th percentile ability scores they seek, and achievement scores on an individual test as well as above level talent search tests and (sometimes) school achievement tests, we had a huge fight to get dd ided b/c what she wasn't was consistently high achieving and a hand in the air type of kid. The district GT coordinator, who is our "expert," has explicitly stated that high IQ alone doesn't mean that one is gifted. Achievement plays a much bigger role in indicating giftedness as do personality characteristics common in high achievers more than HG and 2e kids in their estimation.

In our district the GATE coordinator said that DS's WISC and WJ-III scores wouldn't be considered for GATE eligibility, that he would have to take whatever test they administer to all 3rd graders. At this point we were already considering homeschooling, so we didn't push it. But it was quite a surprise to hear.

(On the plus side, a few years ago the district changed its policy to have the GATE test be given to everyone, instead of by teacher recommendation only. Apparently there were gifted kids who were not recognized as such by their teachers (imagine that!) and thus not allowed to even try for the program.)

Do you think it is that these administrators genuinely believe that "high IQ doesn't mean gifted"?

Or is it that they are wary of outside testing-- maybe via being burned a few times by parents who 'shop' for "high enough" results? (We have seen that and definitely heard about a lot more of it.)

I realize that no scrupulous administration of a standardized tool like WISC should result in falsely elevated scores... but... what about unscrupulous administration?

Honestly, I simply SO don't see the point in that, but apparently there are parents who do. They seem to think that whatever means necessary to get "the label" will make it a self-fulfilling prophecy for the child's future.

So I guess I can see, if a district/school had been burned by that even once, they might be VERY suspicious of "outside testing" that didn't match up with in-house numbers-- regardless of the fact that those in-house numbers might be on a group achievement test.

I do see your point, but on the other hand, our schools themselves have been known to shop for numbers so to speak by prepping kids for the CogAT when the teachers think that they are gifted and to retest within very short time frames to get qualifying #s for such kids after prepping when they didn't make it the first time. It is a bit of the pot calling the kettle black to me.

I honestly do think that some of these GT administrators just don't understand what gifted is and I also think that it furthers that misunderstanding for NAGC to be redefining gifted as they have in the past year or so. I really have gotten the impression that the "there is no one test for giftedness" is not lip service from our local GT entities. I believe that they do believe that IQ alone does not necessarily indicate giftedness. I suspect some of that is due to how they identify gifted. One is not just gifted or not; one is gifted in a specific subject such as math or reading. Being a "gifted reader" and being intellectually gifted aren't the same thing IMHO. One implies performance in a specific academic subject and the other something different about your overall brain wiring.

Cricket it sounds like they are using a very muddled version of the gagne model, which talks about gifted AND talented and how the two cross over. It's a very popular here in Australia. I'm not necessarily a fan, but it has some useful ideas and was the first thing i thought of reading your post - they're running a "talented" program and calling it a "gifted" program.

Very true. Unfortunately, in the US, gifted and talented have become somewhat interchangeable words with many educators misunderstanding the distinction between the two terms.

See, for instance, this opinion of the NAGC: http://www.nagc.org/WhatisGiftedness.aspx

Ahhhhhhhh-- YES.


YES, and I share that particular concern.

I'm thinking that this is not a simple equation, but it makes absolutely zero sense to me that a child with IQ = 160 could possibly be considered "not really gifted" by a school based program.

That boggles my mind.