Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums Parenting and Advocacy GIEP round #2

My guess would be that he encountered questions he had never seen before. He either didn't understand the questions or some of the terms used.

It's one of the "gaps" which would probably take you all 5 to 10 minutes to fill. All he needs is to be exposed to the right questions and terminology. Unfortunately I worry that the teachers wouldn't understand this kind of explanation

Good luck with your meeting

just wanted to say good luck with your meeting.

Thanks. As usual everyone is being very helpful and a great sounding board. (And if it turns out that the tests are accurate, then getting our DS the level of enrichment that he needs will be an easier task.)

Thanks.

JB

Yeah, it *would* be easier, *IF* the tests were accurate. I think you know they're not, GT denial or no...

One test--especially when given at a level not right for your son and by people not skilled at testing GT kids--doesn't overturn everything that you know about your child.

I'm not saying to completely disregard these scores. There may be something useful there. But I am also saying that you shouldn't disregard *everything else* just because of this one test.

You know what you know, and don't you forget it!

Good luck JBDad. This thread reminds me of the IEPs by Dr. Suess at the Hoagies site. http://www.hoagiesgifted.org/ieps_by_seuss.htm

I hope you don't need 6003!

The problem could be the tests they administer. From what I remember and what I've seen, the tests use dry passages and multiple choice answers. This can make anyone shut down.

Also, from my reading and what I've learned through personal experience, a very capable mind can shut down when the work is too easy or the pace is too slow.

Example: have you ever listened to a web-based presentation on how to use a software application or something similar? The narrator repeats things again and again and again...I don't know about you, but I start tuning out quickly. It's not because I'm too lazy to pay attention. It's because I got it the first time. I think that this reaction is a natural one. Concentrating on the same message again and again is exhausting and shutting it out may be the mind's way of saving energy (speculation here!). The problem is that you can never predict when you'll miss an important piece of information.

Remember, the tests are designed for kids who cluster near or near-ish to the average. Here's a metaphor for how this approach can gum up a gifted mind:

Say you build a track for test-driving cars. Greater than 98% of the cars on your track won't have the capacity to go over 70 mph. So you don't worry about occasional bumps on the track, and you hire a low-cost company to make an out-of-the-box track. The surface isn't perfect, but everyone just drives over the bumps without a problem. Every now and then, someone goes 80, but it all works out because you mention that one dip at that far corner and tell them to avoid it.

Then one day, a guy with something called a Ferarri comes along. You tell him that your track is BRILLIANT and that no one has ever had a problem on it. He says he can go fast. Really fast. Will he be okay? You've seen people go 80 and heard that someone went a little faster once (maybe 90?). You know that that's the limit. You have spent the last ten years watching hundreds of cars on your track. You know he'll be okay, because everyone has always been okay. You mention that dip in the corner.

The driver accelerates to 150 mph on a straight stretch. You have never seen anything like this before and you can't believe anyone could go so fast. Suddenly, the guy hits a bump, and WHAMMO! he loses control and wrecks his car. He breaks his legs, is pretty shaken up, and loses his enthusiasm for driving.

You blame him for thinking he was a better driver than he was, and never consider for a moment that the bumps may have caused the problem.

You can argue that he should have checked the track out, but you were the one who told him it was such a great track.

All because you could not conceive of such a thing as 150 mph.

(Simplistic, but on-point, I believe)

Val!

Val-
What a great metaphor.

I agree, but I sadly don't think the tests will be modified. Statistics just don't work well with outliers; in any field, we are taught that we have to investigate outliers - with case studies if possible. I guess this is why we have to advocate for each individual child.

Perhaps, and I say perhaps because it really isn't my field, we should set up a forum for posting data that could be used for statistical evaluation of this end of the tail. As parents or advocates or educators, we have the quantitative data (scores, ages, etc), qualitative data (attitude, individual preferences, etc)...and we have both over time (longitudinal) for these kids. Just a thought.