I thought this article was interesting.
http://nymag.com/news/intelligencer/gifted-and-talented-2013-7/

We are in Ohio and not in one of the big three metropolitan areas, so we have the opposite problem. Yes, we have pervasive redshirting, grade inflation, empty platitudes about the importance of academics and education, and the widespread belief that everyone’s child is gifted. By the same token, anti-intellectualism is very strong here.

Although gifted programming is scant, there isn’t much competition for those programs that do exist. For example, my cousin told me that her son’s school in a neighboring district wanted to test him for giftedness. She was hesitant to have him take the tests. She said she would rather he “be the smartest kid in the dumb class rather than be the dumbest kid in the smart class.” I advised her to have him tested and convinced to do so. She was relieved that he didn’t qualify for the gifted program and said she wouldn’t have enrolled him even if he did qualify. In districts like ours, students aren’t even screened unless a parent requests it or a teacher recommends it. Needless to say, there are very few students identified as gifted in the district. This reinforces the idea that gifted services should not be restored in our district despite the recent levy passage because there is no demand.

Whether the problem is too many “geniuses” or not enough, gifted kids are denied access to programs they need and deserve.

I guess there is an upside to me only worrying about whether DS4.10 will be in an am or pm Kindergarten class, since there's no gifted class here! Glad to NOT live in New York!

Oh dear. Well, at least we know now why things are such a mess in New York.


And there's more after this little gem! Click ohmathmom's link for more exciting insanity!

Wren, if you're reading this, you must be so glad you left.

There is a bit of chicanery in the reporting of those numbers. They are meaningless without reporting what percentage of total kindergarteners took the tests.

P.S. Found a reference that says 13600 of the incoming 66000 kids took the test. So about 20%. 20% of 20% is 4% and 40% of 20% is 8%.

The real concern should then be the number of seats available that completely defy their set standards. And please, 3% = genius?

I don't think that the author understands the statistics he is quoting. My understanding is that the families who chose to take the gifted exam are self selected--meaning that not everyone takes it. So right there you're essentially eliminating the left side of the curve. That together with the probability that the smarter a family is, the more likely they are to be motivated to do the testing. So you have fewer kids of average intelligence than you would if everyone with an IQ >100 took the test.

I wouldn't surprise me if self selection was the major contributor to the seeming over-representation of kids at the 90th percentile and above. Hot housing just completes the picture.

Okay, that's a really good point. I thought they all had to take it as part of entering kindergarten or something. My mistake!

Something has to be off in these numbers. Typo? 66,000 is a larger number than 13,600, so I can't imagine that 66,000 kids took the test if there were only 13,600 incoming students. I thought that maybe you left a zero off of the 13,600 number, but even if it is 136,000, 20% of that wouldn't come out to 66,000.

I do also think that there is a lot of studying to the test in NYC to the point that even 50th percentile IQ kids can come out in the top 3-10% on national tests, so even if the whole left side of the curve is lopped off (they didn't test), the remaining 50%, say, of kids (those who are average all the way up to HG+), aren't well distinguished. I don't doubt that a young child who is average or slightly above can appear gifted with significant teaching to the test such as with services like this: http://www.brightkidsnyc.com/test-prep/pre-k-1st-grade/erbwppsi-iv/ that are rampant in NYC.

Hi Cricket, as I understood it there were 66000 kids and 13600 of those 66K took the test rather than the other way around (based on the earlier post at least, I haven't read the article though so I could be wrong!)

I think there is a percentile confusion again. But if less than a quarter of the kids take the test it is reasonable to assume that only those who think their kids ar gifted would take the test. While there will be some that are hot housing or deluded there is a good chance that most will be at least 1 SD above the mean so a high number meeting the standard is fair.

I think they should put the scores in order and offer places to the top scorers. I don't get the lottery idea although it has been used here too.

Ack! I clicked through Cricket2's link. Sheesh! WPPSI and WISC prep materials? That's just wrong. With the stakes so high, I guess I get why people do it, but YUCK! I would be steamed if that affected my kid. They are cheating!

Ah, perhaps if I hadn't read the #s backward, that would have made sense!

If he hadn't slipped in "of actual test takers", it might've flown right by me. Then again, I was recently thinking of the test takers vs. population question in regards to how Explore tests are evaluated; and the numbers he presents look so outrageous. But the inset numbers only say "of kindergarteners."

It's a shame, because issues of test prep, the projections using combined test scores, etc are all pretty interesting and important. And I have to imagine a large number are self-selected out of the aspirant pool because they are homeschooling or private schooling.

I wish journalists would consistently choose integrity over sensationalism.

I agree. Outrageous. And the kids are the ones who will ultimately be harmed, though I'm sure the parents believe they're protecting them.

Oh, believe me, this is not happening just in NYC. It's just that in other places, parents are a little more circumspect about it-- but they'll still 'shop around' for an independent tester who's willing to do "whatever it takes" to uncover their child's hidden genius...

Which is fine when it's a genuine 2e issue... not-so-fine when it's "coaching" for a bright-but-not-gifted child.

I disagree. If the cutoff for a gifted program is 130, and if the regular public schools have students with average IQ of 90, with no ability grouping, I'd rather have my 110 IQ child in the gifted program than in regular classes.

Bright Kids NYC operates in the open, so I assume that it is not releasing proprietary information about IQ tests.

The thing is that a lot of these prep services have been called on using actual test questions in the past and there are licensed psychologists in NY who will tutor kids using the actual exam. Did any of you read this article from the New York mag a few yrs back? http://nymag.com/nymetro/urban/education/features/1508/

I see your point, but if the schools just grouped students by ability, they would save a lot of money and there wouldn't be any need for all this mania.

Yeah, I know, quixotic Val.

By the same token, if the average is 100, and the gifted program has a cutoff of 130; I'd rather NOT have my child (IQ 140) stuck in a class with a number of children of IQ 115, whose parents argue that a 130 cutoff "suits" their kids' needs better than instruction aimed at IQ 100 peers.

It does impact the quality and substance of gifted programming to admit children who don't really meet the underlying criteria.

Understandable, certainly. But still deplorable in a larger sense; self-serving.

How upset would other parents be if I insisted that my child ought to ride on the SpEd bus because it is "nicer" and a "more direct" pick-up and drop-off than the standard bus? What if I doctor-shopped until I found one that was willing to back me? Makes the route longer for the other kids on it, for sure... and maybe takes a seat from someone else. Not good. The difference is that parents are not, by and large, clamoring to get their kids on the small, air-conditioned bus.

LOL-- Cross-posted with Val. I think she and I are seeing the exact same thing here. It's better for everyone to fight what is wrong with the whole system rather than using brinksmanship to work your way around it using ever-more Byzantine methodology.

Nobody is saying that parents with bright kids ought to accept a lack of ability grouping. Just that they should stop trying to get their kids labeled in ways that aren't suitable because that has consequences for other people's kids, too.

Yes.

With said Byzantine antics ending up as having almost Gormenghastian futility for most of us.

I'd also like to see ability grouping, but here is a theory of why it's not happening.

I live in an affluent suburb of Boston. We have Good Schools. Most of our graduates go to college. Parents think they have secured a good education for their children by moving here. They don't need to worry about how much their child is learning in elementary school, because everyone is promoted to the next grade.

Suppose there were ability grouping starting from 1st grade. If there were three groups per grade, there would be 1/3 of the children in the "bottom" group. Many of those parents would be unhappy. I would be unhappy if my children were not in the top group in each subject. Ability grouping should be flexible, so that children can move up or down at least once a year, based on their performance. But then parents like me would "encourage" our children to perform well enough to stay in the top group and afterschool them if necessary to do so. Now, with ability grouping, there are clear demarcations from grade 1. Just buying a house in a town with Good Schools is not enough to think your child is doing well. I think schools avoid ability grouping until high school in part to mollify parents and avoid the mania you refer to.

Even if such a position accurately reflected their ability?

You just said that it was good that you knew that you *weren't* in the tippy-top of Ph.D.ers so that you could go someplace that was a better fit for your level of potential achievement.

What bothers me the most is the harm infringed upon all of the children involved, regardless of their intelligence level.

For one, promoting an "average" child with an IQ of 105 into a gifted program may place extra stress upon him or her--simply for the sake of appeasing the parents.

Secondly, how troubling would this be for a PG child (IQ of 170 to 180) to be surrounded by those of significantly lesser ability--thereby dragging down the overall level of the curriculum?

The simplest approach is to raise the standards and quality of the schools--that way there will be less mania and need to switch somewhere better. What do you guys think?

Why?

I'm seriously puzzled by that statement; after all, my daughter is an indifferent athlete (and that might be generous), so I would hardly be "upset" if she didn't make the varsity team.

It wouldn't really be an appropriate placement, after all, once one sets aside the prestige.

It's not that I haven't run into this line of thinking-- but that I don't understand it very well. I've always assumed that parents in our town with this set of beliefs were using their kids and their accomplishments as a kind of status/self-image booster, but maybe I'm wrong about that.

I'm pretty sure that isn't Bostonian's rationale, so now I'm curious.

Emm. But the pertinent idea is how each kid feels about placement.

I agree with other people here. It seems odd to want to see a child placed in the top group of a given subject simply for the sake of being there, which is what you've implied.

One of my kids isn't super-good at math. He was placed in the 2nd group last year, and that's great. The work was appropriate for his level and he ended up getting good grades in math and understanding it pretty well last year. this is much better than struggling through lessons that are moving too quickly and placing undue strain on a student. (IMO, too much stress over a subject can make a kid develop a long-lasting dislike of it).

Alternatively, my daughter was in the second group for a while and was crying about it because it was moving too slowly for her. I advocated a bit and they moved her up. She did better in the higher group because the challenge was, well, less below her level and she was less frustrated.

The life prospects of people are unrelated to their athletic ability, unless their ability is in the far right tail, so having a very athletically talented child can be viewed as winning the lottery. People are not saddened by not winning the lottery. The same is not true of academic ability -- it makes a difference whether you are the 25th or 75th percentile. I chose a wife using an indirect IQ filter (doctors passed) to increase the chances of having smart kids. Few people would state things so baldly, but I think this reasoning partly explains the high degree of assortative mating by education seen today. We moved to our town, as other parents did, for the Good Schools. So having kids with merely average IQ would mean things are not going according to Plan (which is part of life, of course).

It has more to do with whether the kid is appropriately placed.

If the kid feels that way because said kid is being whiny and perfectionistic, then that's a problem with the kid's approach to learning.

http://www.nature.com/news/2011/111102/full/479025a.html

Okay-- so it's a matter of being unhappy about the NEED for a different placement, as opposed to being unhappy and wanting to CHANGE that placement arbitrarily.

That makes more sense. I may not agree that it is wise to make assumptions about one's offspring, of course, but that isn't the same as wanting an arbitrary change in placement simply because one wishes that something else were reality, er... or so that others will see one's child in a more positive light, or (even worse) see the parent more favorably as a result.

So yes, I can see how if one's children are presumed to be in the top quartile, and there are four groups instructionally, one would also by extension expect, rationally, that those children would be placed in the top group, and that it would matter a great deal since instructional placement can be life destiny from the time they are tiny. (I again may disagree with the particulars of the latter.)



Thank you for explaining, Bostonian. That would not have crossed my mind.

I guess my problem in wrapping my head around it is that that kind of competitive mindset really doesn't register with me, inherently. That's not intended to be judgmental in the least-- it's just alien. Which I suppose my outlook must seem to Bostonian, for that matter.

I agree having worked alongside very, very bright asians either directly from East Asian countries or just one generation removed, they all had relatives or friends that had been destroyed by the pressure of being NT in a culture where they were expected to be MG+

Huh?

Expected to be MG+?

Yes, sorry Ipad was going mental and typing the same character (including backspance) way more times than its key was struck.

But yes - in China and Korea children are expected to perform at a mildly to fantastically gifted level. Those that lack that innate ability mey face a life of a life of shame and this pressure on kids can be their undoing.

I do not believe that those not gifted should be made to feel inferior and there should be no shame in not being in the top track if the ability just isn't there.

Tracking by ability, frankly, is the fairest system but unfortunately it will never happen because of the politics that obscure the science around IQ.

There are pockets of this kind of parenting even here in the US.

We live in one. Perhaps not coincidentally, it's also a hotspot for adolescent mental health problems and teen suicide.

There are two main groups of parents here-- the free-range, artsy, Waldorfian, hippy, organic free-love kind... and the TigerParents (only some of whom are ethnically Asian).

TigerParents don't like kids like mine (because even they can see what an impossibility that is for a NT kid to live up to, never mind surpass) and so they want BROAD tracking, not actual GT programming, because most of them fear that their own kids might not qualify for GT if it were truly selective. They fight efforts to make GT programs less inclusive and more rigorous or specialized. Recall, about 30% of our district is ID'ed as "GT" by virtue of being above the 90th percentile on a nationally normed standardized achievement test. (Yeah, yeah... don't.even.get.me.started)

GroovyParents don't like our parenting and are pretty sure that we MUST be abusive for our daughter to have the kind of achievement/ability that she does. Most of them are eventually quite surprised to discover that we're actually not very rigid, controlling, or pushy.

On the other hand, some of the TigerParents eventually conclude that they should "feel sorry" for DD because we are so 'alternative' in our parenting. Either that or they persist in telling themselves that we're really the ones doing it.... (just like some of THEM, perhaps?)

So, it's a bad practical joke.

Nice.

Lol, that's one way of putting it. Our GT id practices create pretty much the same outcome as Howler Karma's area has although they do require something else on top of the achievement scores such as parent or teacher ratings or a part of a group test. What I've always loved, if I am to be sarcastic here, is that it took a fight with our district including having them convene a panel of "experts" for them to accept HG-PG composite IQ scores in lieu of a 95th percentile score on any part of a group test. We got the policy changed, but the district website now specially states that high IQ alone doesn't mean that the child is gifted and is not necessary to be gifted.

I find it fascinating that not only can people accept extremes of giftedness in athletes, they even adulate said athletes. Send the 9-year-old gymnast to the eastern US competition! Move the 12-year-old basketball player to the varsity squad at the high school! Write up stories in the paper and post them on the walls at school!

Yet suggest that a kid is even a little bit cognitively gifted and may require a tiny bit of acceleration and the shutters slam shut.

I tend to think of it a bit differently and I think that's why I bristle so much at ability test prep and retesting until the desired score is achieved. See, to me, the fact that our local advocates for the gifted, our local "experts," and, heck, even NAGC are defining gifted in such a way as to exclude high IQ as a necessity (and even saying that sky high IQ can exist in someone who is not gifted), indicates a fundamental difference of opinion as to what gifted is.

Because I view high IQ (98th percentile or so) as an absolute requisite to be gifted and don't view high achievement, teacher pleasing, or things like "leadership qualities" (another aspect to GT ids where I live) as necessary at all, I really hate to see people messing up an already imperfect measure yet further by essentially cheating. It calls further into question the validity of these tests in determining differences in brain functioning and we're already dealing with too many in the GT community in education who don't consider them to be able to show anything salient about giftedness.

Hmmm. That last sentence in particular leads me to wonder if they understand IQ and gifted minds. And it reminds me of the expectation some districts have that leadership qualities help to identify giftedness and if those qualities aren't there or aren't yet developed or, perhaps more often, aren't recognizable in the standard way, then it must mean the child isn't really gifted.

I think that people are just uncomfortable with the idea that some people are smarter than others and that there are a very small number of people who are really, really smart. And the idea that enrichment and open-access gifted programs won't change this fact makes it even harder to accept.

Nearly everybody is less smart than someone else. A high IQ is not a ticket to paradise and I don't expect it to be. But why should it sentence you to years of boredom, misery and bullying. We don't expect people to treat people with very low IQ this way -We don't hung people with IQs 4sd below average in a general classroom and tell them to stop whining and not antagonise the other kids by acting "dumb". We don't tell the fast runners that they must run in teams with the slowest runners to ensure equality and that they will be judged on how well the slowest runner does. We don't say sorry we can't stream sports teams - all teams will be allocated randomly - in this country at least doing well in sports does open a lot of doors and does affect your future.

And i don't think leadership is an indication of giftedness given that a lot of gifted people are introverted and others don't want to get involved in silly games.

Agreed 100%

People, including children, exert more effort at what they think they are good at and form an identity around that. In late elementary school I pruned my hobbies to spend time on the one I was best at. Suppose there were three ability groups in an elementary school for all subjects. By 5th grade, some children in the lowest ability group would infer that they have below-average academic ability and reduce their academic ambitions and effort accordingly. To a lesser extent this would apply to the middle group, too. Therefore parents may want their children to be in the top group, but obviously not everyone can be. Many school administrators are philosophically opposed to ability grouping, but heterogeneous grouping also avoids the thorny process of sorting students.

This is true of some people.

I don't recall exerting effort in elementary school.

Leadership and introversion are not exclusive.

Some experts have suggested sky high iq can exist in someone who isn't gifted??

That really toys with my understanding of the gifted mind.

I wonder if they're confusing underachieving and twice exceptional with non-gifted. The way I see it, it's increasingly more important to have a set of concrete, consistent standards with which to define giftedness, standards that perhaps don't include personality traits such as leadership qualities or extrovert tendencies.

My thoughts are this, as a way to reconcile the disparity in views.

Why can't standards augment everywhere? For instance, why endure math 1, 2, and 3 and finally calculus--if you could be learning differential equations and multi. calc. instead? Any average-to-above average kid--with enough confidence and a good support group of peers and teachers--can perform well in these courses. Anyone with trouble can get tutoring lessons as well (which could also be provided on the side).

In terms of literature, for instance, why not read Donne and Chaucer? As long as the concepts are readily determined/described by a "facilitator" I despise the word teacher--any student with average-to-above intelligence can appreciate the challenge and the work ethic instilled at a young age.

As a PG 23 year old (my IQ ranges from 170-180), I briefly attended a lycée in France from 16 to 17. There is no ability grouping, yet I learned a vast amount of material. I also went out of my way to become an autodidactic, which is how many kids should learn (and certainly can, with sufficient commitment). We should be encouraging children (at younger ages) to take a self-teaching approach. Self-confidence and a love of learning can lead to vast changes. In this manner, the confidence and self-worth refrain from any mitigation due to "gifted" and "non-gifted" labeling.

The essence of my post is this:

schools are under-challenging our students--regardless of IQ. An average child might still be miserable and unmotivated in classes where you can get an A simply for pleasing the teacher, showing leadership, doing vapid worksheets, and demonstrating motivation. It's time to raise the academic standards, encourage our children to question and become autodidactic, and instill them with the ambition to do (and question) more.

All good points. But then higher expectations for the level of learning also brings to light the uncomfortable, painful fact that too many of our youth are insufficiently nourished and cared for to keep up with an extraordinarily rigorous curriculum.

to elucidate more from the perspective of the gifted, I'll describe my own experience.

I never needed a teacher/professor, only a mentor or facilitator. I taught myself Differential equations, calculus, modern physics, and quantum mechanics. In the process, I also learned the diligence to set aside a few hours a day, along with a support group of professors who can take a look at my work.

Learning does NOT take place in a class room. Did Einstein get far because his teacher "told" him to work on relativity? Did Edison and Tesla work on light-bulbs and electrical currents because their professor "made" them do it for a grade? Did Richard Feynman and Erwin Schrodinger come up with their diagrams and equations in a "classroom" or within the constructs of their own minds?

Kids don't "need" a gifted classroom, they just need to be instilled with the motivation and ambition to do more and self-teach. This is what leads to great projects and early entrance into college.

Hi Kadmom, I just saw what you wrote when I posted. You make a good point. This is a very saddening truth that I wish was not the case.

Hence the "don't want to get involved in silly games" clause, though I'd argue there are other exemptions.

In my experience (which includes the military, which I declare to be the single greatest lab environment for leadership ever, since everyone interchanges roles of leader/subordinate on a frequent basis), when you have people surveying a group of individuals they barely know for a quality they recognize as "leadership," what they're really looking for is assertiveness, a personality trait completely unrelated to IQ.

The funny thing about using "leadership" as an entry to the GT program is that we here in the US have fostered an anti-intellectual society. You can't be a leader if nobody will follow, and the smart kid is not someone we are taught to respect.

No, they can't. Maybe a few kids with IQs (or specifically, math subtest IQs) in the 100-107-ish range could do well in calculus, but I strongly doubt that any random bunch of them could. And people with IQs of 93-ish? Seems a stretch to me.

I think that people want to believe that IQ is not the barrier that it is. But believing that the barrier isn't there also requires denying that really smart people who learn really fast exist. If you accept that some people have an innate ability to learn fast, you have to accept that some people learn slowly for the same reasons. Hence the accusations about hothousing cognitively gifted kids and ideas like "everyone is gifted" and "they all even out by third grade." They MUST be hothoused, because the alternative means that real differences exist.

Even many people here espouse the belief that average kids can take classes that are hard for people with IQs of +1 or even +2 SDs, which both surprises me and implies that discomfort runs very deep, probably for lots of reasons.

For every person who is so good, she can learn a year's worth of material in two weeks, there is a counterpart who can't learn it at all, ever. And for every person who can learn it in well in a year, there is someone who can only learn it poorly in a year.

Exactly. This is precisely the basis upon which both groups of parents in my own little corner of the world seem to operate.

We are envied by the TigerParents, because our child has clearly "responded well" to the KoolAid being poured at OUR house... and they speculate endlessly on our special water supply, reasons why maybe we're doing it all for her and it's not 'real' etc. etc. The alternative is too painful to face, for that group.

The GroovyParents assume the same thing, but interpret it differently-- as abusive parenting. Until they get to know us, that is, and realize that we aren't doing those things to our child, but are responding to HER evident needs... at which point these parents conclude that our child is probably a space-alien of some sort, but that hey, it's cool as long as it isn't contagious. LOL.

Standard human response of demanding that reality conform to their model of reality.

Everybody has lacuna.

This is why I like to fill my nulls with *something*. That way, I know that the null exists and that I've arbitrarily filled it so that it doesn't bother me. I'm always looking for evidence that relates to the original null, so I just compare it with what I've filled it with already. If the evidence conflicts, I fill the null with something else.

And I'm also aware that there are unknown unknowns that arise from my own limitations.

I'll add that I disagree with QT3.1414's post re: learning style, which I also believe has less to do with how a child has been taught and more to do with innate personality differences than anything else. It's not necessarily a proxy for high IQ any more than high achievement testing is, but young autodidacts often are high-ability.

The converse, however, is NOT the case.

There is also maturity to consider. Asynchronous development means that encouraging autodidactic learning has to occur within the confines of what is developmentally appropriate for a particular child. Forcing that particular mode of learning on people doesn't make them brighter or more capable. It will make some of them less educated, though.

Also-- most of the intellectual giants in physics, mathematics, or any other field... spend a LOT of time learning the conventions and knowledge base before they start breaking those paradigms. Skipping that step doesn't work very well for even most of those with elite cognitive ability. Being autodidactic doesn't mean skipping the foundation. It means learning it on your own, something which most children find difficult because they lack life experience (perspective) and self-discipline.

They'll get there eventually. Why rush the transition to autodidactic learning with kids who aren't suited to it until they are more mature?

This is one of those things like "leadership." It's an ill-defined proxy of intellectual ability, as far as I can see. I mean, take two children, and suppose that BOTH of them can learn a year of algebra in a week's time. Child A learns it from a tutor, one-on-one, with the occasional use of a print textbook and a whiteboard to work problems, and Child B learns it from a combination of Khan, YouTube, and an online textbook, combined with a graphing calculator. Is one of those children "more intelligent" than the other?

I'd argue not. They are just different in terms of learning approach and needs. Reverse the learning environments, though... and neither one of them is going to have as much success as with their preferred learning method. QT3.1414 was Child B, and someone like my DD is Child A. No one classroom methodology is going to be appropriate for both types of children.


It's also pretty obvious to me that ONLY a EG/PG child can learn like either one of them. I couldn't have done it. Not in mathematics, anyway.

The weakness of autodidactic learning, by the way, is that you only see the weaknesses or deficiencies in your learning that YOU can observe.

As Jon pointed out-- this means that some of those deficiencies will go unaddressed-- because being human means that we all have blind spots that are driven by our perceptions and emotions.

Autodidacts may well see their learning as "perfect" because it is, at least within the construct of their own perceptions about the subject. You can't know what you don't know, in other words.

Developing autodidactic learning strategies in young students has to involve a lot of cautions about comparing sources of information, critical evaluation of information, bias analysis, etc. etc. Again, there is development in play there, in a lot of cases. I'm a far better autodidact NOW than I was in my early 20's, and the reason is that I have set aside my confidence in my understanding, and generally operate on the assumption that I do not have an expert grasp on the subject, and could always learn MORE that I haven't thought about. I set things down, of course, when I'm done learning about them, but always with the idea that there is a "maybe later" aspect to those things, that it isn't static, and is subject to additional input.

Now, learning from a teacher doesn't guarantee a BETTER outcome, by any means, but it does mean fewer gaps, assuming that student and teacher are not identical in world-view and perceptions. The more teachers, the better, in fact. Sources which disagree or emphasize different aspects of a field are quite helpful. The reason is that the teachers see some gaps as worthy of addressing, and hopefully the student will perceive others and seek clarification.

This is the idea behind peer review in publications. More eyes is a good thing, because it improves the whole by reducing the gaps. Similarly-- advanced degrees are awarded by COMMITTEES of experts, not by a single person.

This is the single lens through which spiraling makes sense to me, actually-- it improves student learning to force slightly different perspectives on the same material, and provides opportunity to learn using less familiar/comfortable modalities.

It's still stultifying for highly capable learners, however. It sure works a treat for those at the other end of the distribution, though.

What the district website says is that, in regard to a FAQ about use of IQ for iding giftedness is that, "there is no one test for giftedness," that a body of evidence, which includes high achievement, is necessary, and that using said "body of evidence" is more equitable. I imagine that they are trying to be equitable to kids from disadvantaged backgrounds whose performance on an IQ test may be depressed. However. It winds up being inequitable to 2e kids b/c they basically can't get ided without that achievement or very close achievement and teacher pleasing personalities that get them a teacher reference.

Additionally, once you've got the id, you may not get any services unless you are achieving highly. The district website again states that advanced classes require high achievement and teacher recommendation of potential. Essentially, it is all about achievement and teacher pleasing personalities.

A few weeks ago, I was appalled to learn that the identification standards here have a convenient embedded veto power for administrators. Students MUST be identified as GT by teacher/administrator appraisal, which uses a garbage-in-garbage-out set of inputs for assessment: leadership, classroom achievement, enthusiasm, motivation, and participation. It's as if they deliberately read the GT literature and asked themselves, "how can we systematically under-identify the truly gifted?"

I find myself seething whenever I read these asinine policy documents. It's a loathsome blend of wilful ignorance and anti-GT ideology wrapped up in a neat, flaming package on the proverbial threshold of every true GT child's identification process.

A few days ago, I seriously wondered to myself if there are grounds for a class action lawsuit against the public school system for hate crimes against the GT when explicit identity suppression and denial is such a central part of the process. Similar transgressions against transgendered students (imposing administrator-perceived gender identity) have been found to be permanently damaging and ruled unconstitutional. Just a musing.

Wow. That's a flaming pile of something, all right.

Personally, I think that IQ tests should not be used as the exclusive qualication for admission to GT programs. I agree that having a high IQ ought to be a valid standalone metric used to define giftedness but there should also be alternatives. An IQ test costs money and depending on familial income, potentially a relatively large chunk of money. Using IQ alone automatically excludes the majority of the kids from lower SES families. Said children are the most in need of publicly funded GT programs.

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.

The irony of it is, regardless of what one thinks of the points above, that the flawed system that values convergence of thought and high achievement over high IQ also results in GT programs that are full of white and Asian kids who are often from high SES homes b/c those are kids who are more likely to have been hothoused to an extent or to have parents with a vested interest and knowledge of how to game the system to ensure that their kids get "in."

Very true

As a relatively new poster, madeinuk may be unaware that this board has discussed group differences in IQ before, for example at

http://giftedissues.davidsongifted....cs/96230/Re_Gifted_or_Not.html#Post96230

and the following posts.

Oops, I see.

The sad irony (as I see it, admittedly) is that IQ is the fairest measurement. Someone can have a high IQ but score low on achievement tests, for example. Achievement tests obviously only measure what the person taking the test has been exposed to which will likely have a stronger correlation with non low SES than IQ.

I still think there is a branding issue. Given the huge semantical discrepancies, moving away from categorizing kids to categorizing learning environments may be the way to go. Getting the right groupings may create a self-assortative force.

Such as:
Rigorous competitive
Deep explorations
Sound fundamentals

Interesting. Do you have some references for (b).

Please, let's not go there. As Bostonian says, we've discussed group differences in IQ here before (more than once, actually), it always generates heat, and it doesn't generate light because the main purpose of this board is to discuss the needs of individuals.

I like that! I believe that part of what appeals to me about that is that I see a lot of our current GT ided kids who are more high achievers than gifted going for the "rigorous competitive" whereas my kiddos would better get their needs met in something like "deep explorations." I do suspect that over time if it became clear that one grouping was full of brighter kids, though, that grouping would gain prestige and again be the one to have your kids in.

Hi Everyone,
Writing from Toronto now. I read all 8 pages while I wait for the movers and you discussed IQ tests to death so no need to go there. But somewhere in the middle, someone made a point about athletes that made me think. If you are a good athlete, you can get good general training at your school but if you are in the top 1%, you only get good training if your parents pay. Particularly for anything individual and pay up. And if you are an amazing football player but are in a town without a good football program, you probably not get noticed. If you are MG, you probably can get into some gifted or enriched program and it works. But if you are HG, then it is hard to justify the costs of programs in sparsely populated areas and the onus is similar to having an amazing gymnast as a kid. You have to find the programs and pay for them.

In this age of Internet, there are so many things to choose from and have access, even if you live on the range in Wyoming. But I have long come to the conclusion, even living in NYC with programs-- but generalized programs until 7th grade -- and that is one school, high school for the rest-- that you have to find resources for your kid and supplement and create an optimal program for them.

On an aside, I am reading the price of privilege. And it seems that helicopter parenting aside, she kind of slams the working mother who doesn't really connect with her kids and if you are not having family dinners 5 nights a week -- which I am, (self pat) then you are a bad parent and creating an empty adolescent.

I guess I should have made a new post.

Yeah, kind of sucks to be a parent who isn't independently wealthy, I guess, if your child requires more intensive services than are readily available.

Because being a full-time parent is kind of incompatible with most highly-paid career paths. Not everyone is a single parent by choice. But a good many wind up that way via circumstance.

Point taken - having read all of the posts in the thread that Bostonian directed me to, I see that this will just turn into a quasi-religious bickering match - I am going to delete my original post

You know, we should be able to assemble the best available data and studies and put them together on a thread without getting into bickering.

In our case, the testing was done by the school psychologist, so it wasn't a case of being wary of outside testing. I'm still baffled by it.

I haven't read through this entire thread. But I just wanted to share our experience, getting tested by someone in NYC. We do not live in NYC, but someone highly recommendeded going into the city to be tested by an approved Hunter tester. After my son finished the test and I went back to see the tester, she immediately commented that it was clear that we hadn't prepped our son and how wonderful and refreshing it was for her to test a truly, legitimately PG child. She went on and on about how many parents cheat. That was the first time that I had even heard of parents cheating on an IQ test! I guess I was naive! Then I felt sad for this woman...here she was passionate about gifted education and passionate about really helping gifted children and families...and she is stuck REGULARLY working with parents who are trying to cheat the system. Sad

This is so sad. I suppose these parents don't care that they are harming their children in the process as well?

How will the unfairly diagnosed PG child feel when he/she arrives at Davidson and is no longer one of the brightest or the best? This unscrupulous cheating tells the children that it IS ok to lie. not to mention, this mentality is precisely what harms the truly gifted students.

The school didn't deny that DS was gifted, just that he wouldn't be considered for the GATE program until he had taken the test given to the rest of the kids in the spring. It's possible we could have pushed the issue, had we chosen to stay.


DS is exactly not this. He does not appear to be gifted much of the time, and some adults who know him casually (e.g. his Scout leader) don't believe it. And yet he has special gifted needs just as much as those kids who exude giftedness in the way you describe.

Ours did. We were specifically told that IQ scores at 99.9th didn't necessarily mean gifted b/c IQ alone doesn't necessarily mean that someone is gifted. To be gifted, there has to be a "body of evidence" with "proof" in more than one area (other areas include achievement, personality characteristics, etc.). The fight we had to fight as well was for the district to even accept that IQ was a fair stand in for an ability score. Up to that point, they were only willing to take group tests and were quite sure that group tests were a better measure of ability and not sure that IQ measures ability or aptitude at all.

They will now take IQ as well as group tests, but only for reading and language arts ids and only if coupled with high achievement. I will tell you that getting any support for my 2e kid has been like pulling teeth and we had to pay over $1000 to have her IQ retested on multiple separate measures (WISC IV, SB V, RIAS) and show that she was still in the upper 90s on multiple different IQ tests for them to agree that the first WISC scores weren't disproved as "good guessing" by group scores not quite making the GT cut and achievement scores being wildly erratic.

Shocking, really. You must have been so frustrated.

Ouch!

Exactly-- it's as though in the effort to pursue a growth mindset for our children, we've neglected the fact that while attainment is a destination, the means-- and PACE-- of getting there is probably not terribly mutable for an individual when you get right down to it.

I can't will my child onto a different developmental trajectory by feeding her more or promoting special exercises or anything. It is what it is. That's not to say that I think that her current physical development is static, or that it isn't important to provide her with good nutrition and physical activity that promotes good health.

It's just that no amount of wishing and cajoling/preparation will actually MAKE her develop faster if that isn't her genetic destiny.

I don't know why we persist in believing that all children are cognitively lumps of clay in this fashion. They simply are NOT.

Where we live (and, it sounds like, where Cricket is, as well, and also eastcoast) people are shocked when they come face to face with the reality of a child like DD. They've very plainly heard it all before.... from parents. But they've also very plainly not SEEN too many kids who are really like her.

She's a cheetah being educated alongside well-conditioned border collies, and she knows it. Sure, most dogs aren't bright enough to do what Border Collies do (B.C.'s are amazingly clever-- for dogs) but no Border Collie can match a cheetah. Nor is it easy for a cheetah to muster the enthusiasm, willingness to please, or stamina that border collies are famous for. Unfortunately, gifted programs and AP coursework have become more and more geared toward stamina and work ethic, not genuine rigor/depth academically. It's the same old M.O.S. 'differentiation' strategy. This is NOT good news for cheetahs, and we're systematically crippling them as a society by expecting them to be just some form of super-Border Collie. Border Collies are a lot easier to train. A lot easier to live with-- a lot more adaptable, easier to feed, more... domesticated.

DD's own favorite recent analogy is that she's a llama among sheep and-- at least in the upper-grouping track that she is generally on-- goats. The trouble is that llamas still have to hide their long necks to fit in with the goats. Anyone that knows camelids knows better than to treat a llama like a sheep or even a goat. That's not going to end well; llamas are intelligent, sensitive and autonomous in ways that neither of the other two creatures are... and the fact that they have superficially similar housing and care needs doesn't change it. KWIM?

Because we lack an understanding of reality.

See history for details.

But the "real" measure of a camelid's worth is its wool yield. Clearly to be eligible for differentiated care, a camelid must prove its worth by being sheepier than the sheep and generating a large, apparent yield!



Love your DD.

ROFL.

That's worth framing.

I could think of any number of images/events which would work well with that particular caption.

DD's favorite Arrogant Worms song is, in fact, History is Made by Stupid People.

Steven Pinker calls this tendency the denial of human nature (genes really) in the Blank Slate. It's hard to convince people of how much our nature shapes our destiny when they want so desperately to believe that through nurture they can shape their children's destinies, including their intelligence and personalities.

Cricket I take back my earlier comment about Gange's model. It sounds like hey are almost certainly using Renzulli's model. Or maybe some bizarre mishmash of the two. But Renzulli's model is certainly not 2e friendly.

If schools actually used Renzulli's real system, rather than misusing the rating scale that was only designed to be used as a backdrop to catch kids who miss on testing. http://www.gifted.uconn.edu/sem/semart04.html

I submit that cricket's district is using their VERY OWN made-up model.

Explains everything, and heaven knows that is no small feat under the circumstances.

Well yes, though it seems like someone read something vaguely related once, didn't really understand it at all, and then made up something they thought was what they read about and have enthusiastically proceeded with the courage of their (erroneous) convictions...

In NYC, they had to go to a generalized test and exclude anything else because they were threatened with lawsuit by DOJ by not treating children equally or something. At the time, there was only one accelerated school and they used the SB results that was used for Hunter admission. DD did a modified SBV for Hunter.

But had to do the OLSAT for this school when she was of age for K. She did 99th percentile on the modified SBV and 80th percentile on the OLSAT. The following 2 years she did 99th percentile on OLSAT so it wasn't a great indicator test for her at 4. But she couldn't placement in the accelerated school because so many kids got 99th and you got a lottery number. She was very unlucky with the lottery number. And siblings with a 97th percentile got first chance ahead of kid that scores 99.9th percentile. That was when I gave up. I tried all summer and spots opened but they went to siblings with lower scores.

From posts above, the slippery slope seems to be well worn and there are a bunch of administrators wallowing in the wading pool at the bottom.

Renzulli's discussion is about exhibiting gifted behavior and that supporting students in task commitment and creativity bridges the gap between their abilities and the productive use of them. I'm less concerend about instructional content for DS as I think he has the aptitiude to manage that just fine, but the idea that a program will support the development of the other skills seems great. I have some outcome orientation in that I don't dream of DS one day being a happy pizza delivery guy. A program that measures task commitment and creativity and leadership as incoming requisites is coming from the opposite side of that article and is functionally washing its hands of the deeper responsibility to nurture and grow.

Yeah, I think that the things that leave me leery of Renzulli's model are that he seems to require performance to be considered gifted and that he defines it a bit broadly (above avg ability but not necessarily superior ability). As the parent of a very 2e kid, I do appreciate there being more than one path in to the GT classes, but I also worry that allowing for kids to be considered gifted even without superior ability allows for GT programs such as we have where I live where most of the kids got in because teachers who don't understand the difference between gifted and high achiever thought they were gifted.

Have you all read these two articles by Jim Delisle?

http://www.hoagiesgifted.org/defining_moment.htm

http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2010/03/31/27delisle_ep.h29.html?print=1&override=web

The second one I can't seem to find in its entirety free online anymore, but he is essentially arguing that definitions like Renzulli's and the multiple intelligences model muddy the waters and that we need to get back to defining gifted as a small select group of kids who are intellectually superior not possessed of a mulitude of talents.

I agree with that last statement you made (paraphrasing the author) and perhaps we need to change the name to cognitively advanced rather than gifted. Though the problem with that is it would potentially exclude too many lower SES children.