My DD5 tested as MG (135) on the VCI & VSI composites of the WPPSI IV, but fell in the average range on the PSI, and had significant variances on her FRI subtests (10 on Matrix Reasoning & 15 on Picture Concepts).

Initially I was comparing these scores to the national norms (99th percentile in the strong areas, 50-58th for relative weaknesses), but then I started to think about the role that demographics might play in a particular school system. For example, we live in a town where most parents work in some type of professional position, and almost all of the high school graduates go on to college. I've read that the IQ of an average college graduate falls in the 115-120 range, and the average IQ of various professionals (doctors, lawyers, etc.) is usually around 125-130.

If IQ is largely a function of heritability and nurture, would it stand to reason that the average IQ in my daughter's school is probably somewhere in the 115 - 120+ range (84th - 91st percentile)? If we further assume that most kids would score relatively evenly across the various subtest areas, would that imply that my daughter's strengths are relatively modest compared to her peer group, but that her weaknesses are more significant?

In broader terms, should a school's demographics (or perhaps standardized testing scores) be taken into account when deciding whether/how to advocate on behalf of your child?

While some schools may try to promote this idea, touting that they teach all subjects one year ahead, therefore there is no need for a gifted program... my answer to your question is, "No."

The simple reason behind this is that all gifted children are not alike. When advocating for an individual child, the idea is to match a program to your child, not to match the child to a program.

To expound a bit on "matching a program to your child", this begins with understanding the child's needs well including what s/he already knows, what s/he is ready to learn next, and what methods of teaching/learning are most effective/helpful/productive with that child. Advocacy focuses on creating/developing/proposing options which will comprise a custom program which is a good "fit" for your child's needs, while operating within budgetary constraints. For some students, this may include independent math work through AoPS, for others this may include single-subject acceleration of 1 or more years in math during which the child attends math class with children of a higher grade level. Other students may benefit from whole grade acceleration. These are just a few common examples. The book Re-forming Gifted Education is a helpful resource for planning and advocating.

The opposite approach, "matching a child to a program", is more like a predetermined solution seeking a problem. For example, a school might decide that "gifted math" will consist of math 1 year advanced and then seek out students who might need or benefit from that program. If this narrow solution does not match your child's needs, then your child is not accepted into the "gifted program".

Indigo, I couldn't agree with you more. It is so sad that so many schools (my child's included) don't seem to care about what is best for the individual child but just fitting x number of kids into their pre-determined program.

I am also curious about the answer to Forrester's demographic question regarding IQ scores. Anyone know?

Yes, unfortunately significant research has revealed that gifted programs may be of most benefit to high-achieving, non-gifted students with IQ < 116. There are several previous forum discussions including here. It appears that these students benefit most because the curriculum and pacing may not provide gifted students (those with IQ => 132) with much opportunity for learning new material on a regular basis. However schools are not dismayed by learning that gifted students do not derive much benefit from the school's gifted programs. Why? Because an IQ up to 116 would tend to be more frequently occurring, therefore schools tend to believe that they are doing well to be serving this larger segment of their population.

It is my understanding that because the norms are statistically compiled averages they may be true in general but may become almost meaningless for advocacy as IQ alone does not determine placement, pacing, achievement, interests, motivation, internal locus of control, opportunity, personality, social skill, happiness, or accomplishment. Even individuals with the same IQ can have significantly different strengths, weaknesses, and educational needs.

My answer is - it depends.

I do think that the closer a kid is to the mean of the classroom the easier it is going to be for a teacher to accommodate. I don't necessarily mean easy as in they don't have to do anything but just that it might be possible for a good teacher that is willing to do it. I have no idea what the average IQ would be in your neighborhood but I suspect you would have far greater issues if you were in a school where their average is below 100.

There are a few things that I think will impact just how much advocacy will be required
1. teachers - our school board raves about their amazing differentiation and how they integrate just about everyone into the class, etc, etc. In practice there is a WIDE variation on what actually happens in a class. If you end up with a teacher that is amazing at differentiating/compacting/pre-testing/etc then count yourself lucky.
2. the child's personality - do they fit the stereotype of a gifted kid (ie. quick and high achieving) Kids that have LD's and/or shut down and refuse to do work add to the challenge because they don't always fit the mold and teachers don't recognize the need.
3. other parents - there are a few stories on here where *every* parent in the school is advocating for advanced work for their special snowflake and people have had a hard time because the school assumes that your child is exactly the same as all of the others and you are just another parent like the others.
4. asynchronous - some kids are more asynchronous than others. There are kids that are MG that might do some subjects at a higher level and maybe some at a lower level. The lower level ones might end up blending well in an above average classroom while the higher ones will probably need advocacy to be at the right level.

I base this loosely on our experience this year with DS. This year is the first that he is happy and that I haven't had to advocate and a big reason is that he is now in a congregated class where the average is closer to his level. Entry is solely based on one of FSIQ/GAI/VCI scores being above a certain level. He is still at least an SD above the cut off but I suspect he isn't alone. The teacher still has to differentiate like crazy because there are a lot of very asynchronous and/or 2e kids in the class but it is a million times better than his previous school. That said, the math still isn't close to what he could do and there are many amazing things that I read about here that I'm envious of but he's happy so we're happy for now.

Like chay, I have found that trying to find a classroom where the mean is as close as possible to my kids ability works best. I admit that I am very jaded about differentiation these days. There is, usually, one teacher. One mouth, two hands. Whenever there is direct instruction (and no matter how self paced and individual the curriculum is, you do need direct instruction at some point) the teacher can instruct at exactly ONE level at ONE time. And in order to max out their effectiveness, most of the time teachers will choose to teach to the zone proximal development of the average to above average cohort in their classroom. Then they may make some time for the (smaller) group below average, and some for the (even smaller) group well above average, and the lone HG+ kid....good luck with the two minutes per lesson.

This is what makes a good fit - if what happens most of the time in the classroom is exactly at the level of your kids zone of proximal development. Now for the HG+ kid, that's super hard to find, but the closer you get, the better it works.

Edited because I realized I haven't answered the OPs question yet -yes, I do think the demographics of the classroom make a difference. It is really noticeable whether one is 45, 30 or 15 IQ points from the mean. I have no idea what my own IQ score is, there was no testing in our system when I was young, but in my fairy low SES elementary the gap was probably something like 45 and I felt ....alien, completely on the wrong planet, KWIM? After my grade skip, it was more like boredom ranging from mind numbing to tolerable, and after tracking, when I suppose I was within 20 or 30 points of the mean, it was mostly tolerable boredom, sometimes a feeling of belonging, occasionally, in my weaker subjects, a feeling of challenge. The only real fit I have ever felt was a highly selective university where the mean is said to be 130.

We chose a high SES catholic elementary for DS9 with the express notion of trying for the difference to be between somewhere 15 and 30 - turned out it was probably still closer to 45, but better than 50 or 60! It is very hard to find appropriate challenge for the HG+ child, but a high SES composition in the class room can make the difference between tolerable and intolerable, even when differentiation (as usual) does not work out.

There is a spectrum in any classroom of more than one student. I would say simply that whether and how to advocate for your child should depend on whether your child needs more than what the classroom and the school offer.

In the book "Coming Apart: The State of White America, 1960-2010" by Charles Murray, he states that for children with two white parents, the expected IQ as a function of parental education is as follows (p66, available on Google Books)

95 -- two high school dropouts
101 -- two high school graduates
109 -- two college graduates
116 -- two parents with graduate degrees
121 -- two graduates of elite colleges

Race matters too.

Exactly.

Agreed. However, few may create classrooms as flexible cluster groups by readiness and ability, regardless of chronological age and/or grade level so that children are learning at the appropriate challenge level or in their zone of proximal development (ZPD), with the closest possible intellectual peers in a subject. In more instances, cluster grouping may be a buzzword to give the impression of meeting a child's educational needs.

Even when students are grouped by readiness/ability, as this study shows, classrooms of "gifted" pupils may have a preponderance of non-gifted but high-achieving students added to bring the class size to 20-24 pupils.

You are wise not to accept "differentiation" as anything more than a buzzword. Differentiation only means that something is different, it does not imply that the difference provides an educational experience which is better suited to the child's needs.

How does race matter?

I agree, in our case this will mean finding a school where this is more likely to be the case. I have found that this does not equate to finding a high ses school in my area. Sports is the main focus of high ses parents in my area, education is secondary at best.

In the U.S., blacks score about 1 standard deviation below whites on IQ tests.

Interesting that this does not apply to immigrant Nigerians as a group, for instance, which to me suggests that this deviation has little to do with race and more to do with low income and culture.