I'm trying to clarify a point that helps to advocate for gifted kids, so I can tell my husband this. Can someone clarify the information below?

I thought I read somewhere that a child 2 deviations away from the norm was really far from the other students and a gifted child needs the help just like a child on the other side of the bell curve. Educators understand the otherside of the bell curve because these kids really need help. What would the 2 deviations below the norm be? Does this comparision help clarify the need? I don't think I would bring this up with school. Would you agree?

I remember reading (I don't know where) that a child with an I.Q. of 130 (or whatever, 130 would be about 2 SDs) is as different from a child with an average I.Q. of 100 as an average child is from a child with an I.Q. of 70 (2 SDs below average - below which used to be defined as "retarded").

I'm willing to be corrected on this, but I think this is a very silly argument. First off, just on the surface it seems to defy common sense. Second, I.Q. tests are normed to create a normal distribution. That doesn't mean that what they are trying to explain when they measure "intelligence" is actually normally distributed. IOW, I.Q. is designed to be normally distributed, but that doesn't mean intelligence is.

Frankly, I was really surprised to see this statement in a published source but maybe I'm missing something. I look forward to seeing other opinions.

A kid with a 130 IQ is to normal kids as a kid who can do a 4.5 40 yard dash is to normal kids or who can throw a football 80 yards is to normal kids.

If a kid with an arm like that or legs like that wanted to play football or baseball or track, would you put him in with ND kids or move him to a top youth team? What if he specifically wanted to play on that top youth team?

It doesn't make a heck of a lot of sense with percentile-based IQs, but it does if you remember that IQs used to be ratio-based. So, someone with an IQ of 130 would have a mental age 30% more than his or her chronological age, and a person with an IQ of 70 would have a mental age 30% less than his or her chronological age. In terms of mental age, there would be a similar difference. A ten year old with a 130 IQ would have a mental age of thirteen, and a ten year old with an IQ of 70 would have a mental age of seven. They're both 3 years away from their chronological age and would, theoretically, need a similar degree of differentiation.

Now, how well the old ratio IQs correlate to the current percentile IQs (or how stable they might be over time) is anyone's guess. I couldn't begin to speculate.

I think this is interesting so I tried to find information about the distribution of ratio I.Q. scores, but there wasn't much easily available on the internet. I saw one item that referenced them being "roughly" Gaussian.

But let's go with the ratio idea - take 3 hypothetical 6 year-olds with I.Q.s of 150, 100, and 50. One has a "mental" age of 9, one of 6, and one of 3. It seems to be that the 9 year-old and the 6 year-old are going to be closer in ability than the six year-old and the 3 year-old.

If we're only talking about mental age (i.e., we're leaving fine & gross motor skills out of it), I'm not sure I agree.

Take reading. A typical 3 year old will be learning pre-reading skills and a typical preschool classroom will be focused on basic skills like enjoying books and learning the alphabet song. A typical 6 year old will be learning to sound out simple words and a typical 1st grade classroom will be focused on decoding skills. A typical 9 year old will already be a fluent reader, and a typical 4th grade classroom will be much more focused on content. They are three distinct stages, and I am equally horrified at the thought of that ND 6 year old struggling to learn in a classroom of kids who are fluent readers as I am at the thought of a ND 3 year old struggling to learn in a classroom of kids who are already sounding out words. (Of course, the 3 year old is much more likely to be running around like a whirlwind than attempting to learn, but then we're getting into emotional/social age. )

Just to be perfectly clear, I'm not invested in this idea. I'm really not sure what I think just yet.

And don't forget, this doesn't really apply to today's IQ tests, since they are not about mental age at all. It is an outdated approach that has been rejected.

I'm not sure about this either - but while I agree with what you are saying in terms of classroom activities and reading levels, that's not really what the ratio I.Q.s measure, is it? I think you are talking more about acquired skills. The different age kids will have different readiness levels, but that's partially experiential? If you took all three ages and exposed them to a mental activity none of them had any prior experience with (yes, I am stretching), I think the gap would be larger between the six year-old and the three year-old. My gut (and it's only my gut, I can't back it up) is that a six year-old has a lot more in common with a nine year-old than a three year-old.

Again, I'm not convinced about any of this and I'm not trying to be argumentative. I think the premise bothers me because it's basically saying "A 130 I.Q. child has as much in common with an average child as an average child has in common with a retarded child." And since it's a safe assumption that most people's kids are pretty close to average.....well, it's just not something I would recommend saying, especially if it's not entirely accurate (maybe it is, I'm not convinced yet). I'm imagining the parent of a child with a 130 I.Q. going into the child's school (which might be in a highly educated community where the average I.Q. is 115, not 100) and making this statement. Don't think it would go over well.

I realize that it has illustrative power, I just think there are more accurate (and more sensitive) ways to get the point across.

I agree with what you are saying Jane but I think you are only looking at it from a social perspective. Sure many 9 and 6 year olds can play together. They may follow complex rules, play a game of tag, understand when to stop etc- far better than a 3 year old would be able to follow the game. But it's a rare 9 year old that has the patience to work on an academic project with a 6 year old.

Now add in that we're talking about a theoretical 9 year old, who is actually 6 and doesn't like slowing down for his friends, helping others always or spending 80% of his time rehashing information he already knows. This child either gets frustrated by the constant drag or begins to pretend that he doesn't know the information just so it's not his responsibility so often.

To take the analogy one step further. If you are the teacher and you have the same 9, 6 and 3 year old in class- you will likely group the 9 and 3 year old together because the 9 year old can help the 3 year old learn a LOT! Oh and it'll be good for the 9 year old too to learn some patience.

Dottie's right, a 3 deviation below child wouldn't likely be in a typical classroom full-time and if one were, s/he would have a full-time aid.

Maybe that's what I am missing, my kid needs a full-time aid! :-)

It's not often I get to disagree with you, Dottie, so I think I'd better take my opportunity. My insight comes from classes and discussions with one of the country's preeminent experts on mental retardation and the law. His opinion (and therefore mine) is that people in the mild mental retardation range often "pass" as normal, usually by covering up with behavioral issues.

I believe that the statement we're evaluating is meant to compare the experience of a gifted child in the regular classroom with the experience of a ND child in a classroom for kids with MR. In both cases the child will be getting very little from the class. In both cases the child will know all or virtually all the material before it is taught. In both cases the excessive time spent on the material will mean that the child is bored out of his or her mind.

As far as advocacy is concerned, I agree that this statement could be inflammatory, and should be avoided. Perhaps it might work to say something like, "My child is working 3 grade levels ahead of her current class. Keeping my child in this classroom would be like putting one of her classmates in a class 3 grade levels below his abilities. That just doesn't make sense."

I can see his point, in particular because the idea is subtle. "The slow pace of learning in kids with IQs who are below the first percentile is comparable to the fast pace learning in kids who are above the 99th percentile."

A problem is that slow cognition in some ways is much more obvious than fast cognition. A teacher of average or above average intelligence (say, an IQ of 115) can gauge how slowly a student with an IQ of say, 60 (well below the 1st percentile) is learning. Because this person moves slowly and requires extra help, it's easy to for the teacher to compare to her own experiences. She can also draw on what she observes with average and above average learners. These factors help her make a comparison between the very slow learner and the average learners.

The same isn't true of an extremely fast learner (say, an IQ of 140, which is well above the 99th percentile). A teacher with an IQ of 115 can't compare with her own experience, and it's unlikely that she'll have dealt with enough kids with very high IQs to gain knowledge from them. Sure, she can see that the child learns faster, but without an understanding of how quickly people with IQs of 140 learn, and HOW they learn, she lacks critical insight.

The slower learners also benefit from large group of specialists who understand the needs of slow learners. It's too bad that the same specialty just doesn't exist for the gifted learners.

Obviously, courses on the needs and abilities of gifted students would help a lot here. But I wonder how much even these courses, as currently designed, really help. My concern (without knowing a lot about them) is that they focus on lower percentiles (such as the 90th or 95th), and so don't really reflect giftedness or high giftedness.


Another little point: getting an accurate IQ score for kids with very low IQs (< 2 or 3SD) is just as problematic as it is for kids with very high IQs, and IQs can vary by 10 and 20 points from test to test.

Val

I agree... the issues really are hugely different. On the other end of the bell curve, the kids really need every bit of assistance to even be able to lead an independent adult life. Their parents have to consider how they're going to care for a child who may never be able to hold down a paying job, may need custodial care throughout his life, and will likely outlive them. There are financial and legal issues that loom large in their plans, and a unique vulnerability that complicates everything.

I'm not saying that parenting an HG+ kid isn't difficult - it certainly has challenges that shouldn't be minimized - but really, there's no point on the top end of the bell curve where I have to start worrying that DS won't be able to live independently and take care of himself as an adult.

I really think the argument has to be based on the specific needs of a specific child. As much as I love data and statistics, I think in this case it's not the best approach.

Just wanted to quote this.

Because really, it is hard to explain giftedness other than via obvious descriptions, but another gifted person would "get it" much more easily just from their own life experience.

One of my usual quickie comments,but I do disagree with the assumption that people so far outside the putative norm, whether above or below CAN function in society. I know several people who may be able to (literally) receive Nobel prizes but have serious social and functional deficits. While these are not quite comparable to the devastating effects of being terribly below average intellectually, they are nonetheless real.

I volunteer at a school, and this year, I have regular exposure to 3 children who have IQ's of approximately 70. I also work with a number of kids with LD, most of whom are of average intelligence (although 2 are gifted), and with a variety of ND kids, with a range of IQs (probably a few are also gifted). I also happen to live with one child who has tested gifted and a couple more who may or may not be. The 3 with the lowest IQ's coupld possibly be in another type of program, but parents can always opt to keep their children in the regular school.

The gifted children are a mixed blessing in class. They may call out answers, zone out, or not show much in the way of patience. However, you can count on them for a meaningful answer when nobody else can come up with one and to save you from losing your mind (because at least someone gets what you're trying to explain). On the other hand, the children with the very low IQ'a don't learn things because they don't remember or never understood the part that comes before. I once heard a speaker who said you can only learn around the edges of what you already know. For example, you can't learn addition if you don't have a concept of what numbers are. Because those lower kids have such smaller edges, they can't a lot of the learn grade-level material. The teachers are pretty much teaching grade-level material, even if there are gifted or very low children in the class.

I think gifted kids are a different challenge. Everybody has different strenths and weaknesses, and just being gifted doesn't guarantee you are emotionally stable, socially adept, physically able, and not learning disabled. A class of only gifted children can be pretty diverse.

What happens / what does it mean for kids that are 3 standard deviations over (to the right)?

That's a good way to put it. Thanks!
So for kids 3SDs to the right, they seldom get an opportunity in school to reach the edges of what they already know.

That is an excellent way to put it.

I have not meant to offend or be unsensitive to needs on the low side of the curve. I'm just still trying to get my husband to understand my children's needs.

My DH, "got it" the day we had a 5 & 6 yo old over for a play date with our DD, who was barely 5 at the time.

We assumed Battleship would be a fun easy game for Kindergarteners because our DD easily learned it at 4.
But after 30min of trying to teach DDs friends the concept, my husband gave up.
Later on he admitted that "maybe she is a little different after all."

LOL, when in doubt have a playdate with kids the same age or even a few years older. Works every time in noticing differences. It's interesting for us when DS5 helps one of his friends that is 5 years older with his math. And when he was 3 and would take out scrabble or battleship during a playdate...that's kind of obvious : ) Glad your DH noticed the differences.

I have to say that I was really happy when our DS5's principal said that DS has special needs based on his "exceptionalities" and that IEP's are typically designed to meet the other end of the spectrum, but that they should be able to help on both ends of extremes. I was in complete shock that she gets it. I realize that they are completely different needs, but nevertheless there are clear needs for differentiation on both ends...especially the further away you get from the middle.

Floridama, thank you for sharing your hilarious Battleship story.

Let me add to this discussion I had similar problems with my dh but at the "other end of the curve" -- he did not seem to see our oldest was not developing normally (ds turned out to have autism). Some parents, mothers as well as fathers, have trouble seeing or accepting differences, and it does take time.

Still laughing about your Battleship experience, thanks again for sharing it. What a great way for your dh to figure out what is typical for that age (and I wish I could have been a fly on the wall and seen all of it).

Just a bit off topic question. As I was reading through the replies I noticed a disscussion regarding a school with average IQ around 115 not being very receptive to a child of IQ 130 with special requests/needs.

We have one child around mid 130's IQ. The elem school locally has average IQ 115 (they claim) and top state test scores. However, my son was still incredibly bored at the pace and depth of the classwork.

He is now in FT gifted school and excelling (all work accelerated at least a year.)
I'm wondering if this is uncommon for a 130 child to be so bored in the regular classroom. Do you all feel most 130 kids usually get by ok in a regular classroom, especially in a highly educated community?

I guess I always wondered if I made too much fuss about getting him out of there when I know there are probably other kids with his IQ still sitting in the regular classroom?

Thanks!

Inky just to be wonky wordsmith: the "learning around the edges" is Vygotsky's Zone of Proximal Development