I googled this and found a couple of charts that explain the differences. One of the charts also listed the characteristics of a creative learner. But I still think something is missing. What do you think the difference between bright and gifted is?

Degree.

In my district if your FISQ IQ is <129 you are bright and if it is >130 you are gifted, minorities are gifted at >120.
Sadly this concrete definition causes many kids get overlooked.

I don't think the there is a solid line or a chart which can distinguish between the two. I also believe, that like 2E, it is possible for a child to be both bright and gifted in different areas.

I believe that bright is the ability to learn quickly by observation. Bright learners need to follow the rules and steps to get the correct answer. To do multidigit addition a bright learner may quickly learn to follow the steps, but will often lack the understanding of why the steps are being to be done. The correct answer is the goal of the Bright.

The gifted learner, on the other hand, is not content with "how" they need to know "why". Show a gifted learner how to do multidigit addition and they quickly learn/understand why the numbers are being carried over, even if they forget the proper steps LOL!

That is exactly why a lot of gifted kids go unrecognized isn't it? My son does the craziest technique for multi-digit addition, but gets the right answer when you think that he has no idea what he is doing.

In what area? I think this ignores that some children are bright in some areas and gifted in others - I am not speaking purely about multiple intelligences, but about a combination of things. I think intense interest about geometry could turn a moderately bright child into a gifted math student, purely due to interest and dedication ... strong spatial and visual skills might mean a child who is "only" bright on an IQ test is a very gifted artist.

Cat

Dr. Ruf's levels of gifted start at 120 IQ. http://www.educationaloptions.com/resources/resources_levels_giftedness.php

Level 1, Moderately Gifted: 120-124
Level 1, Gifted: 125-129
Level 2, Highly Gifted: 125-135
Level 3, Exceptionally Gifted: 130-140
Level 4, Exceptionally to Profoundly Gifted: 135-141+
Level 5, Exceptionally to Profoundly Gifted: 141+

Has there been IQ inflation or something? Even the most airheaded people I know claim their IQ is at least 120 and that's supposed to be where gifted begins? I know lots of people with IQs around 140 and they aren't what I would consider profoundly gifted, just run of the mill white collar professionals. They are smart and all, but not Newton or Michael Angelo.

IMO, anything below I40 is just bright and the child should not get differentiated instruction. The curriculum for all classes should be raised 1-2 years so that we don't have every other child reading past grade level. Children of non-English speakers need to be the ones removed from the mainstream classes so that they can get better instruction and so that they don't pull down native speakers and make them appear gifted.

Aside from all of the other bizarre statements in your post, Connie, I am totally shocked that you would suggest segregating a school based on the language spoken at the homes of its students. I can't imagine how isolating these students could possibly help anyone or how the inclusion of these students could possibly make others appear to be gifted.

That's a little harsh, isn't it, no5no5? I don't think Connie suggested that schools be "segregated", and there is a legitimate question about what the balance should be between making special provision for children who have different special needs, such as being ESOL learners. Indeed, here in the UK, I have the impression that gifted pull-outs are rare, compared to other pull-outs.

About the IQ scores, I think one reason why older people with very high scores are not as unusual as we'd expect is the switch from ratio IQs to deviation IQs, which has indeed made high scores much rarer than they used to be. Another is people's tendency to misremember and exaggerate! These days, many children with IQs under 140 clearly do benefit from differentiated instruction.

I think that personality and drive prove a stronger need for differntation and acceleration than IQ, and a combination of the 2 would be the ideal measure.
There are several non-gifted kids at my school who need differntation, some more so than my 145 kid.

If we had to give Gifted a number, I would say that it should be measured by divations above the norm. And the norm should be calcualted per school.
In a school where the average IQ is 90, a kid who scores 125 is gifted, and well above his class mates. This kid will have different needs that of his peers and should get differntation and or acceleration. But, in a school where the average IQ is 125 the same kid would most likely have needs met within the regular classroom.



Sounds like segregation to me

That's about what I was going to say about everyone you know having IQs in the 120+ range !

That said, in re to the OP, I liked Floridama's explaination. Gifted is learning differently not just memorizing the steps and being a good student. I think that there is a lot of overlap btwn creative and gifted which may muddy the waters on those charts you mention. Perhaps many creative kids are gifted.

Children that are 1 SD below avg. need differentiation and I believe they need it on both ends. Children in the 115-140 could definitely benefit from differentiation. I was just talking with my friend the other day about her daughter. Her daughter is 5 and will be starting K in the fall. She was recently tested with a 130 IQ (had to get tested for speech) and she is doing some double digit addition already. She can read some words already, and will probably be reading more before school starts. She is incredible artistically as well. My DS5 who is PG was doing advanced math when he was her age (probably 5th grade at least) and reading at a 6th grade level at least as well as many other things. So clearly my DS needed differentiation. But that doesn't mean that this other girl won't need it too. When the teacher is teaching them numbers in K and a year later when they start basic addition she will probably be way past that and bored out of her mind. Anyhow, different differentiationed instruction, but still a need for it for both of them.

And while I don't want to give the non-english speaking parents comment much attention, I do want to say that they should all be part of the same class and they are by no means bringing other students down. Children pick up the English language quite quickly and they can be enriching other children's experiences in the classroom and teaching them things. They also are just as likely to be HG+ and need differentiation as well. Putting them in a seperate location would not be beneficial for anyone as you learn things more through exposure.

It was harsh, but I wouldn't have said it if I didn't think it needed to be said. Many schools in the US purportedly put ESL kids into separate classes for their benefit, but it really is just a pretense for segregation. Often kids who speak fluent English are put in these classes simply because of their nationality or their parents' status as recent immigrants. And as a result ESL kids learn to speak English more slowly than they would otherwise (and sometimes not at all), simply because they aren't exposed to much English. My understanding is that it is pretty clear that an immersion classroom is the best place for ESL kids, that they catch up quickly, and that their presence has real benefits for the native English speaking kids as well.

I was really, truly shocked to hear the argument that this sort of thing could be a solution to the over-identification of gifted kids. Just, wow. All kids have the right to an appropriate education.

I'll tell you what happened to my son in first grade. The class ended up being comprised of about 50% ESL children. There are a fair number in the school, but I guess due to random chance his class just had a disproportionate number. Anyhow, these kids did not learn much of anything from the non-ESL students. The children are not babies and they separate themselves from one another. In almost all social situations, in the classroom and elsewhere, the students congregate with those who come from the same socioeconomic, racial and cultural background. Even my son has been ostracized a bit because we aren't caucasian, but we do know English. I didn't have the luxury of being able to get a formal education, but through self-study I made sure that I had at least a decent grasp of the English language.

From what my son told me and from what I observed the teacher had to give so much attention to the ESL kids that she didn't have much time to give to the students who were already doing alright. Now when you talk to the parents of the Caucasian Americans the kids are almost always reading above or even well above grade level. Are all these kids gifted!? No, of course not. To think so is illogical and gives the caucasian kids a sense that they are on a superior level relative to the hispanic kids. I am very opposed to this message at very impressionable ages.

I don't want my son to have to leave the classroom for some challenge. He should be able to be in a regular classroom and get taught a higher level. The ESL students aren't happy to be in a regular classroom where they can immerse...The don't simply immerse, they drown in discouragement.

Connie, I hate to say this, but I think it is very likely that your son's classroom wasn't disproportionate by chance. If it was 50% ESL, and the school has a much smaller percentage of ESL students, it was quite likely deliberate. At any rate, I think that your experience illustrates the problem of having special ESL classrooms. It does cause segregation. It does keep ESL (and sometimes fluently-English-speaking minority) students from getting the education they need. It is a form of institutionalized racism that keeps ESL and minority kids from having access to an appropriate education.

Regardless, from what you've written elsewhere, I think it is pretty clear that your son needs differentiated curriculum. Even if all the ESL students were removed from his classroom, he would not be a normal child in that classroom. He would not be a normal child in a gifted classroom, if he is working 6 grade levels ahead in math.

The ESL classrooms don't cause segregation. What I was trying to say was that the students segregate themselves anyway.

If you call ESL classrooms a form of institutionalized segregation then you could argue that any kind of special program is a form of segregation. Even all these gifted programs are a form of segregation if you think in those terms. But because people think of 'gifted' as a positive then it suddenly becomes desirable.

I've been in a situation where I didn't know English and I think that I'm in a position to know what's best for people in the same situation. I think that many people theorize from a position of idealism where they think that everyone should be mixed up together and somehow this is beneficial to all. Meanwhile you have major hypocrisy because while this is the policy most of the native English speaking caucasians want their kids separated out into the gifted programs. Ha, isn't this segregation! While they say that is is possible for anyone of any socioeconomic background or heritage to be gifted you know almost all the gifted kids are from one demographic. So they get their idealistic notions and policies to calm their consciences while they still condone segregation. Parfait.

I said institutionalized racism, because I believe that in most instances when these programs are in place it is not done for the benefit of the ESL students, but for the purpose of keeping minority students away from white kids. The same is mostly not true for gifted programs. Gifted programs, theoretically at least, meet a need of the students involved, as opposed to having isolation as the goal.


I appreciate that it must be very frustrating to be in your position, having struggled to teach yourself English and now having to deal with a school system which, from your descriptions, is highly segregated and does not meet the needs of your son. I do appreciate that. But that does not make your opinion on this subject infallible.

The thing that bothers me the most about your argument is not simply the fact that you want ESL students to have their own classroom. It could be possible that a school might have a separate classroom for ESL students that could benefit them and result in an easier transition into the normal classroom (though that is not the reality of how most of these programs work). What bothers me is that you want them out of your son's classroom because you somehow feel that they are making other kids look gifted. That, to me, is just absurd.

Oh my! Yes, IQ tests have changed and Dr. Ruf's estimates are based on WISC-IV and SB5. A 140 IQ is in the 99.9 percentile.

I have never asked my friends what their IQ scores are and not sure I would believe anyone who volunteers that info about themselves.

You should know that learning a language has nothing to do with intelligence.

Please keep the conversation civil and contact each other individually if you wish to continue a one-on-one discussion on this matter.

Thank you for your cooperation.

Yes! Or not knowing a language:

When my father was a boy and came over from Germany to the US, he was administered an IQ test which he failed miserably. Then the testers realized that he didn't know the language. Come to find out, he is profoundly gifted...just didn't know English then.

I'll share too: Dh was raised in a very low socioeconomic neighborhood. He didn't learn English until he went to school (NYC public). I am not aware of there being ESL classes at that time (early 70's), though I don't really know. He actively tried to forget his first language due to the stigma that was attached at that time. His mother believed in the value of education, and pushed him to take the test for Hunter College High School when he was in fifth grade (usual grade). He was accepted, and later went on to become quite successful. I've seen at least one of his standardized test scores and can vouch for his IQ .

Elisa wrote:
"You should know that learning a language has nothing to do with intelligence."

That is not true. It's obvious that it takes a certain level of intelligence to speak a language, and a somewhat higher level to read it and write it. The severely mentally retarded do not read and write well, if at all.

I think that's a violation of civil rights laws. One group scoring below another on average does NOT demonstrate that the test is biased (and should therefore be "adjusted" in the manner you described). I understand that you are describing a practice, not endorsing it.

I was responding to Connie's statement:

"Children of non-English speakers need to be the ones removed from the mainstream classes so that they can get better instruction and so that they don't pull down native speakers and make them appear gifted."

I meant that the fact that some students are learning the language does not make them less intelligent. Non-English speaking students are just as likely to be gifted as the "Caucasian Americans" that Connie compares them to. Since Connie is a non-native English speaker herself, I would think she would be aware of that.

Not if the base test can be shown to be biased using non-verbal IQ tests and longitudinal studies of who does well in school. I think this is the case for some tests.

In addition, many of the tests, like the SAT, do not distinguish very well among the top performers past a certain point.

A number of tests do use scales now. The National Merit exam has the hard score then a separate category for minorities that is scaled within that minority group. You can be 99.0 percentile for all seniors and 99.99% among Hispanic seniors.

Here is why I think there is room to make an adjustment.

I am fortunate to work with some very bright people. Many were born outside the US and English is not their birth language. Few would probably score over 600 on the SAT Verbal, but they are phenomenally smart and easily outperform those with high SAT verbal tests.

A hired hand I once worked with from Mexico, who could barely speak English, could fix anything that ever once worked and he could also play any musical instrument. How do you ID someone like this? He is now 75. When he was a boy, he must have been something else. But his upbringing was a village in Oaxaca. In a different world, he would have gone to Caltech.

One of my friends grew in a tiny village in the middle of no where without running water until he was 13. He went to a formal school about that time and it took off from there culminating with a summa cum laude in Computer Science from a Tier 1 US school. Had he taken the SAT when he was 17 and still on his steep learning curve, he would have scored in the 600s.

In a strict world with hard cutoffs in lieu of thoughtful consideration, he'd still be digging wells with his bare hands.

Obviously, it seems fair to somehow adjust the playing field keeping in mind the need to perform at a high level with other students.

Actually, I think that removing them would make it harder for them to learn English.

My DS10 went to a French immersion school for 4 years (pre-K to grade 2) and now goes to an after-school program for designed for native speakers. He didn't know any French when he started pre-K.

Through kindergarten, the teachers spoke nothing French to the kids for 80% of the day (it was 60% thereafter). They did French worksheets, played French games, and sang songs in French. All the non-Francophones spoke French pretty well by the end of kindergarten. The ones who stay through grade 5 are completely fluent. It's possible that overall IQs there might be a little higher than average, but I'm not sure.

I'm not sure how Spanish-speaking kids are taught English in most US public schools; I know that California doesn't allow bilingual ed. After the practice was outlawed in 1998 in large part because it allowed teachers to speak too much Spanish, Hispanic test scores went up.

When ESL kids interact with English speakers in the classroom and on the playground, they learn lots of English --- just like my son learned French. The Hispanic kids I meet around here speak English with American accents. Some of them are very young (6 or 7; today I met some preschoolers speaking English to each other and Spanish to their parents).

Val

You should look at the research instead of relying only on anecdotes. The College Board did a study "Differential Validity and Prediction of the SAT" http://professionals.collegeboard.c...l_Validity_and_Prediction_of_the_SAT.pdf and it found (Table 3) that the SAT overpredicts the grades of blacks and Hispanics.

Even Hispanics and blacks who grow up in the U.S. and go to integrated schools will get a leg up in college admissions. That's amounts to racial discrimination against my children, and I want it stopped, at least in institutions that are subsidized by the taxpayer, as even "private" colleges are through government financial aid.

The Davidson Young Scholar program does not have different test score cut-offs for different races, nor do talent searches such as that of Johns Hopkins. Do you think those policies should change?

"While they say that it is possible for anyone of any socioeconomic background or heritage to be gifted you know almost all the gifted kids are from one demographic."

I'd like to discuss this statement further with all of you. First, by "demographic" I think this would mean sociodemographic, meaning families above poverty level. I think your statement is true in that respect. It generally takes a knowledgeable parent, and yes, some amount of money to identify and advocate for a gifted child. Of course, teachers who are looking for such students of lower economic opportunity could also assist in this process.

I see kids from every race who are profoundly gifted. But all have committed parents who advocate for them. By advocate I mean getting them placed in a challenging learning situation. That is the whole point of identifying the gifted.

Wether all of this happens along racial lines, I'd like to see the evidence. I personally don't see that played out, only along economic lines, as you suggested.

My son is hispanic. I do think "affirmative action" policies were needed, based on the unequal opportunities for minorities for so long. But it is time for such structure to be phased out.

However, I think funds for children of low income families (citizens of any race) should be readily available. College is still an institution for the privileged and should be available to all who have the drive to succeed.

Fun topic


I'll also clarify that minorities does include low income which is around 60% in our district. Our schools gets $ from the state for every "gifted" kid, so I'd endorse it on that fact alone, our gifted services need the all the help it can get

I think that most tests are going to be biased during the early years but I also think that bias levels off some by high school. My opinion no research or facts
My thoughts are that children from low income families are less likely to have been to a zoo and yet the IQ tests ask analogy questions about animials. They are also less likey to have computers, books, maps, or to have traveled out of their city. I think this lack of early exposure to world gives them a disadvantage, especially on the verbal sections of the tests.

Another thought..
We don't watch sports in our house at all. No reason it's just not our thing.
My DD told me after her IQ test that she was shown a picture of a baseball game and she was supposed to tell the lady what was missing. Little wonder she didn't know. So, according that question my DD may be less gifted than a kid who's family is into sports.

Floridama, the lower qualifying score of 120 (called Plan B) is for students of low socioeconomic level or if English is not their first language. As I understand it, racial/ethnic background was removed as a qualifier in 2002. That's the Florida law, but it's possible that some school districts are using Plan B in a different way and some don't use Plan B at all.

The article below supports my assertion that a lower IQ threshold for students of certain races to enter gifted programs violates the law -- it says Floriday was "forced" to discontinue the policy and use a 120 threshold for everyone.

Will Florida redefine 'gifted'?
By Anna Scott Sarasota Herald-Tribune
Published: Wednesday, January 3, 2007 at 6:01 a.m.
http://www.gainesville.com/article/20070103/LOCAL/701020365?p=1&tc=pg

...

"Florida was forced to discontinue a policy allowing schools to drop the IQ requirement to 120 for low-income and minority students. By allowing access to all students who score an IQ of 120, the new rule does away with those affirmative action policies. Some experts worry that will actually make the programs more exclusive by giving access to more white students."

According to the Florida Gifted Network gifted programs in Florida face elimination http://www.floridagiftednet.org/ .

No. That story is three years old. At the time the state legislature was considering lowering the gifted program requirement from 130 IQ to 120 for everybody. That change was NOT made.

As for Plan B, it is still in place.

"What is Plan B?

Because of the Florida Department of Education's concern that students from certain groups were significantly under-represented in the gifted population, in the early 1990's a rule was passed to allow districts to adopt an alternative method (informally known as "Plan B") for identifying some groups of students. Currently, students allowed to qualify for gifted education under "Plan B" are those from families with low socio-economic status (the student is on free or reduced lunch) or students who are classified as ELL (English Language Learners). The Leon County criteria for gifted placement under "Plan B" includes measures of academic achievement and creativity as well as the gifted behavior checklist and teacher statement of need."

differentiation is not just for gifted students. the idea is that all kids will get what they need at their level. ideally, differentiation would occur in every classroom to meet the needs of every student- low or high....not just the super smarty pants kids. when differentiation is done correctly, EVERY student benefits. if you had a kindergarten student who knew the entire alphabet, but was not gifted, they should not be made to sit through the entire letter b lesson just because they don't have an iq over 140.

YES!! differentiation should be for all students. This would be the optimal setup for everyone!

And I do not agree that 140 is the GT cutoff!!! I have seen many 130 kids want to pull there hair out in the regular classroom (including my own son.) I cried many a days during his K and 1st grade year because he was SO miserable and misunderstood (and we are in an upper middle class low minority school district.) When he moved to a Full Time gifted classroom in 2nd life changed for him. He connects with other kids, the work is somewhat challenging and he feels safe in that environment.

I have children well above 140 and a child tested in 130's. I can tell you for sure that my 130 kid is not just "bright." There are strengths and weaknesses to each of them not solely dependent on that IQ score they got on that one test on that one day......

Thanks for saying this. I agree completely.

Saying this as gently as possible...I think remarks like "anyone with a score below x is just 'bright' " can be hurtful statements. Whether intended to be that way or not, they can make people feel inadequate for not having an IQ higher than x (in this case, past the 99.6th percentile). The lack of this sort of thing has always been one of my favorite things about this board.

There are so many other things that can drive a need for a differentiated curriculum past a simple IQ score, such as level of creativity (LOC, anyone?) and drive. And IQ isn't necessarily tied to artistic ability or musical ability. People with those talents need differentiated instruction, too, as do talented athletes. Plus, people can be very talented in one or two areas, and at the average or above in others. In spite of incredible talent in one area, these people might have overall IQs below a magic cutoff number.

This is just my 2c; if I'm being rude, let me know and I won't write like this in the future....



Val

Val - I think you are saying what a lot us feel and IMHO you are NOT being rude at all. Frankly the difference between an IQ measure on one test as 138 or 139 (for instance) cannot really be distinguished from 140 or 141. Even the magic 130 mark is a rather arbitrary number. This board has always been good about understanding that different kids may need differentiation under various circumstances regardless of a certain score.

Like Val and GM5 said, the IQ score/test is just one area to consider. One must also consider the child's strengths and weaknesses in other areas. Many children don't do well in IQ tests. It also depends on the tester and their experience with gifted children, etc. So, just using an IQ score as a determining factor is... limiting of the potential of each child.

Like spiritedmama said, differentiation for every child...

Well Done Val!

The Full Scale IQ numbers can be very misleading because so many of us have a few monster strenths, or a few monster weaknesses, plus the IQ test makers themselves say that they don't intend for the IQ tests to be reliable at the Right Tail of the curve. On Modern IQ test things seem to break down around 130. We were just doing the Math and My son has a 44 point spread between his highest Subscale and his lowest subscale - I am so grateful that Davidson Young Scholars program doesn't insist that the Full Scale IQ be consistient with the strongest strengths.

I can imagine that there there are a few places in the US where folks with 120 IQ are average, and with 139 are well accomidated in regular school settings - but those places are few and far between. For better or for worse, that doesn't describe our local public school, or even the expensive private school down the road.

Giftedness is only a 'problem' when the person experiencing it is 'rare' - either at home in their family or at school or in their workplace, and the expectations are tightly geared to the mainstream. Since the more highly gifted kids are more rare, we forget that it isn't the level of giftedness itself that causes problems, but the rarity of that particular level in a particular setting and the lack of experience in meeting the needs a particular highly gifted child may have.

Val - thanks for getting me 'unflabergasted' and able to put some thoughts together!
Grintiy

Phew. Thanks to everyone who replied. It took me a day or so to write that message. I didn't want to inflame anything, but had something I wanted to say....

Val

Well said!

I disagree with Connie. my child has an IQ of 137 at 8 years; has had straight A's all through school, reads music,makes complete comic books, plays guitar,makes sculptures,paints,speed reads at adult levels,can remember anything,asks very deep questions, and calculates days on the calender, very quickly. Before entering the gifted program, he would finish his work long before all the other children and fidget and bother other students. I almost put him on meds for ADD or ADHD! He was just bored out of his mind. Maybe you need to see the scores for yourself and not go by what a supposed air-head tells you.