We invite you to share your experiences and to post information about advocacy, research and other gifted education issues on this free public discussion forum. CLICK HERE to Log In. Click here for the Board Rules.
Thank you for your input. Option 2 may not meet the true gifted criteria, but I imagine there would be some truly gifted kids in there.
I saw online reviews that Option 1 ignored other parents’ requests to accelerate their PG or EG kids and they all left….
I was able to secure Option 3 which is a relatively less expensive private school. It is a new location of a chain, and appears to be going through stabilization. They have robotics classes in elementary, but kids don’t form teams and go to competitions until middle school. I’m told that student to teacher ratio is 22:1 which is better than public school (~30:1) but not great. They automatically accelerate everyone by 1 grade, so kindergarten class would jump into first grade.
Wondering if this private school is worth it… and would appreciate your input!
I have a 7-yr who also shoes a similar variance between the GAI/FSIQ and working memory and processing speed. From all I've read, this is very common with profoundly gifted kids. As my son is still very young, i have no idea what this means for future academic performance/style/fit. However, my son has also been diagnosed with ADHD and being 2e is consistent with relatively lower working memory. Have you had your child evaluated for ADHD?
We found a “gifted magnet” elementary school, but I’m wondering if it’s really better than a regular school..? Kids get into kindergarten by lottery, not by actual evaluation of applications. Starting 1st grade, they maintain 1 classroom of gifted kids per each grade, but the definition of giftedness is either by teacher discretion or top 7% percent which is not strictly adhered to. Called the school to ask if the gifted kids are still learning grade level materials, and they pretty much said yes but at a faster pace - this makes no sense to me. The school confirmed that there is no small group approach in the classroom. My son tested 148 full scale, 153 GAI (quit participating much the last couple of sections).
One of the biggest challenges many parents of gifted children face is asynchronous development the gap between intellectual abilities and emotional or social maturity. A child may be solving advanced math problems at an early age but struggle with frustration when facing minor setbacks / they may read at a high school level while still enjoying play typically associated with younger kids. This mismatch can lead to difficulties in both academic and social environments.
Schools & peers may not always understand these discrepancies, leading to misinterpretations of behavior. Teachers might expect gifted children to be emotionally mature simply because they excel academically, while classmates may find their interests or communication style unusual. Parents often find themselves caught between advocating for intellectual stimulation and supporting their child's emotional needs. Checked https://giftedissues.davidsongifted.org/bb/ubbthreads.php/forums/13/1/general-discussion.htmlLooker Course guide related to this and found it quite informative.
How have you navigated the challenges of asynchronous development with your child? Have you found any strategies that help balance intellectual growth with emotional and social development? Let’s discuss approaches that work in both home and school settings.
While neuropsych testing is definitely helpful for teasing out strengths and weaknesses, please note that they have very little value in determining if someone has ADHD or not
The diagnosis of ADHD is based on the DSM-V-TR criteria, based on behavior and excluding other potential conditions causing these symptoms. It is a clinical diagnosis, not a diagnosis based on testing.
Besides, considering your teen's very high IQ, perhaps they have been compensating well enough to the point it doesn't show up on the test. Their symptoms may also be channeled into socially acceptable things, for example "on the go like a motor," presenting as an extremely productive and very curious child.
Yes, when I was young, I sometimes presented like that. Now? ADHD. Even though my testing as a kid was decent.
Yes... we just got him tested last November. He scored 151 on his WISC-V FSIQ. Getting the score answered a lot of questions. We saw that he was progressing through things quickly, and figured he was bright, but didn't imagine the scale. But it has also been scary and stressful trying to figure out what's going to work for him long-term since we've heard horror stories of how the lack of challenge and the ensuing boredom can really take a turn for the worse as they get to 8-9 years old.
We live in the Bay Area and there are some private schools specifically for the gifted. However, at $45K-$60K per annum, these are really out of our reach, unfortunately. We've also begun to entertain the prospect of homeschooling, but it would be really tough to give up on either of our careers at this point. Grade skipping at a public school in our district is tough I've heard, especially for more than one grade level. Putting my son in 2nd grade instead of 1st would not solve any issues at this point.
Good to know beforehand that BASIS Independent is quick to remove kids that don't meet their model. That was our fear, but just wanted to ensure that wasn't an unfounded assumption or bias. DS7 is definitely not the easiest kid in class so would definitely need to take that risk into account since we wouldn't want to set him up to fail in a system that is set up for a different type of student.
Would love to hear if anyone has kids that have gone through BASIS or BASIS Independent.
They can, however, shine a picture on the kid's cognitive weaknesses and strengths.
Other source () from the same psychiatrist shows how neuropsych testing does not measure the same construct as ADHD.
A diagnosis of ADHD/ASD is based on the DSM-V-TR criteria, with some clinical judgment. The criteria may be confusing at times, though you may attempt to read it. If you have any questions about interpreting the criteria, you could ask us.
Note that for gifted people, their symptoms may present differently and in a more socially acceptable light. For example, 'Is often “on the go,” acting as if “driven by a motor”' (DSM-V-TR) for an average or below average kid may be as stereotyped. For a very gifted child, it may be "channeled" into productive activities, thus they may appear workaholics, very studious, etc.
Your son is clearly gifted. He might be compensating for his symptoms such that they appear significantly milder than they actually are. I wouldn't discount the possibility other symptoms may be hidden but he had learnt to compensate for it.
In your daughter's case it is less clear. Considering her gifts, I suggest digging deeper. Ask both of them for their self-reported symptoms. How is she with time management? How long can she study for? How much does she procrastinate? Try giving her significantly less structure, organisation - if she struggles a lot, perhaps you had been compensating for her symptoms.
I cannot think of any instrument that would have been abbreviated EAS. I suspect that was the initials of the person who administered it. Back in the day, when I pulled permanent student records, some districts had assessment record cards that would have lines like that. Usually the name of the instrument, followed by a score ("IQ=102"), and then the initials or first initial and last name of the person who completed the assessment.
In the 1986-1987 school year, a common instrument could have been the Stanford-Binet 4th edition, which had just been released, or the WISC-R, which was about a decade old at the time. It's possible this score was from one of the old versions of the CogAT, although it wouldn't technically have been considered a measure of intellectual ability. That wouldn't stop a district from labelling it that, of course.
Great checklist! Even small changes can really impact behavior, so it's smart to look into everything—from a new teacher to shifts at home. Sometimes it's the little things that make a big difference.
Our kids are in a GT Magnet, where the GT kids are (mostly) in separate classes all of the time. This is socially wonderful, because I'd say there are at least 5-6 truly HG kids in each grade level, so socially my kids have lots of options.
I looked into a very small private school nearby, which has 1 class per grade level and a very open attitude toward acceleration, but when I asked the principal about peer groups, she was very honest and told me that, based solely on test scores, there wouldn't be any true intellectual peers for my kids. However, the environment was very warm and nurturing...I'm still tempted to switch at some point.Stickman Hook We're in the public for 2 reasons...1 it's less expensive, which gives us a larger budget for enrichment activities, and 2 there is a larger peer group for both kids. That said, I'm really frustrated with the attitude that because it's a GT program that must be acceleration enough, so forget about a grade skip, even though your kid is bored stiff... and don't worry, it will get more rigorous next year. I'm still waiting for that to happen.
There are pros and cons to both. In public school that only has a gifted pullout once a week, I'd have some reservations. I'd want to know how large the "gifted" population is at that school.
To address concerns about how these estimates were created, here’s a plain-language breakdown of the process, its strengths, and its limitations:
Core Approach SAT Score Estimates
Data Sources: Relied on official pre-2021 admissions records (when schools still required tests), published SAT ranges, and adjustments for modern trends.
Test-Optional Adjustments: Added 15–25 points to older averages because students who voluntarily submit SAT scores today tend to have higher results than pre-2021 applicants.
Standard Deviations: Kept historical score spreads (e.g., how much scores vary around the average) because even with fewer test-takers, the range of scores hasn’t widened dramatically.
IQ Estimates
Conversion Logic: The SAT was designed to align with national averages. A student scoring exactly average (1050 SAT) maps to an IQ of 100. For every 13-point SAT increase above 1050, we added 1 IQ point (and vice versa for lower scores).
Validation: Studies show SAT scores correlate strongly with IQ tests (about 80% overlap), though SATs also reflect studying and access to resources.
Percentile Rankings
Assumption: In large groups (like 50,000+ applicants), SAT scores roughly follow a "bell curve." This lets us estimate how unusual a score like 1570 is at each school.
Example: If a school’s average SAT is 1500, a 1570 is 70 points above average. Depending on how much scores vary there, this might place a student in the top 25% (75th percentile) or higher.
Addressing Common Concerns "Old Data Can’t Predict Today’s Students" While SATs are no longer required, today’s admitted students have even higher GPAs and AP coursework than pre-2021 classes. Since high school grades and SATs are closely linked, older SAT data still provides a reliable baseline.
"Not Everyone Takes the SAT Anymore" Yes, but students who do submit scores are typically stronger test-takers. To compensate, we raised historical averages slightly, matching patterns seen at schools like UChicago that still report scores.
"IQ Isn’t the Same as SAT Scores" Agreed. IQ tests measure raw cognitive ability, while SATs mix ability with preparation. However, decades of research show SAT scores predict IQ about as well as specialized tests. We prioritized transparency by using a simple, consistent conversion.
"Small Schools Aren’t Bell Curves" For liberal arts colleges (e.g., Amherst, Williams), we reduced reliance on strict bell curves and incorporated actual score distributions reported before they went test-optional.
"This Ignores Systemic Bias" True. SAT scores correlate with wealth and race. However, the same biases affect IQ testing. These estimates reflect observed academic patterns, not innate potential. We flagged this limitation clearly.
Why Trust These Estimates? Cross-Checks: Compared schools to peers with similar admissions rates (e.g., UC Berkeley vs. Cornell). Results matched expected "tiers."
Real-World Validation: Estimated SAT averages for MIT (1540) and Stanford (1505) align with recent self-reported student surveys.
Transparency: Shared all assumptions upfront (e.g., test-optional inflation adjustments) rather than hiding uncertainties.
Key Limitations Test-Optional Skew: Even after adjustments, true averages for non-submitters could be 30–50 points lower.
Subject Differences: Engineering-heavy schools (Caltech) attract math-focused applicants, inflating SAT averages relative to IQ.
Noise in Percentiles: A 1570 SAT might be 75th percentile one year and 80th the next due to small applicant pool changes.
Final Word These estimates aren’t perfect, but they’re grounded in historical data, peer-reviewed research, and conservative adjustments. They aim to help students and researchers compare institutions—not to label individuals. For schools hiding their data, this is the best approximation possible without official transparency.
There is a broad trend in US colleges to admit based on diversity rather than merit, and a tacit agreement to cover it up. Since I first joined this forum over 10 years ago, I have seen our gifted community on a collision course with the woke. Fortunately, the following organizations are addressing the matter in federal court.
1. SFFA v. Air Force Academy (D. Co. Dec. 10, 2024)
· Summary: SFFA sued the Air Force Academy over its race-based admissions process.
· Update: On January 2, 2025, Judge Nina Wang was assigned to our case. Defendants have to respond by March 17. Our proposed scheduling order is due April 7.
2. SFFA v. Naval Academy (D. Md. Oct. 5, 2023)
· Summary: SFFA sued the Naval Academy, claiming its scheme of race-based admissions was unconstitutional after SFFA v. Harvard.
· Update: The Court granted our motion to file a longer brief, so we’ll get 15,000 words—or roughly 60 double-spaced pages—in our opening brief. The government has signaled that it will soon change positions. Our opening brief is now due on April 7.
3. SFFA v. West Point (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 19, 2023)
· Summary: SFFA sued West Point over its race-based admissions process.
· Update: Discovery is ongoing. Defendants tried to stay the case for 90 days, but the Court rejected their request and gave SFFA more time to conduct discovery.
4. SFFA v. University of Texas-Austin (W.D. Tex. July 20, 2020)
· Summary: In 2020, SFFA sued the University of Texas at Austin over its use of race in admissions. Though UT agreed not to consider race after Harvard, it refused to do what most other schools (including Harvard and UNC) have done: blind its admissions officers to racial data when they are evaluating prospective students.
· Update: UT and intervenors filed their appellate briefs on January 15. We filed our reply on February 5. The Fifth Circuit “tentatively” set oral argument for the week of April 28th.
I learned a lot from your blog, and you can learn more about older video games to have more engaging experiences. I look forward to playing with you in the past! run 3
Parents often find themselves caught between advocating for intellectual stimulation and supporting their child's emotional needs. Checked 
Have you found any strategies that help balance intellectual growth with emotional and social development? Let’s discuss approaches that work in both home and school settings.