Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums Active Threads

Welcome, Lizz! (Even though I'm a dark roast person myself!)

If you've been lurking for a bit, you've probably seen some of my old posts, in which case you may know that we have homeschooled. While not formally identified, some of ours are almost certainly 2e (I'm a professional evaluator). One stayed in schools through a series of tiny private schools who were flexible and willing to collaborate with us, ultimately homeschooling during the secondary years. Others were homeschooled from the start, but have gone on to the public high school where I am employed.

Different families find that different schooling arrangements work better for them. If I were to give you any advice, I would say to observe your children closely, and stay flexible. Each child may need different things. The same child may need different things at different times. Prioritize your child's growth and development as a whole person. With every child, but especially with 2e learners, there will be moments when something besides academic development is a more urgent need. Actually, becoming a healthy human is always a more urgent need! Academics and intellectual development are just one component of health. If you need to put academics on the back burner because something else is currently more critical, it's okay--you can get back to it at some point. There's more than one way to do nearly everything. Finally, a child who knows they are loved, knows how to love, is growing, is healthy, is happy--is enough. Look at what helps your children to be this version of themselves, and what are impediments, and that will tell you what you need to address.

Welcome Vagee!

The most important piece of perspective is that this test is a screening measure. It's not intended to diagnose giftedness or delay--just to sort out who might benefit from further evaluation with a more comprehensive assessment. Note that the cutoff for GT at this age is >92, but the max score is only 100. So the space in which to spread everyone from 120 to 220 is only 8 points. This is by design, since the primary purpose of the instrument is to identify young children at risk, so they can have access to early intervention and remediation. The at-risk cut-off is 71--so almost 3/4 of the range is reserved for possible delays.

So in answer to your three questions:

1. Neither. The screening score and the behaviors simply suggest watching and possibly future evaluation.
2. Extremely common. Young children experience a wide range of growth trajectories across different domains of development, and further, are notoriously difficult to assess with any consistency. The usual rule of thumb is to consider cognitive measures more stable only beginning around age 9 or so.
3. Depends. My bias is always to start from observation in a very young child. Until you have a more nuanced read on when her skills are most accessible to her, evaluation will have a less promising return on investment, since there is a high likelihood that an unfamiliar examiner will not get optimal performance from her. TBH, none of the areas of inconsistency you've described seem out of the range for a child of her age. The level of support I would think appropriate is just that of attentive parenting.

Is there a time to evaluate? Of course there can be. (I'm a professional evaluator, so naturally I would think so!) I typically say that evaluations are warranted when
a) there is a question to be answered/problem to be solved (e.g., is there an obstacle to learning or development that appears to be present? are we questioning a disability of some kind?); or,
b) when it will aid in access to a necessary resource (e.g., higher-level classes, GT programming, specialized summer camps).

A few more thoughts on the "inconsistencies":
-One of my sibs habitually said, "I don't know" as a young child despite knowing answers that most would consider quite sophisticated, apparently because knowledge that is not comprehensive of all possibilities (in the universe! throughout all time!) is inadequate knowing. That sib was reading at 2.
-It may be that your DC is more socially-aware than some age-peers, and consequently more vulnerable to peer pressure at an age when many others are still just emerging from parallel play.
-The nature of variable engagement you describe is not uncommon in high cognitive and inquisitive learners, who typically have high intellectual stimulation needs. But it's also pretty typical of all small children. Keep in mind that kindergarten standards in most states expect students to manage 5-10 minutes of sustained listening.
-She is describing relatively slow retrieval fluency. At this age, I hesitate to ascribe it to any actual concerns, but it's probably worth keeping an eye on it.

You’re not wrong to be concerned—but you don’t need to panic or overhaul everything.

Right now, home enrichment is enough, especially since he’s happy and engaged. That’s a strong foundation. But the school is likely underestimating him because they’re equating ability with written output, which doesn’t work for kids with profiles like his (especially if Developmental Coordination Disorder is confirmed).

The key isn’t pushing for a “gifted label”—it’s pushing for small, practical adjustments:

Let him show knowledge verbally or digitally.
Reduce time pressure on writing.
Give access to more challenging thinking, even if output is limited. Space Waves

If he stays happy and stimulated, you’re in a good place. If he starts getting bored or frustrated, that’s when to push harder.

I was amazed by my child's concentration! Instead of the initial goal of 10 questions, they managed to answer a whopping 278. What I liked most was that they are building confidence from the most basic knowledge before tackling more difficult challenges.

Yeah. The funding environment is very different from past generations. Back in the day, you applied to a program, and if accepted, funding was taken care of by the department for your first year, while you had the time to sample and get to know PIs in the department (some programs have historically done rotations the first year). It wasn't critical to have studied up on the potential PIs (which DC actually did--read through each one's most recent half-dozen publications, and then specifically referenced their research interests in the admissions essays).

I agree that there are pros and cons either way with the name school vs just-respectable school path. In our case, I think DC benefited from being a big fish in a small pond, because every recommender had a lot of specific and in-depth knowledge as a result of the opportunities that were not just available, but for which DC was actively recruited. (One mentor kept tossing scholarship opportunities this way, to the point that DC felt embarrassed about having to somehow bring up that between living at home and a full scholarship, there really wasn't anything to use the scholarships on--and there were other kids who needed them a lot more.) This amount of personal attention and faculty investment would have been pretty hard to come by at a larger and more competitive school.

But for some students, the name school is the first time they have an environment that fits them intellectually, not so much because of the level of instruction, but because of the peer group. That alone can be invaluable. Different situation and level, but I can remember students at my work who came from significantly disadvantaged backgrounds (on multiple levels) for whom a big plus about coming to our school with its mixture of very diverse communities was meeting peers for whom college and financial responsibility (let alone many other aspects of life) were viewed not aspirationally, but as a given. Never having encountered any adults who had successfully traveled those paths, it was not only hard for them to imagine living that life themselves, it was hard to even voice these as goals when many of the peers from their home communities actually ridiculed or discouraged them from pursuing them.

Persevering in your goals and dreams is hard enough for young adults without having to do it alone, or even with opposition. I think the college environment is sometimes as critical in that respect as it is in the educational content and experiences conveyed.

There have definitely been changes over the decades in institutional attitudes regarding early entry and grade skipping. Back in the 60s and early 70s, most districts had an established system for determining who could early enter K/1 or whole-grade skip, with no particular obstacles to using it. But then, most districts also routinely retained students who were learning disabled. So obviously social skills and developmental level were not highly prioritized in either direction at the time.

(And I also effectively skipped fourth on a school change, into a school that placed students by low-mid-high across two grade level clusters--so effectively four-plus possible placement levels for any student in the cluster.) One of the unintended consequences of mandated state-wide testing has been flattening these different options, as schools focus more on making sure as many students as possible meet expectations on the state test. Allowing double-promotion takes high scoring students out of that grade's pool, and potentially lowers their scores in the receiving grade from advanced to grade-level, which is disadvantageous to the building's accountability numbers.

So social skills are not the only factor even now.

Frameist, the data indicate you are not alone. Research on grade acceleration overwhelmingly finds that most who were accelerated would do it again, despite any negative sequelae, and that most matched peers who were not accelerated regret that they were not. (Of course, there are always exceptions, whose experiences are just as valid for them, but these are the group data.)

As it happens, I agree that trading off GPA for appropriate instructional challenge is quite reasonable and even preferable. Learning that natural giftings plus effort equals growth is a pretty critical lesson that many GT learners do not experience until much later in life, if at all.

And my point regarding child responsibility is simply that one need not take ownership of decisions that were taken out of one's hands. In my opinion, decisions that involve minors are ultimately the responsibility of the adults, both by statute and morally.

My own experience with acceleration was much as you propose, although not so much for the purpose of getting out earlier, but simply to be in the zone of proximal development with regard to academic placement and rate of learning. I did not actually reach the point where instructional challenge required learning EF skills until graduate school, and did not actually learn to exercise those EF skills until my third round of graduate studies, with assistance from motivation and frontal lobe development (which continues well into one's 20s).

Welcome, ardenwood! (And apologies, lepa, that no one responded to your original post.)

I very much hope the VMI did not cost as much as $1000 per administration, even in your pricey area! Depending on how many components were administered and how quickly the student worked, 30 minutes might be generous. But I'm glad it was helpful for your DC's evaluation.

There are other types of dysgraphia, some of which would be better served by other instruments or more comprehensive evaluations, such as by an occupational therapist (if the concern is mainly fine-motor), or in academics, in various aspects of written expression (various types of professionals can do this). Executive functions--which are often impacted in the diagnoses reported by the OP--are also a factor for both mechanics and expressive aspects of writing. For example, self-monitoring errors and dysregulated attention both can explain inconsistent use of punctuation and capitalization, as well as spelling errors. Planning/organizing weaknesses can generate the difference between strong brief writing products and weaker extended writing products. EF would be best evaluated by a psychologist. Communication disorders can also impact written expression, at the level of the actual language being generated, even before it reaches the page, and would best be evaluated by a speech language pathologist.

Bottom line, there are many possible causes of writing weaknesses, some of which are in the category of dysgraphia proper. Among those, there are multiple types of dysgraphia. Appropriate remediation depends on accurate identification of the cause of writing weakness--which also requires an appropriately comprehensive evaluation of all suspected areas of challenge. Sometimes you just happen to pick the right area on the first try, but not always. (Your evaluator probably identified it more quickly because they also had WISC data and the accompanying clinical observations.)

Welcome NT! So sorry no one seems to have seen this earlier.

We do not have a child with this exact profile, but several other posters here do. And yes, this is pretty common.

If diagnosis is of specific value in your situation, have Ehlers-Danlos or other ligament laxity syndromes been discussed? Those are often overlapping with the symptoms you've described. In any case, good to hear that you have access to therapies with or without a diagnosis.

As to why? Many schools view significant impact on function entirely through the lens of grade-level expectations, so a student whose intellectual potential is well above average is still not viewed as underperforming, because they are keeping up with ... grade-level expectations. In some regions, this is actually codified in regulations regarding educational disabilities.

First, the updated norms:

2025 NWEA MAP norms update, with data from 2022-2024. This is the mass of data, with practically everything you could possibly want to know--but you might have to dig for it:

https://www.nwea.org/resource-center/white-paper/88182/MAP-Growth-Norms_NWEA_Technical-Manual.pdf/

Quick reference/cut sheet:

https://www.nwea.org/resource-cente...norms-quick-reference_NWEA_onesheet.pdf/

Secondly, to your specific question: it is possible that this is reflects the updated norms. It is possible that it reflects the reduction in support. It is also possible that it simply reflects standard error and/or regression to the mean, and his ordinal position in the right-most tail of the norms, where a very tiny change in raw score can result in a relatively large change in percentile. I would suspect, based on the absence of significant test accommodations for most high-cognitive EF-weak learners, that this is not a reflection of lower support, since his test conditions probably did not change, and the material on the test is very likely below his level of optimal instruction (hence less affected by his instructional environment).

Thirdly, to your not-a-question-more-like-a-comment: that, sadly, is a common aggravation encountered by many learners with EF challenges, gifted or not gifted. So sorry to hear this.

And finally, did they move your DC to a 504 accommodation plan for ADHD? Even if he no longer demonstrates a need for specialized instruction, specialized accommodations are a separate question. The disability is still present and probably still acknowledged. If you can get a 504 in place, one of the options we've used in our building is essential assignments only, with EF-forward or repetitious skills reinforcement tasks excused.

Many gifted individuals experience intense mental activity throughout the day. Constant curiosity, deep thinking, and the tendency to analyze everything can be both a strength and a challenge. While this level of engagement often leads to creativity and innovation, it can also result in mental fatigue if the brain rarely gets a moment of rest.

One simple technique that has helped me is intentionally taking short “visual breaks.” Instead of checking social media or reading more information, I step away from stimulating content for a few minutes. Looking at a calm, empty screen or simply giving my eyes a rest can surprisingly help reset my focus.

Recently I found a minimalist tool that provides exactly that kind of pause: https://blackscreen.space
. It’s just a clean black screen, but it works well for brief meditation, eye relaxation, or even reducing light distraction when thinking through complex problems.

For people with highly active minds, these small breaks can make a big difference. Sometimes the best way to process complex ideas is to give the brain a quiet moment before returning to the challenge with fresh clarity.