Catching up here after I was referenced on page 7.
If you do not wish to have a post quoted, you may state so. I have now removed my link to your post.
However you have replicated the link in your post. From this point onward it is up to you as to whether you wish to maintain your link to that post, or edit your post to remove that link, and possibly also ask others who've replicated it to remove it... this would include Quantum2003 and George C.
We've been using that as a working definition for purposes of this discussion thread, due to the mention of both "Profoundly Gifted" and "145+" on the
DYS qualification pages, while also recognizing G/MG < HG < EG < PG, as summarized on
Hoagies webpage which lists 4 LOG, each with progressively higher FSIQ scores.
Google can lead you to believe that 141+ is PG (
source)...or 152+ (
source)...or 160+ (
source)...or even 180+ (
source). So which is it?
A couple of responses to this:
1) Google only amasses and replicates content on the web, it makes no attempt to convince a reader or "
lead you to believe" anything.
2) With the exception of the first source quoted,
which reports the same score for Exceptionally and Profoundly gifted ... All scores which you list as being found through google are 145 or above, therefore, in shorthand form: 145+.
3) As mentioned
upthread: The numbers will change when a different measurement instrument is utilized (for example, cm side of tape measure vs. inch side of tape measure), even when the same object is measured and found to be the same (equivalent) size.
My intention in applying wasn't to contaminate DYS with a not-PG kid.
I do not believe that anyone has expressed that DYS has been "contaminated". On the contrary, it has been stated multiple times: "Inclusion is great, so long as new populations do not supplant the profoundly gifted kiddos which Davidson set out to serve.
"
My intention was to find additional resources in best serving my kid. And I have achieved that. And I am pleased. Nobody but those that received her DYS application have seen her full written report, her tested grade-level equivalents, her supporting work samples, her nominator letter. I'm happy that DYS focused on the "whole child" when considering her application.
A few thoughts on this:
1) This is great.
2) As expressed upthread... and this is only a guess..
This would seem to indicate that scores just missing the cutoff (and within the standard error's confidence interval to include the cutoff score for eligibility) may be considered as eligible, depending upon the strength of other portions of the application...
Will I now have a wonderful additional resource in caring for her unique emotional and academic needs? Yup.
Excellent!
Given the broad range of PG definitions, and the even broader range of our kids' qualities/abilities, at the end of the day no two children--even with identical "scores"--are going to have identical needs.
Agreed.
