Some other people like to use grade level
like MG: 1-2 grade ahead
HG 3-4,EG 5,PG 6....etc, just rough guid
I realize that you aren't the one who came up with this estimation, but I'm really not comfortable with defining LOG like this. It is clear that a child who is working 5-6 yrs above grade level is probably quite bright, but I am not sure that all children who are 1-2 yrs above grade level are even MG. There are a lot of bright avg kids who could easily read or do math for a grade or two up. And my dd11, who is not EG or PG as far as I can tell, has easily read over 6 grades above her grade level consistently from 2nd-6th grade (when they stopped testing reading level) even with a grade skip.
Actually, I'd really hate to see a parent look at this guide and think that a kid who is reading 4 or 5 grades above level is HG+. Dd has friends who barely squeaked by into TAG programming with repeated tests of the CogAT, OLSAT, and WISC and finally got in with a lot of test prep and low to mid 90s on the verbal part of one of the group tests (but not even close on the WISC). These kids do test above grade level by 3-4 grades on reading.
Is Ruf referring to a composite score on an individual achievement test like the WIAT or WJ rather than being that far ahead in one subject? That would make more sense and probably be more accurate. My dd11, for instance,
was about 3-4 grades above level on the composite score on the WJ in 2nd grade, which would line up with HG, where I believe she falls. Her scores ranged from barely at grade level on her weaker areas to a grade equivalency of 18+. I do believe that the spread would be less now a days as she has evened out somewhat and is above grade level in all subjects as well as being older so having an 18+ is less impressive in her strengths.
