Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums General Discussion Definitions

I just ordered & rec'd a booklet entitled "understanding the gifted child with attention deficit" from the folks who publish the 2e newsletter. (BTW, they have free shipping on all of their spotlight on 2e booklets through early November at this link: http://www.2enewsletter.com/Spotlight_on_2e_spcl_offer_nonsubrs_9-11.htm)

In any case, as I was starting to look @ the beginning of it, I see that they are defining gifted as 10-15% of the general population. A recent thread re being "partially gifted" brought a similar train of thought up for me b/c, if we include people with large strengths in one area, but who have composite IQs that are not in the range that would be considered "very superior" (2+ SDs above the mean), we are obviously going to have a much larger pool of people who are considered gifted.

On one hand, you have broader definitions like that. On the other hand, you have arguments like Jim Deslile's here: http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2010/03/31/27delisle_ep.h29.html
where he argues that,
and that we return to a more narrow definition of gifted.

Since most of us here probably have kids who fit the more narrow definition of gifted (1-2 percent of the population), I am particularly interested in the thoughts of parents who have 'narrowly defined' gifted kids who are advocates of the broader definition of gifted.

The part of me that rankles against the broader definition is the part that sees the more narrowly defined kids not getting their needs as well met when they are lumped together with 10-15% of the population.

How narrow do you go for the narrow definition though? And what is the measuring scale?

There seem to be quite a few people around here with children (even children in the DYS program) who managed not to make it into some school or other's gifted program, because while their PRI or VCI is in the 1-in-a-thousand range their FSIQ isn't in the 2-in-a-hundred?

Oh, and while I actually have no clear cut opinion on the subject (GATE in our district is an unfunded joke) and am looking forward to the discussion you are starting, IMO anybody who thinks that 10% of a population represents the masses is seriously deluded.

There I'm just not sure and it is so much harder when you are dealing with a kid who is in the 99.9th on PRI or VCI and seriously lower on everything else such that neither his GAI nor FSIQ is at the 98th.

I guess that I was, overall, looking at a GAI or FSIQ around the 98th, but I'm not sure.
lol! I'm not sure that I'd call it the masses either, but I have seen where what amounts to 15% of the kids being GT identified (what we have locally) being something that is actually much broader than the sheer # would sound at face value. We could easily have most kids who are average and hard working identified at gifted b/c achievement plays so much into it. The only reason it is limited to 15% is b/c it is the kids with pushy parents or teachers who truly misunderstand the difference btwn, say, reading above grade level by a bit and giftedness who get pushed for ids. The less hard working kids are no less able. The kids with less pushy parents are no less able. However, they are less likely to be ided as gifted.

That's probably what you get when you are in a comparatively high socio-economic community -- if all the parents of your kids' classmates are doctors, lawyers and/or engineers there is indeed a strong possibility that more than half of them would reach the 1SD mark (which is what the 15%/85-th percentile is)? We get a lot of that around here...

Of course in such a context the normal classroom environment might be a correct fit for the 2SD child, who wouldn't be such an outlier -- pushing the gifted label up to 3SD from the norm?

OK, I'll stop

I wish the locals could just use their best efforts and their best judgement. If "every child would benefit from GATE instruction" then why aren't they using that instruction as the standard with remedial classes for the remainder? If a child's ready for more why should it take costly testing? (..accountability because we don't trust the teachers or the parents). Shouldn't the teacher know if a kid is teachable? And if it comes from the pushy parent or the child, whose child is it to raise? The only drawback is that if you let them try and they fail then it adds a year to the cost of their free public education. I guess I'm saying nobody would have to advocate special circumstances for gifted children except that nobody else really wants to do the work at an advanced level so they don't want anyone else to.
I guess I'm saying it doesn't matter if it's 10% or 2% if the only accommodations offered are easy for the top half of average. For meaningful differentiation for the 2%+ you need to have some local discretion between what the school can provide and what the kids family wants. More definition might lead to more restriction on what the school can provide and the upper level gifted really need more discretion on a local level to provide their education.
-signed, my whining wishful-thinking inner child.

I'm an advocate of every child getting instruction at their level and pace and having opportunities to learn and socialize with intellectual peers. Ideally, everyone should have a decent shot at being the top student in most of their coursework if - and only if - they work hard to master material that is cognitively challenging to them.

The further out from the mean of functioning you are, the harder it is going to be to find academic peers who are also age peers and emotional peers, and the more likely it is that this difficulty in finding people you can identify with who get your jokes and understand your questions and feelings will have social and emotional consequences. I don't think there is a hard IQ percentile cutoff for having the kinds of needs that we associate with the gifted. I think there is a gradient, and whether someone near the left hand side of the range will seem and feel different and need differentiated instruction really depends on the environment in which they find themselves.

We're actually not in a community like that at all. We have schools where most of the parents don't have significant education beyond high school where 15% of the kids are ided as gifted.

That aside, I do realize that I am derailing my own thread. I know that I have a pet peeve about overidentification of kids who often don't fit into even that 1 SD area.

I guess that what I was wondering more is how we, as parents of top 2% kids (on average, I'm assuming that this board draws in more parents of kids who are 2+ SD than 1+ SD), define gifted. I believe that I've seen a lot of threads that seem to lean toward a 1+ SD type of definition of gifted here and am wondering how most of us define gifted. We seem to have a clear understanding of what is DYS level gifted and that some of the kids whose parents post here don't have kids at that point, but still have gifted kids. There seems to be a less clear definition of what constitutes non-DYS level but still constitutes gifted.

A lot of these problems would be solved if we'd get rid of all this "gifted or not" stuff and just differentiate and concentrate on meeting kids where they are. I see so many problems with how this all is done. Barely squeaking in vs. not squeaking in, kids with anxiety who don't test well, pushy parents who tip the scales, kids with massive strengths in one area who can't make it into the program due to other deficits, even kids who have an unnatural knack for testing....argh.

I see getting rid of "grades" as a big part of the answer, but I suppose it'll never happen.

I just typed up a whole long post and lost it - but you have said it far more effectively than I did - hear, hear!

Yes, but...

I guess that I see this as a matter of labels not for the purpose of making things black and white but for the purpose of recognizing needs that are significantly different enough that they require special accommodation. It is similar to having an discussion of autistic or not. Sure, the label or word may not matter, but the reality is that some people fall far enough on a spectrum that they reach a point where they really differ from the norm.

I suppose that I am asking where that point is and I do realize that it varies depending on your area (do you live in a typical community, etc.).