Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums Identification, Testing & Assessment Defining PG

HK, yes.

This is also why we have not tested any of ours. I know it probably sounds contrary coming from a professional evaluator, but we haven't seen any reason -to- test. We've been blessed to have had settings and opportunities that allowed our children to have their needs met as whole people, and to have the flexibility to change those settings when they no longer met their needs.

If we had been in circumstances where we had to rely on the public school system, we might have made different decisions about testing. Or not.

I and my siblings were all tested as children, most of us multiple times. I think those tests had value, as they did affect access to resources (and, in some cases, contributed to basic research). We have not yet encountered a situation where testing would either affect access to resources for our children, or contribute anything significant to the body of knowledge.

Me too! I am in Nelson, where are you? Mind you ds7's teacher told me he wasn't doing anything different because of a piece of paper and if I didn't like it take to my MP. Ds7 has almost recovered from that teacher I think.

I've seen various definitions of what the numbers mean, so the "PG label" seems to depend to a certain degree upon who you ask and what test was used.

For us, the reason for testing our DC was ALL about access to the resources. Testing in our schools is somewhat inevitable, anyway, if you have a high achiever who needs more challenging classes. If you do not consent to testing, your child does not get an opportunity to be considered for G&T classes, as achievement is only one factor. Also, applying for resources like DYS is easier with testing in hand.

As parents, we literally had the opposite situation - placement and access to resources depended almost entirely on achievement. Therefore, we were never tested.

Our DD was tested but only because we wanted to understand why she went from being a very popular leader in preK to a socially isolated 2nd grader and being 'gifted' was a possible explanation. We didn't think that DD was particularly bright but wanted to eliminate it as an explanation for her situation.

By the Hoagies WISC IV stuff our DD is either HG (FSIQ=143) or PG (GAI=158) given that the tester stated that the GAI was probably the best estimate of her intelligence) - extended norms were not used. However, using the GAI feels like cheating. Additionally, like Magog, I sometimes feel that our DD belongs in the LH tail rather than the RH one. I also think that about myself these days too especially after a tough week - LOL.

Testing was a good thing for our DD because her WISC IV and WJ-III numbers meant that when analysed further using the IOWA Acceleration Scale it was relatively easy to present our case to her SD and get her skipped a grade. Skipping a grade took her out of a toxic situation and the contrast between her pre/post skip attitude to school was night and day. It also got her into the 'G&T' program at a local state College which has allowed her to make friendships with other bright kids her age.

Overall, I feel uncomfortable with the term 'gifted' (I vividly remember cringing the first time I heard the word) let alone (M|H|E|P)G and tend to describe my DD as 'bright'.

Another definition of profoundly gifted is described here, in discussing the rarity of these kids in the population. This article does not include the comparison of scores between different tests, although the score comparisons are helpful to keep in mind.

Here's also a recent thread on identifying levels of gifted, especially PG.

This link includes a chart comparing: high achievers, gifted learners, creative thinkers.

sunny Chch :-)and just enrolled DD in school this morning so that will be interesting. So far so good re the relationship. My SIL sent her HG kid there and reckons she sorted them out for us...

Hope it works. Some schools are better than others. Ours is supposedly one of the better ones here but I have to be more careful about teachers.

Puffin, just sent you a PM