Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums GT Research Exceptionally gifted children by Miraca Gross

Ratio IQs aren't normally distributed. The gifted literature based on them seems to both know and not know that at the same time; the sources will give rarity tables based on the normal curve to talk about how rare and special HG+ people are, and then in the same breath say there are a lot more HG+ people in the population than anyone expects. (And this is why no one outside the gifted field takes this literature seriously, IMO.)

The bright side of this is that the situation (for finding like-minded peers) is not anywhere near as dire as that literature makes it seem. We're outliers, but not that level of outliers. I've run into several PG people without looking for them.

Your child is not alone in wanting to think about some interesting math before bedtime! Bedtime Math

When formal education is complete, or one may be taking a pause to work in a field and earn additional tuition dollars, there are often professional organizations one can join and certifications one can earn.

I'm a strong believer in lifelong learning.

Yes. They are achievement measures, but since what one is often advocating for is access to further academic tasks, they do have relevance. And since every school acceleration involves a curriculum, measuring how one performs in the actual curriculum to be used is likely the most straightforward way of predicting whether one will perform well in the same curriculum. Also, unlike the norm-referenced achievement measures we usually discuss here, they are not transformations of age- or grade-based z-scores. They are actually what we call criterion-referenced measures, where the intent is not to determine one's ordinal standing in the population, but to determine if a specified set of learning standards has been mastered. This has direct relevance for instructional placement decisions, as schools can say with confidence that a student demonstrates mastery of the (say) grade two math curriculum, which is the prerequisite for advancing to the grade three math curriculum. On standard score-based achievement tests, the design is typically to sample skills sufficient to determine one's rank order in the norm population, without necessarily indicating which skills are mastered, and which are gaps. That's why they are not recommended for progress monitoring.

I understand your frustration regarding high fluid reasoning and how that applies to academic placement, but one also needs to consider that the tasks for which one advocates may or may not be well-aligned with fluid reasoning strengths. Honestly, moving up to third or fourth grade math is not going to result in much of a fluid reasoning bump. What you are describing is more like advocating for math advancement based on math ability. The school is countering based on grade-level achievement (which is, of course, directly and likely causally related to lack of above-grade-level math instruction). But since you've introduced her to some of the concepts that she wouldn't necessarily have been able to derive vocabulary for, and the remaining math skills in elementary are essentially all variations and extensions of the four basic arithmetic functions, working her way through math placement tests would, in fact, be a way of demonstrating to the school, in their language, that she has above-grade level math achievement, and thus above-grade-level math instructional needs.

If, instead, they do recognize her above-grade-level math skills, and the issue is that they feel no obligation to instruct any child above the top of the grade level curriculum, then you have a thornier philosophical and advocacy obstacle before you.

And, as a technical note, PP's comments regarding not using interpretations like top 1 in 10,000 with the SBLM are correct. You can only use ordinal descriptors (standing in the population) of performance with deviation IQs. Not ratio IQs like the SBLM.

Thanks for the well-though out, and reasoned comment. I appreciate it.

Does Dr. Gross' book not provide somewhat of empirical evidence to the benefits of acceleration based on the LM? After all, this seems to be the only test she cites for these children whom she follows longitudinally.

As far as placement, my DD did place a couple of grade levels above on the Woodcock, but as you say, I do have an advocacy obstacle ahead of me. They're not open to advancement period. We'll probably just changes schools yet again. It's pretty frustrating. We used the LM as back up, but they insist their "project sharing" curriculum is enough.

One comment to something you say regarding mastering grade levels. To me, that sounds like linear progression. I don't mean this in any sort of snide way, but if a kid has a desire to learn algebra (is intrigued by variables and symbols, etc) and is sick and tired of having to do number lines to show addition and subtraction, why hold her back? Can't she go back and learn the number lines later?

Thanks again. I love reading your insight.

I don't expect any IQ test to produce a 'normal' or Gaussian curve because many factors influence or impact intellectual function. If a measurable outcome is affected by multiple factors, I'd expect a log Gaussian curve. If the magnitude of the effects of these factors on the measurable outcome are very different and there is genetic clustering, I'd expect a nonparametric curve. I suspect that the actual distribution of intellectual function in the general population would predominantly resemble a log Gaussian curve with non parametric waves which would be more evident in the long right tail of the log Gaussian curve. Both of these would explain why there are far more HG, EG & PG individuals than predicted by a test which assumes the population is normally distributed.

When I first found this website 9 years ago I was looking to support a different child. "Least Worst" resonated profoundly with me back then. And was actually quite a useful tool in negotiating a single skip for that child...

When school staff would ask variations on the theme of "Do you think that is a good idea?.. What if..?"

I would say "Well no, I am not sure it's a good idea, but in this situation that we are talking about, there are not good choices, only the least worst option, and this seems to be it."

Usually this would lead to blinking and mumbling and a complete inability to respond. It was never clear whether this meant that they agreed or were simply unable to devise a counter offer of what else might be the least worst thing.

Part of their problem would have been that I had just aligned myself with the school in agreeing with them that my proposal was not necessarily appealing, certain to succeed, or a marvelous idea, and yet I was still firmly proposing it. I had also effectively framed the current situation as WORSE than this "least worst" proposal. Acceleration was not "good" it was "the least worst thing" I could think of and the ball was in their court to come up with some other solution that was less bad than the current situation OR acceleration. I would then follow this up with all the ways I had already devised to reverse the skip later, should that be needed.

I have also used this phrase years down the track to shut down unhelpful reflections by school staff on that past grade skip and it's possible down sides. "Least Worst" has immediately refocused them on the reality that nothing is perfect and we would have been sitting there, but discussing WORSE problems without the acceleration.

I had never stopped and considered how useful this phrase has been to me, it wasn't a consciously executed plan to manipulate school staff. Rather, I had a rather sudden realization when reading Cricket3's post, as all of our more successful moments from meetings related to acceleration have coalesced in my mind.



I too now have one at uni, and I can't really look back and see that we could have done anything differently. It was a long hard road of negotiating and advocating that really only proved to have been successful/worthwhile in the final year of schooling and subsequent progression to an undergraduate degree that is exactly right fit for them.

I have one in highschool, with a single acceleration, and regrets that we didn't do things differently. Extra curricular activities "saved" this child, possibly quite literally, they were so shut down and closed off. Their extracurricular strength has lead first to becoming more themselves again, then a scholarship at an elite private school, and most recently to entrance to a highly selective specialist high school in their area of interest, their currently placement fairly much guarantees a tertiary placement in that area (unless they massively screw up). This is a good thing, not only because they love the path they are on, but also because I am not sure that academics will ever fully recover from our not finding them a better solution through the first 6-7 years of schooling. If academics do recover it is only like to be post secondary schooling, if some new opportunity provides the interest and motivation. In many ways this child, who we have regrets about not doing more for academically, who is significantly underachieving academically, is our only child where we can say their current educational situation is the best possible placement we can imagine for them. It's NOT the least worst thing we could do, it's the very best path they could forge for themselves. Sometimes the path forward is utterly unexpected.

And then there is the child that has brought me back to this group more recently, they are currently homeschooled, recovering from 5.5 yrs of schooling that we have deep, deep regrets about. This was our child we thought would be "easy" to school, would fly through school and be socially and academically successful, and instead has been so harmed by the system and our failure to do enough (soon enough). Of all of our children we feel this one "needs" all the things that people use as arguments about why schools are better than homeschooling... by homeschooling we helping them heal and get what they need academically, but we are currently in the "least worst" scenario for this one too.

Thanks for the post mumofthree. It really made me think also. DD is now in 10th grade and I started on this forum in preschool. As a domineering helicopter parent, I thought I could control, even with least worst options. And now things are not as I planned. I should have done the grade skip but it coincided with a lot of home upheaval. Moving from NYC and the death of her father. So that didn't happen, but everything worked out eventually, despite my best efforts to control, DD is very strong and controlling her own outcomes. Making choices I never saw coming. But are turning out to be better strategic options for her long term goals. So despite my efforts to make sure she had the better options, she sometimes found the best options that were not even on my radar. It feels weird to spend years trying to make sure they get what they need, that now it is time to step back and let them make choices and control the process and they will find what they need.

I am sure that AEH will have a better response, but what I would say is that Dr. Gross clearly outlines is that for measurably exceptional or profoundly gifted children there is clear empirical evidence for the benefits of acceleration, academically AND socially, evidence of the difficulty in dealing with educators AND (importantly) evidence for the risks of NOT accelerating (or otherwise providing adequate education).

Her argument is that measurably exceptional or profoundly gifted children are not "spurters" and do not "level out" - unless you willfully suppress their development. Their chances of growing up to be socially well adjusted are inherently tied to their successful intellectual development (relative to their personal potential, specifically not their adequate intellectual development relative to their age peers).

The SBLM is the tool that she had available to her at the time with which to measure... The SBLM is no longer an acceptable tool with which to measure (30 years later). Newer tests have not been designed with gifted children in mind, they are frustrating for experts and parents of gifted children (especially at the tails). But they are the only tools we have that will hold any sway with schools in terms of IQ / "potential" or "ability", the gift vs. the talent, as Gagne would say. Despite the frustrations with newer tests, there ARE children who are scoring at the extreme tails of the WISC-V, extended norms have been made available. That said, it seems that most organisations serving the "profoundly gifted" will simply accept an IQ score of 145+ on a modern measure, as there is no SBLM replacement today.

One of the issues in how differently the SBLM and modern tests work for gifted children seems to be, from my inexpert reading, that the SBLM did not really weight processing speed or working memory the way modern tests do, AND did not penalise a child with a specific strength. From what I understand a globally gifted child could do very well, but a less globally gifted child with a massive verbal or math spike could also do very well. And there was only one final number to describe that outcome, regardless of what their personal strength was, or how "even" they were. On more modern measures children who can score 160+ on FSIQ will be extraordinarily rare, as so few are uniformly gifted in all areas of modern test (including WM and PS). But the WISC-V does provide multiple ways of describing a child with a significant strength in a particular domain and many (most?) relevant program are using these options as acceptable measures of giftedness (VECI, NVI, EFI, GAI, EGAI, QRI, etc)

Tests of achievement are many and varied. Gross used multiple forms of achievement testing in her book too. She repeatedly references school's utter unwillingness to acknowledge children's strengths even in light of both IQ AND achievement measures such as the SAT. Though, from what I understand, not being American, the SAT was also a proxy for IQ 30 years ago, much more so than it is today.

To be clear, I am, in many if not most cases, an advocate for acceleration for learners of high cognitive ability. (Not surprisingly, when the life outcomes related to acceleration for myself, many members of my family in my generation, and in my children's generation have been notably positive on balance.)

However, advocacy should be based on sound evidence, and also tends to be most effective when it communicates in a language comprehensible to the decision-makers. So while Gross' case studies (as well as Benbow's similar studies using the out-of-level SAT as a proxy for cognition) provide evidentiary support for acceleration based on cognition as a general approach, they don't necessarily work when attempting to convince current decision-makers that cognitive assessments based on a completely different design establish a need for acceleration to a specific academic level. I am not saying that this is necessarily a justifiable response, simply that it is a frequent and not unnatural response.

For my own part, I think the data are clear that acceleration as a strategy is more effective than not for HG+ learners (at the group level; obviously, individual outcomes will vary), but I do not think the data are nearly as clear that specific academic placement decisions (e.g., math or reading level) can be made based purely on cognition. Many factors besides cognition affect academic achievement and classroom performance, including the presence/absence of other exceptionalities, executive functions, social skills, other soft skills. In a more-or-less traditional school setting, these factors have to be considered in placement decisions. If, of course, an educational setting allows for fully scaffolding the other factors, then one can advance more purely based on what turns out to be cognition. (Viz, homeschooling.)

And another technical note: although it became extensively associated with GT research through Terman himself and subsequent researchers, the SBLM was not designed for GT populations either (consider that Terman designed the scale with the assumption that cognitive development tops out at age sixteen, and Binet, of course, originally designed it for the other tail, to demonstrate that intellectually impaired children were educable). It's not really superior to contemporary instruments in design--just different.

And yet another note: the SBLM specifically may, for some educators, trigger some negative impressions, due to Terman's views on eugenics, gender identification, and gender roles, which generally conformed to those of the era in which he lived.