Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums Identification, Testing & Assessment 2 deviations away from the norm

I'm trying to clarify a point that helps to advocate for gifted kids, so I can tell my husband this. Can someone clarify the information below?

I thought I read somewhere that a child 2 deviations away from the norm was really far from the other students and a gifted child needs the help just like a child on the other side of the bell curve. Educators understand the otherside of the bell curve because these kids really need help. What would the 2 deviations below the norm be? Does this comparision help clarify the need? I don't think I would bring this up with school. Would you agree?

I remember reading (I don't know where) that a child with an I.Q. of 130 (or whatever, 130 would be about 2 SDs) is as different from a child with an average I.Q. of 100 as an average child is from a child with an I.Q. of 70 (2 SDs below average - below which used to be defined as "retarded").

I'm willing to be corrected on this, but I think this is a very silly argument. First off, just on the surface it seems to defy common sense. Second, I.Q. tests are normed to create a normal distribution. That doesn't mean that what they are trying to explain when they measure "intelligence" is actually normally distributed. IOW, I.Q. is designed to be normally distributed, but that doesn't mean intelligence is.

Frankly, I was really surprised to see this statement in a published source but maybe I'm missing something. I look forward to seeing other opinions.

A kid with a 130 IQ is to normal kids as a kid who can do a 4.5 40 yard dash is to normal kids or who can throw a football 80 yards is to normal kids.

If a kid with an arm like that or legs like that wanted to play football or baseball or track, would you put him in with ND kids or move him to a top youth team? What if he specifically wanted to play on that top youth team?

It doesn't make a heck of a lot of sense with percentile-based IQs, but it does if you remember that IQs used to be ratio-based. So, someone with an IQ of 130 would have a mental age 30% more than his or her chronological age, and a person with an IQ of 70 would have a mental age 30% less than his or her chronological age. In terms of mental age, there would be a similar difference. A ten year old with a 130 IQ would have a mental age of thirteen, and a ten year old with an IQ of 70 would have a mental age of seven. They're both 3 years away from their chronological age and would, theoretically, need a similar degree of differentiation.

Now, how well the old ratio IQs correlate to the current percentile IQs (or how stable they might be over time) is anyone's guess. I couldn't begin to speculate.

I think this is interesting so I tried to find information about the distribution of ratio I.Q. scores, but there wasn't much easily available on the internet. I saw one item that referenced them being "roughly" Gaussian.

But let's go with the ratio idea - take 3 hypothetical 6 year-olds with I.Q.s of 150, 100, and 50. One has a "mental" age of 9, one of 6, and one of 3. It seems to be that the 9 year-old and the 6 year-old are going to be closer in ability than the six year-old and the 3 year-old.

If we're only talking about mental age (i.e., we're leaving fine & gross motor skills out of it), I'm not sure I agree.

Take reading. A typical 3 year old will be learning pre-reading skills and a typical preschool classroom will be focused on basic skills like enjoying books and learning the alphabet song. A typical 6 year old will be learning to sound out simple words and a typical 1st grade classroom will be focused on decoding skills. A typical 9 year old will already be a fluent reader, and a typical 4th grade classroom will be much more focused on content. They are three distinct stages, and I am equally horrified at the thought of that ND 6 year old struggling to learn in a classroom of kids who are fluent readers as I am at the thought of a ND 3 year old struggling to learn in a classroom of kids who are already sounding out words. (Of course, the 3 year old is much more likely to be running around like a whirlwind than attempting to learn, but then we're getting into emotional/social age. )

Just to be perfectly clear, I'm not invested in this idea. I'm really not sure what I think just yet.

And don't forget, this doesn't really apply to today's IQ tests, since they are not about mental age at all. It is an outdated approach that has been rejected.

I'm not sure about this either - but while I agree with what you are saying in terms of classroom activities and reading levels, that's not really what the ratio I.Q.s measure, is it? I think you are talking more about acquired skills. The different age kids will have different readiness levels, but that's partially experiential? If you took all three ages and exposed them to a mental activity none of them had any prior experience with (yes, I am stretching), I think the gap would be larger between the six year-old and the three year-old. My gut (and it's only my gut, I can't back it up) is that a six year-old has a lot more in common with a nine year-old than a three year-old.

Again, I'm not convinced about any of this and I'm not trying to be argumentative. I think the premise bothers me because it's basically saying "A 130 I.Q. child has as much in common with an average child as an average child has in common with a retarded child." And since it's a safe assumption that most people's kids are pretty close to average.....well, it's just not something I would recommend saying, especially if it's not entirely accurate (maybe it is, I'm not convinced yet). I'm imagining the parent of a child with a 130 I.Q. going into the child's school (which might be in a highly educated community where the average I.Q. is 115, not 100) and making this statement. Don't think it would go over well.

I realize that it has illustrative power, I just think there are more accurate (and more sensitive) ways to get the point across.

I agree with what you are saying Jane but I think you are only looking at it from a social perspective. Sure many 9 and 6 year olds can play together. They may follow complex rules, play a game of tag, understand when to stop etc- far better than a 3 year old would be able to follow the game. But it's a rare 9 year old that has the patience to work on an academic project with a 6 year old.

Now add in that we're talking about a theoretical 9 year old, who is actually 6 and doesn't like slowing down for his friends, helping others always or spending 80% of his time rehashing information he already knows. This child either gets frustrated by the constant drag or begins to pretend that he doesn't know the information just so it's not his responsibility so often.

To take the analogy one step further. If you are the teacher and you have the same 9, 6 and 3 year old in class- you will likely group the 9 and 3 year old together because the 9 year old can help the 3 year old learn a LOT! Oh and it'll be good for the 9 year old too to learn some patience.

Dottie's right, a 3 deviation below child wouldn't likely be in a typical classroom full-time and if one were, s/he would have a full-time aid.

Maybe that's what I am missing, my kid needs a full-time aid! :-)

It's not often I get to disagree with you, Dottie, so I think I'd better take my opportunity. My insight comes from classes and discussions with one of the country's preeminent experts on mental retardation and the law. His opinion (and therefore mine) is that people in the mild mental retardation range often "pass" as normal, usually by covering up with behavioral issues.

I believe that the statement we're evaluating is meant to compare the experience of a gifted child in the regular classroom with the experience of a ND child in a classroom for kids with MR. In both cases the child will be getting very little from the class. In both cases the child will know all or virtually all the material before it is taught. In both cases the excessive time spent on the material will mean that the child is bored out of his or her mind.

As far as advocacy is concerned, I agree that this statement could be inflammatory, and should be avoided. Perhaps it might work to say something like, "My child is working 3 grade levels ahead of her current class. Keeping my child in this classroom would be like putting one of her classmates in a class 3 grade levels below his abilities. That just doesn't make sense."