Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums Identification, Testing & Assessment "Is there a test for giftedness?"

So, I'm curious about anyone else's perception of this statement from our school district's GT FAQ page:

"Is there a test for giftedness?
There is no single test for giftedness. A �body of evidence� is used to determine a child�s potential. In this manner, no single test is the gatekeeper for gifted identification. Though, historically, IQ tests have been used in identifying gifted learners, because of the diversity of the students in our schools, a body of evidence is a much more equitable approach to identification."

Basically, without the achievement piece, a kid isn't going to be considered gifted regardless of IQ b/c the body of evidence requires achievement as one piece. This isn't new info in re to how they ID gifted, but if I'm honest, I'd have to say that I do think that there is a test for giftedness and it is an IQ test. I don't like their hedging which makes it sound like IQ isn't necessarily an indicator of giftedness and that it also isn't necessary to be gifted.

The "body of evidence" model is used in some schools in our sd. They use it in the Title 1 schools because gifted poor students are sometimes missed with the tests (group tests) they use here for identifying gifted students. All first graders are tested here, and I guess individual IQ tests are impractical. I don't know a lot about the body of evidence they gather, but at least some is based on teacher observations.

What test is used to determine level of creativity for children that exbit creative genuis?

True, they are imperfect. I guess that my issue is that high IQ isn't considered necessary to be gifted and having a high IQ doesn't necessarily indicate that one is gifted in their estimation. Does that seem reasonable?

That and achievement is considered necessary to be ided as gifted. No matter what other pieces the child has, if the achievement in the 95th percentile+ isn't there, the child cannot be ided as gifted. That seems to be a recipe for identifying high achieving kids as gifted and leaving out all of the underachieving and twice exceptional gifted kids.

I'm not sure, but they do have some sort of creativity test that they use.

I'd like to see that the body of evidence includes anything that is a positive indicator but that any "negatives" do not rule a child out. So a high IQ would be a positive, you're in. Very high achievement, check- you're in! Demonstration of extreme abilities in creative pursuits, check- you're in! Teacher observations (by more than one, I've seen single observations be too tainted), check- you're in!

Unfortunatly, it works usually that high achievement is THE indicator of whether or not a child will be successful in a school's GATE program. Not whether or not they're gifted.

I can see that gatekeeping of some kind is needed, because lots of people want their kids to be in the gifted program, but I'm uncomfortable (as a parent of a 2E) with any one measure being used.

I would definitely not like to see IQ used as the only measure; achievement does seem more important to me. But I agree with CAMom that that can't be the only measure either. Ideally the school should look carefully at what each kid needs (with the parents' help) and make sure the needs are met.

If you're talking mainly about classroom groupings, if a child can achieve at the level that's necessary to function well in an accelerated classroom (with or without supports appropriate to their disability if they have one), then they probably belong there. I don't care if a kid's IQ is "only" 129 and they don't make the cutoff; if they can do the work in a particular subject happily and well, schools should group them so they get the appropriate work for them. They should pay attention to the actual functioning and potential of the child, not only to the numbers.

It seems to me that most school programs won't ever have a whole class that addresses the needs of PG kids, because the sheer numbers of kids aren't usually there-- so offering a class to meet the MG-HG pool's needs, along with any outliers who can keep up there, and then grade accelerating PG kids to meet their rarer and more specific needs is a reasonable strategy in many school settings. It won't meet everybody's needs perfectly, but IF the school were ideally flexible about planning for individual kids (ahem) it could be OK.

DeeDee

Achievement is not the only piece, it is just a required piece. I'm not balking b/c my kid has been excluded just b/c I have an issue with achievement being required. (Dd does have a GT id and advanced class placment.) You can get in with a 95th percentile+ grade level achievement score plus an "aptitude" test (they'll take IQ or CogAT here) or a teacher behavioral recommendation. Thus, if you've got behavioral characteristics and IQ, that's not going to do it, but if you have behavioral characteristics and top 5% achievement per grade level, you're in.

I imagine that they'd consider above level achievement as well although dd's EXPLORE scores didn't seem to be looked at in her ID even though math and science more than qualified.

A gifted ID also does not guarantee access to advanced coursework or any service anymore, which is concerning to me. The same FAQ states, "Advanced classes require evidence of high achievement. Gifted identification looks at scores in the area of achievement, aptitude and behaviors in the 95th percentile. While sometimes these scores overlap, an advanced class might have different criteria than gifted identification. Because advanced classes have a faster pace and require a student to go deeper into the content, certain skills and characteristics (such as work habits, attendance, past performance, and motivation) are considered before enrollment in an advanced course."

Again, maybe an advanced class isn't the best fit for certain underachieving and 2E kids, but what else are you going to do for them? In dd10's school, there are a lot of high achieving kids in the accelerated math and reading classes (about 20% of the 5th graders are in GT reading) where there are some 2E kids with verbal IQ scores in the 99th+ who are in the regular reading class with nothing extra being offered b/c they aren't high achieving. That really doesn't rub me right.

Paul Torrence developed a test for creativity that is considered the gold standard in tests for creativity. Creative Intellingence, CI. is a defining factor on being highly gifted.