http://teachers.net/gazette/AUG08/haskvitz/


Top 10% is gifted? that's not 130 is it? Isn't it more like 120s?

I won't argue with that. I won't say 120 is not gifted. However, then we have to have a real discussion about level of giftedness and have the schools acknowledge it.

Now off to read the article. And thanks! This is great. Saturday morning reading interesting articles and drinking my coffee!

Okay, I'll really support that number, especially when it's used for a good cause.

I'm bookmarking that article to take in to my supposed meeting that is supposed to happen before school starts(feeling pessimistic ever?)

I think the fact that it is written by a teacher will give it more weight.

And thank you to all the teachers who are standing up and speaking out!

Our district uses a PR 92 as a cut off for gifted programming, so it's not too far off from the 90%. However, there is no talk or recognition of LOG.

I do think it's totally reasonable to use that number. Especially in the wake of NCLB. But definitely look at each kid as an individual and look at LOG.

I really like the Top 11 traits of a good teacher list.

I like my friend's program. They have a 3-4 tiered gifted program based on IQ and achievement scores.

At my friend's district, the top tier goes to a self-contained gifted magnet which is DYS level I believe.

Our new school is 128+ on the WISC and all achievement tests (grade level) must be over 95th percentile.

Our old school was teacher recommendation, so it was not regulated by grades, IQ or achievement testing.

I just went to a Summer Institute for the Gifted with keynote speaker Jim Webb. He said that the bell curve actually has a bump at about 150 level and there are more people in that category than the perfect bell would suggest. I think I believe this. Our PEGS program (>145) had 21 students in grades K-5 last year, and there were probably 1 or 2 who opted not to go. So, 22 kids (in specific age bracket) from a population of about 60,000 (and it's NOT a high tech, professional community where you might think that'd skew it). According to the statistics, I thought it should be more like 6 kids, right? Maybe we should really only be looking at the number of kids in the district (about 10,000) in which case it should be 1 kid. Or maybe I'm not remembering the projected frequency correctly.

Why is 146 considered PG and not EG?

Since the current tests we have can't really distinguish well at the tails, it's pretty arbitrary where the cut-off for each LOG is. But I'm with Dottie: I'd go with DYS requirements since they are an accepted expert on PG kids.

It's not ideal because the tests are inaccurate. But until we have a better test, it's the best we can do.

So you'd say DYS is PG and if you just miss that, you're HG rather than MG? I was thinking 145+ is HG. Or is what Dotty saying that 145 on both IQ and achievement gives PG hat rather than a HG hat?

I certainly didn't say that! I was saying the tests are not good for what we're having to use them for, so trying to draw hard-and-fast lines between levels is kind of impossible, and probably the best we can do is to follow an accepted policy like DYS's. (Though that's certainly not ideal.)

We're not big on drawing lines around here. It's why "HG+" is the accepted term on this forum. Personally, I think that's a good policy.

I think DYS looks for kids working at least 3 years above grade level, so this seems a bit high based on their standards. It also is problematic for kids who are 2E. But for my part, I'm all in favor of more tools for IDing LOGs rather than fewer. I think looking at where a child is operating makes great sense!

LOL!

I use the terminology the same way. I tend to refer to individuals with scores over 145 as HG or PG depending on the context.

This is Dr. Ruf's revised (for Wisc IV and SB 5) levels of giftedness.

Level One 117-129 MG
Level Two 125-135 HG
Level Three 130-140 EG
Level Four 135-141 EG to PG
Level Five 141+ EG to PG

She also adds a note that the current tests cannot adequately distinguish between EG and PG.

This was very interesting, and all over the map.

Too bad there wasn't a black and white definition, it might help with advocacy.

Ren

This is the Hoagies Chart:

Level of Giftedness IQ score (old test)
(WISC-III, WPPSI-R, SB-4, SB L-M)

MG 130 - 145
HG 145 - 160
EG 160 - 180 (SB L-M only)
PG 180 and above (SB L-M only)

IQ Score (new tests) WISC IV, WPPSI III

MG 130-138
HG 138-145
EG 145-152
PG 152-160


IQ Score (new test) SB5
MG 120-129
HG 125-135
EG 130-140
PG 135-141+

I think the Hoagies chart is not really popular the way it distinguish between WISC IV and SBV. I would say that chart is to be avoided. It just confuses people.

I have trouble with the college entrance age as well unless you are talking about taking one or two classes as opposed to f/t college. Lots of parents choose not to send their kids at such early age to college.

I personally love HG+ when it comes to both of my kids. I could count on the fingers of one hand how many times I've used PG for my DYS. It's not that I would think that DYS kids are not PG, but it feels different when it comes to my own child.

The Davidson Young Scholars qualifications lists both the SBV and the WISC-IV cut offs equally. I don't have experience with the SBV, but my dd's school requires a minimum 145 on the old tests and a 138 on either the WISC IV or the SB5 for entrance (as a HG student).

Bianc850a - so you're saying the entrance for your DD's school is a FSIQ of 138 on either the WISCIV or SBV indicating HG+?

Thanks bianc850a. Is this based on correlation studies?

Ren

Yes, those are the minimum IQ scores they list in order to receive an application. They get many more applications than there are spots, so having that IQ doesn't guarantee entrance.

My understanding is that if a child is qualified, they get in, and there is no limit as to how many "spots" DYS has available in any given month. Do you have information about quotas, Bianca?

There are problems with every method of differentiation. I'm thinking about underprivileged gifted kids who might not have the exposure to things 5+ grades ahead, though they may have the intellectual power to comprehend it. Then there are kids who are way out there in just 1-2 areas, but more average in others. There just aren't any easy outs when it comes to summarizing a person's intellectual capacity.

My preference is to look at a number of things, and never pigeonhole a kid based upon a single test.

And not only underpriviledged kids ... I think of my KG, borderline EG/PG. He's working comfortably 4-6 grades above level for reading, but only 2-3 above for math--even though math is clearly his strong point. I blame this on me. :-). We just don't work with him formally at home. I work full-time, and while we frequently play mathy games that he loves, we rarely do anything formal.

This has left some pretty gaping holes in his math ability (easily converts between fractions, decimals and percents, but can't add with carrying on paper--we actually *are* going to work on that tonight!).

But just because he doesn't, doesn't mean that he *couldn't*, kwim?

I think that's a very important point, Mia, and yet another reason why any one definition of HG/EG/PG doesn't really work for all kids. If the schools and their deep-in-GT-denial parents never give them anything harder than grade level, then that's all they'll be capable of doing.

In K, my son was reading at the 3rd-4th grade level...but we didn't have any books for him that were harder than the 3rd-4th grade level. So of course that was his limit!

I like what Dottie said about black-and-white definitions only working for black-and-white kids. We have to look at the big picture, using whatever tools we have available and seeing where our kids have been limited as well as helped.

Thanks Dottie,

Yes, I was talking about the entrance requirements to my DD's school.

I totally agree with you Mia and my DS7 is exactly the same - vastly further ahead in reading than math, although really I think math is going to be his strongest area at the end of the day.

It's much easier to have exposure to a lot of different reading sources than fill holes in math. I have DS working 3rd grade math right now (going into 2nd), and it's filling holes. A lot of it he really does "know" conceptually but maybe isn't familiar with notation. Ah ... one of the things we hope to fix somewhat by homeschooling. Anyway - it's much more about how they learn, rather than what exactly they know IMHO.

Well, I see what you're saying, CFK. Some PG kids are very good at this form of self-teaching.

But I think it's a mistake to assume that PG = needs no instruction. I don't accept this as true for all PG kids, nor do I think it is a necessary part of the definition for PG.

In fact, I think this is a pretty dangerous line to take, since it sounds very much like the line the schools often take: "If he's so smart, then why doesn't he know it already? If he's so smart, he doesn't need to be taught."

I think the notation thing is huge -- it took me a long time to realize that even though KG could add and subtract double digits in his head, he didn't know what the signs were until last year! Duh.

With reading, it's fairly cut and dry--they can read it with comprehension and answer questions, or they can't. Of course, there's the issue of inference too, but I'll skate over that. :-)

With math, I think there's more gray area since math is essentially its own "language." If no one teaches you the notation, you're seriously limited. I'd like to see the kid that figures out calculus on his own, in his head, with no formal math instruction at all! There may be one out there, but wow--that's the PGest of PG kids!

I think we're all in agreement there (or are we? Maybe not ...) -- any of us with a child who taught themselves to read (and I know there are lots of us!) can hardly deny that!

Yes, I got that. Some can teach themselves.

But some cannot. I'm saying that the some who cannot are important because they mean that the *definition* of PG is NOT "A child who can learn things they've never been taught."

You're stressing the "can," and I'm stressing the "cannot" because I think it's potentially dangerous to stress the "can" for the kids who "cannot."

But of course some can. And it's cool that they can.

My DS7 in particular just has real confidence issues. He actually knows ahead of time a lot more than I expect him too, but panics immediately if he sees something in a format he hasn't seen before and shuts down. Of course, 5 minutes later he might be breezing through the same thing like he's known it forever.

I do agree about the mental math component. I think I'm not actually teaching DS anything about math. More about notation and showing his work.

DS had a great teacher in 2nd grade, which was his first year of NCLB testing. Our state tests in the fall and spring. DS's math score went from 4th grade level in the fall to 8th in the spring of his 2nd grade year. His teacher was so sweet, but a little embarrassed. She pulled me aside and said, "You know I'd like to take credit for his improvement, but I don't deserve it. I *know* I didn't teach him this stuff; did you?" I told her I hadn't taught it to him either and we both had a good giggle.

But I do think she *did* teach him more than she took credit for. She did sneak a few hard problems when she could and she was very good at explaining notation etc. I think DS was ready to take off and run with any tid-bits he could get.

Yes, I think "tidbits" (good word choice!) often get absorbed so fast that we don't even realize they were there.

That's not to say that some kids don't figure things out completely on their own, sans tidbits. But I find it hard to define a kid as not PG for not knowing something that he has never seen before. That was really my main point. Am I making more sense?

If a K-er has never seen 6th grade math, he might master it on his own and would certainly fit CFK's definition of PG. (And mine!) But then again, I think it's absolutely possible for a child to be PG and not to have mastered math that he's never seen, even if math is his strong suit. I just don't think it's wise to base the definition on those extremely stringent terms.

Would someone call my school district and explain that to them? That was the total basis of their refusal to test DS6. They gave him a 2nd grade math sheet, he looked at them like they were crazy and voila- he's not gifted.

Ugh! Sorry M&M!

I think the debate comes from the "public" opinion of what PG is and not the bands of grey as you get to EG. And some of us would defint those grey bands as EG not PG, as defined by DYS.

Someone mentioned that calculus would be hard to do without some teaching. I disagree. If I don't have enough money to buy a house and the guy selling the house sells me the option to buy it in six months at a set price, I have a derivative, that's calculus.

I imagined everyone here followed the example, hence an uber bright PG child could do derivative concepts in his head just like he knows how to do a puzzle.

And yes, kids are not black and white, but there seems to be so many darker shades of grey before you get to that little man Tate phenomenom of PG.

There are moments of head turning when my child says something, and she did sit down at her Barbie piano and do a scale at 2, but I don't expect her to play like Mozart any time soon. To me it is EG, not PG. Maybe not by Davidson definition, but my view of PG.

Ren

I'm with Dottie. Who cares as long as my child is taken care of? Of course, when a school or teacher overlooks him, a label is helpful, but in the end, I don't want my child left behind - or ahead, as the case may be.

I think my point, way back when, black and white etc...

is that if we could have a stronger definition it would make advocacy, or taking care of my child, easier with the powers that be. Defining the educational needs, whether homeschooled or not.

Ren

Hi Ren,

I think the term you are looking for/describing is a child prodigy.

I disagree, your definition of PG is too narrow. If we only look at the TATE's of this world, many children who need specialized education will be left out.

My dd, PG by DYS standards, learns differently than a ND child or even a HG child. She learns and understands concepts at a fast pace. She needs an environment that takes into account both her rate of learning and her style of learning. One of the things we need to keep in mind is that at the end of the curve, every child is different. You can no longer "group" them and hope for the best.

And dottie,

Sorry for the nightmare. e-hugs on their way to you...

I find this a fascinating discussion. There seems to be an emerging consensus on a distinction between the prodigy/little man tate/good will hunting level, on the one hand, and the PG level on the other. I agree with those who say that in the end what matters is not how you categorize your kid but whether they are getting what they need. Still, figuring out what they need depends in part on having some sense for who they're like - and that is a kind of a categorization problem. And as far as the categories go I'd assumed that PG and prodigy were virtually synonyms.

As a parent I find myself constantly looking for role models whose children are like mine and who seem to have done an admirable job giving them the opportunities and support they need. Terence Tao's father, for example, has some inspiring ways of talking about his experience as the father of a prodigy. But is my kid like Terence Tao? It's a bit hard to tell - DS is only 4.2 - but if I had to I'd bet against it. Some of the stories ring true but others, especially those describing Tao at ages older than my son now is, seem like they come from a different trajectory. If that's right, then perhaps Billy Tao isn't my best role model. The main advantage in having a label, it seems to me, is that it helps you to figure out who your role models should be. And that, in turn, helps you to determine which individualized approach will serve your child best.

BB

I agree completely that it is helpful to read about his experiences. One thing that really strikes me is how careful the family was about giving him time to develop a broad educational foundation; another is how careful they were about attending very seriously to issues of character development. Both of these seem like very important guiding principles. And after all, who can argue with success? I've never met him myself, but from everything I've heard and read about him it sounds like - leaving completely to the side his mathematical genius - TT is the kind of person could hope your child emulates.

I see, too, that there are political reasons to have the PG label - and that in some very broad sense the EG/PG/prodigy kids have in common the need for an individualized plan. There is a good political reason, then, to treat them as a group. But from the point of view of a parent trying to figure out what's going to work for my kid, that general grouping might (and the might here indicates genuine uncertainty) but might be too coarsely grained.

BB

I agree, Bianca. We have one child in our district who is obviously PG and is accelerated several grades. People seem to accept his acceleration as needed, but lump all the other students together. The district insists that the services provided by our district serve the needs of all the other students. Though they may serve the needs of the MG children, the needs of the children between MG and prodigy are not sufficiently met. I feel like the biggest battle I have to fight in our district is to educate people that the difference is not necessarily how much these students know but the rate at which they learn.

I think those of us with children between MG and prodigy sometimes forget how profoundly different our children are. We spend everyday with our children and what they are appears relatively normal to us. I had a bring me back to reality moment the other day at our local science museum. The museum had three tables set up with hands on exhibits for children. There were a couple of teen volunteers at each table. As we went up to each table DD9 would talk to the teen volunteers about the items on the table. Without fail at each table one of the teenagers said to dd9, "Wow, you are really smart."

Wow, these kids are really smart even if they are not prodigies. The DYS site states, "we strive to serve the extreme of the gifted population." We need a term to differentiate the needs of this extreme. IMO their needs are profound. That is why it is so difficult to find an appropriate educational environment for them. Over 80% of the PG (using DYS criteria) children I know are educated outside of the public school system because the public school system failed to meet their needs.

We are working with terminology defined by a test which is no longer valid. People have tried to superimpose the terminology onto the valid tests of the day, but I think everyone is in agreement those tests do not differentiate sufficiently at the higher levels. For lack of a better definition, I use PG as defined by DYS criteria.

I think we have identified the big problem for advocacy is that kids are so different at the tailends that one size does not fit all. But creating an environment so that they learn and socially connect is a serious part of our jobs.

Just thought of a story so I will write it. DH went to Harvard at same time as YoYo Ma. Although he was already a recognized professional and touring around the world, his parents made him take the time and go to college. He had a crush on a girl and even though he was YoYo, Caroline Kennedy was there and many other recognizable people. So he was one of many, sort of. Like that movie Vitus, that someone rightly recommended. He just needed to one of many for a while.

So on one hand they need a specialized path to ensure their motivation and also a structure that allows them to be just a human being.

I think I went on a tangent, sorry.

Ren

Well said, bianca. That's what matters at the end of the day. I personally like the HG+ label or even better the DYS label when talking about my son. I think the YS shows well enough how far on the curve he is.

While my son is not Terence, I found his story very inspiring. I think his parents did an amazing job and made lots of great choices.

Just a way to go... been awhile since once thread has filled so fast in the summer!