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.

My sister's school has a three tiered approach, but her "top" tier is only what my school calls GT (98th+), so I think they'd still have LOG issues in that highest level. It is great that they have the other levels though, and many of my own school's disgruntled families would be appeased with that approach.

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.

While I can dream about a DYS level self-contained program, the truth is....it would be a very small class for DS, . I get the opportunity to review a lot of scores, and while we have quite the 120+ (and 130+) population, I rarely hear of 145+ scores in our district. The few that we have probably wouldn't make a "group of peers" anyway.

Still, I'm pretty optimistic about the upcoming school year at the moment.

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.

Well 145 is statistically 1:1000 or there abouts (1:741 per the charts, but 146 is 1:924). That would suggest a PG population of about 60 for your 60,000. The 1:10,000 number that DITD quotes is actually more like an IQ of 156. I think things tend to get "rarer" when you are looking at a multi-entry condition (like 145 in IQ and achievement), but it's still more common than 1:10,000. When you allow for "half" scores too (VCI vs PRI), you increase your population as well.

Oddly enough, I know of 3 kids in our district of 3000+ that land in that range for a full scale.

Why is 146 considered PG and not EG?

Oh I'm just going by the DYS requirements. I gave up on the HG/EG/PG line drawing a long time ago, ! Insert what ever label you prefer into that posting.

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?

Dottie misspoke in using "PG".....Dottie was only referring to the 145 mark, whatever anyone chooses to call it, .

I think that IQ test score numbers are too arbitrary, some people only look at VCI, some only at PRI, some only at GAI. I read a description somewhere that I liked that said something like:

(in academic terms)
1-2 years above grade level = MG
3-4 years above grade level = HG
5-6 years above grade level = EG
above that = PG

Again, arbitrary, depending on the level of curricula your area uses but it fits my own personal definition better.

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.

Even using +X grade levels would need to be "fine-tuned" depending on the age of the child. Working 5-6 years above level is phenonmenal in early elementary, but really "status quo" for any GT child in middle school and above, at least as far as GE testing goes. Granted, it takes on a whole new meaning if you are talking about actually taking college level courses in 7th/8th grade.

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!

I agree Kriston, the more tools the better. Too many make the mistake of trying to read a great sweeping conclusion from very limited data.

True, I was thinking more of youngish elementary age. Once you get to a certain level it's a moot point. I guess you could come up with a scale on the other side like:

college at ? - 10 = PG
11 - 12 = EG
13 -14 = HG
15-16 = MG

I'm a hard grader!

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

While it would help greatly with advocacy Ren, it would also require "black and white children", which are rare, .

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 thought the the Hoagies chart was being revised as more children took the SB-V and scored higher on it. I think originally the SB V was returning lower scores than expected and so they adjusted the definitions of LOG downward, but that was changed now.

Or I could be completely wrong!

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.

As to the college age issue, I was thinking more along the lines of when the child has finished all primary and secondary curricula and is ready to take university level courses, not neccessarily that they do!

I agree with you about the PG label when it comes to personal use. I reserve the label for individuals with truly extraordinary performance/achievement.

I'm with you there CFK! While DITD has "labeled" my son as PG, there are kids that truly blow him out of the water. This group is much rarer than the stats we are quoting here, but with them in the picture, I have a hard time thinking of DS as "profound" as well. He fits in good with a huge majority of YS kids though, whatever you want to label that.

You beat my editing, Dottie! Oh, well, I'm just not a fast typer!

But I agree, my children, as wonderfully brilliant as they are, are just not in the same league as some of those kids. That's why I still think the bell curve fits as far as truly PG goes. There are very few people in the world that can achieve at the levels mentioned above.

OK, now you've edited your post and my last post makes no sense! We have to stop this!

Sorry, but my edit beat your second post, ! I clicked "submit" on the first post, and immediately saw your edit job, so quickly fixed mine accordingly.

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?

Lorel, Bianca was talking about her daughter's school in that post, NOT DYS.

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 see your point, but I have to disagree with this statement, Kriston. Alot of the stories and anecdotes about the extremely PG kids state how they were able to top out on acheivement and subject tests with no prior exposure to the material (I'm thinking specifically of math, here, obviously subjects such as history would require exposure). Some kids seem to be able to go from addition/subtraction to calculus without all the prerequisite instruction. I have seen this, on a smaller scale, with my children. They have made huge leaps in knowledge without any prior instruction. That's the reason I asked for grade skips for my children. They knew the material without ever having being exposed to it in school or home, just as a lot of parents here state their children learned to read with no istruction. Obviously one won't go as far as one could without the training, but I do believe that there are children that can "self-teach" most of the primary and secondary curricula with very little instruction.

As for the other points, I agree with you and Mia. In my opinion, someone can be PG in math but nothing else. (Or reading, etc.) A gifted athlete is usually only truly a star in one sport, say gymnastics, but not in tennis or ice skating for example.

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.

DS9 is most advanced in math, because he shows great initiative and interest there as well as talent. But his English score on the Explore was one of his highest. This is a "subject" that I doubt he's ever really been taught at all (elementary K-3rd and half of 5th). I believe he learned whatever he was tested on just through his voracious reading and ability to absorb material. He also did fairly well on the multiple choice writing portion of the SAT.

I sometimes shortchange my son by thinking of him as "math gifted", but he has some serious potential across the board.

That's funny, because I think of DS11 exactly the opposite. It has always been his reading that seems the most extreme to me, but his test scores always come in with math at the top!

Speaking of voracious, he's finished up Tom Clancy and has moved on to John Grisham so far this summer. Thankfully, Grisham has written quite a few books so this should keep him occupied until school starts. (Note to those parents of younger bookworms: hook them on a particular author or a series instead of a stand alone book. It saves a lot of searching the library shelves for something interesting.)

Don't forget that for DS, it was his early verbal skills that first brought us to testing...

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!

No, that's not what I'm saying at all, I was just refuting your comment that PG kids can only achieve up to the level of which they are instructed or exposed. I think that a lot of PG kids can self teach elementary school concepts or else learn them with minimum instruction. Everyone (well most everyone, I don't like to make generalities), no matter their intelligence, eventually will reach the point where they have to be taught if they are ever going to reach the top of their field.

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.