Hi:

A while back, someone posted a link with recommendations for the different levels of differentiation required for students all along the bell curve. I've tried a search and just can't locate it.

I thought it might be helpful with my advocacy with DS8's teacher, who doesn't seem to recognize what level of differentiation might be required. Also, does anyone have a link to a site that gives you frequency of IQs between 145 - 160 on the WISC IV?

Thnks,,

bk

Here's a link that goes a wee bit overboard with decimal accuracy, but I like it anyway....

http://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/IQtable.aspx

It does fall apart in the tails, but rough estimates are still worth throwing on the table, .

I don't understand what frame of reference they are using if the scores can't go beyond 202 yet are higher than the ceilings on current tests. Am I missing something?

That table is totally about statistics, and not about "real life"! It's a mathematician's view of the world, LOL! I'm not sure I understand your question though?

Dot-
looked at the table before without reading the blurb at the top. I see now that it does say that they are using Wechsler and SB norms, but these tests do not measure that high, unless you count the extended score on the SB V, which I thought was supposed to measure to 225.

Maybe it has been two and a half years since I slept for more than three or four hours at a stretch, but I still don't think I can be that fuzzy headed. Are they talking theoretical scores, as in too high to measure?

The table really has nothing to do with the specific Wechsler/SB tests, but rather is a statistical calculation of scores for standard deviations of 15 and 16. There could be no tests involved at all, and the table would still stand. The tests though, because they use SD's of 15/16 imply the "math" rules of that table (not the other way around).

So I guess in that regard they are talking theoretical scores all across the board. I think I remember reading that the guy stopped his table when it went beyond 1:6 billion, due to the current population.

However, we have reason to believe those tails are not as limited as straight statistics suggest.

IFFFFF humans followed the rules of statistics, and IQ's landed perfectly on the bell curve, then no....no person should have an IQ of 225, or even anything over about 195.

Obviously straight statistics doesn't apply in such rare groups, and should really only be used to suggest a general bell curve shape.

Once a child tests beyond say 3 SD's from the norm, other testing criteria should be used to differentiate amongst those children. (In short, IQ tests are doomed from the start, the more you think about it!)

Thanks, Dottie, that was helpful. I have to say that I am much more into practical applications and social/emotional aspects of giftedness. The more I know about testing, the more flaws I see.

Dottie,
Is additional testing criteria necessary? After 3 SDs, entrance to DYS, what more is needed or what more can be gained? Do you tell your kids their IQs? I haven't because I don't want it to cause trouble between siblings (and maybe also because I'm not sure what it means anyway other than potential ability). If you're lazy with a really high IQ, you might not be as successful or high achieving as if you're hardworking with a moderate IQ. My kids know they're 3 SDs because that's qualification to PEGS program at school, but beyond that I haven't disclosed. And what does it mean for parents?

I ask this in case I should be doing further evaluation to benefit my kiddos.

Oh I didn't mean to qualify for something, or prove "smartness". I meant more for educational purposes, like where to place the kid in math. Show me two kids with 145 IQ's, and they'll probably have very different needs in most subjects. At that point, you really need to think "individualized", which of course the schools rarely do.

It's a no brainer in our house that DS is the "highest". My girls argue regularly over who is the lowest. I'm not really sure myself, though of course I don't participate in those discussions!!!!! They all know they are GT because of school, but my girls are quite aware when others are brighter in different areas. They see this more so than their own strengths at times.

But no, I haven't told any of them actual numbers. The only "numbers" I share are percentiles on above level testing. For example, DS got a kick out of "passing" 8th grade last year.

To add to the above post, I was reading an (old!) article on Terrance Tao (?) last night, and he of course tests above +3 SD. I don't for a minute consider DS to have the same level of need!!!! It's funny, at age 3, I could almost balance their reading/math skills (from some quote that was surely less than accurate on TT's behalf!), but the truth is, TT is a few SD's beyond DS, and would have quite different needs. Lumping them together is not much different than lumping DS with MG age mates.

I agree with the different needs above 3SD and that testing doesn't really help much. Not only are the academic needs different based on any 2E issues, subjects of interest and/or talent, and level of instruction to date, but the emotional needs can be so widely different. I think DS gets a huge amount from the activity and rambunctiousness of public school 1st grade. He loves it. Another kid with similar academic abilities would be losing it in the same situation.


LOL -- I love Terence Tao and I've read some articles by and about him in the last year as I learned about this stuff. He makes me feel like PG can turn out well as he is described as a decent human being with ridiculous ability who turned that into great achievement with lots of work. But what I really love is reading about someone who clearly has gifts beyond what I see in my house and somehow it comforts me that some other parents had an even harder task, and they succeeded beautifully.

I do wonder about those sibling relationships though . . . would be interesting to know how the rest of the family coped with the profound PG-ness of TT.

J

I don't think an IQ score is often really useful for a kid to have. Although (suprise, suprise) I can think of a few exceptions.

1) My Aunt reports telling in the college planning years, her baby girl , who followed two extroverted competitive boys, her IQ test, because my cousin (wrongly) assumed that they were 'so much smarter' than she.

2) I explained the bell curve and the LOG difference when my son first attended his first 'gifted summer program' at age 8. He was convinsed that there was something wrong with him because he didn't fit in with the other boys at his school, so I wanted him to be pre-warned that he might not really fit in here either, but NOT because there was something wrong with him. It turned out that he was on the younger end of the age groups and he had a wonderful time, but given the same uncertainty, I would do it again!

OTOH - After 3SD, I don't think there is an test in the world that can say the difference in innate ability between any two children. I don't even think it makes sense to talk about who is 'smarter.' From that point on tests can measure the Achievment of various children at various ages under specific circumstances, and that can help in educational planning or advocacy with school. If all is well at school (The Grinity Four Test: Having fun, Having friends, Learning Something, Challenged a fair amount of the time)then leave well enough alone and put your energy into something else.


Example: You've heard story after story about my DS11 and Dotties DS8. Which kid is smarter? See the problem? If anything, I would guess that I think DS-Dottie is smarter and that Dottie would say that DS-Grinity is smarter. Neither boy has enough sense to come in out of the rain so what is the point here? ((Humor Alert))

I would say that MG kids have a better chance of success in adult life because they are likely to be in educational settings where they learn how to learn and get lots of practice with their soical skills. PG kids can be lazy 'by nature' or becuase of Enforced Underachievment if unaccomidated in school. I don't remember if I know what the PEGS program at school is, but it sounds wonderful. How cool that all the kids you have met the criteria and you can dodge that whole discussion!

Smiles,
Grinity

If we wait until tomorrow, Dottie's DS8 will disappear, and we won't have to answer, .

Grin, you are on a roll! Is this what you meant by "getting back to work"?

Great posts!!!

By the way, my little brainiac just got off the bus with his shirt on backwards...

I'm happy my post has provided some interesting (And funny!) discussion. Just looking back at it, I realized I wrote it in a way that didn't really explain what I was looking for. I have so little time to get on the computer, I usually just rattle off without looking back or editing what I'm writing. (Toddler in the house)

I wasn't looking for how each 145+ IQ level should be differentiated. I agree the tests and scores just aren't that finely tuned to really say numerical score X means this kid is smarter than some other kids with a score x-1.

I was looking for info setting out differentiation for an IQ -range- (3+ SD, essentially) that was based on the 160 max scores available on the current common IQ tests. I've found info based on older test scores, where there are much higher numbers, and thus the info is less helpful to me advocating for a kid in the currently available 145-160 range.

What I like about one chart I saw was that it listed both SD +3 and SD-3 on the same level and just discussed what radical differentiation might be necessary. I think most educators recognize the importance of tailoring education for a child with disabilities. Too many seem to think that smart kids (if there even are any at their school) don't need anything different, or that providing anything different is somehow providing an unfair "extra." I thought that admin, accustomed to IEPs for children who need extra help might finally get that DS needs something radically different, too.

I would love to make a LOG argument, because I agree that IQ only gives part of the picture. For a LOG argument to work, admin would need to understand the IQ score, believe my reports of DS's developmental milestones, AND trust the author of the LOG stuff.

Above level tests, such as the SAT, taken as a 12 year old, are one way to document LOG. The talent search groups will provide a bell curve for the kids, all in the top 5%, so gifted by many definitions, of the same age who took the SAT through them. Of course, I haven't really heard of any kids who took the SAT before age 9, so this info may not help right now.

HTH
Grinty

I was thinking talent searches too, and the very generic breakdown of accommodation ideas based on above level scores at the 50th, the 75th and the 90th percentiles. The 90th of course had those more "extreme" accommodation suggestions. I've given JHU's brief chart to DS's team. That chart you are thinking of sounds helpful too, and I'd love to see that.

Here's what JHU has on their brief writeup (for the SCAT, grades 2nd-6th)...

Above 50th
Enrichment by allowing students to pursue regular classroom topics indepth
Consideration for gifted and talented programs in school

(This is the level of my girls, and they are pretty well served by the school's pullout model)

Above 75th (adds...)
Working with a mentor or tutor
Adjusting the instruction level/pacing in the classroom

Above the 90th (adds...)
Working with older students in a particular subject
Fast-paced, individualized instruction
Starting sequences early

The last is my son a few times over, so clearly he needs "above and beyond" what your basic pullout might offer. I've used his talent search scores to help make my case for that as well.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Oh, I so identify with this one! You just made me laugh so loudly that my DS3 said, "What's so funny, Mommy?"

Love it!

Dottie's DS sounds like my DS 9--he thinks he's very clever to turn his shirt around before lunch, eat (and make a mess), and turn it back around...unless he forgets the last step.