All 3 of the quotes I listed referenced graduating high school students, rather than young kids in grade school. That said, whether 360 or 9000 young kids are above an arbitrary threshold, is primarily determined by definition of that arbitrary threshold. For example, if you want to define super gifted as 3 SDs above the mean on a test with a normal distribution, then expect 1 in ~740 to meet that arbitrary threshold. If you want to instead define it as 4 SDs, then expect 1 in ~32,000 to meet the threshold. What is more important is how you apply the threshold. If you are using the threshold as a strict cutoff for special accommodation of young kids, then it’s likely not causing “better care” and is instead likely causing more harm than benefit.
There are absolutely parents in my area who prep their kids for the cog apt. Who demand retesting. Who badger the school district to accept private testing results. For some families having a normal child is not an acceptable idea.
It is not a given that meeting a cutoff on a one-time, non-academic test should be key for skipping grades. There are numerous other important factors – school performance, knowledge of curriculum beyond grade level, degree of interest/boredom (how bad situation is in current grade and how much situation would be improved in higher grade), maturity and emotional readiness, student/parent interest, alternative learning enhancement options… particularly within school, etc.
I can’t believe I have to be the one to point this out, considering my children don’t even go to school in the US, but there IS an evidence based rubric for this in existence, has been around for decades I believe, called the Iowa Acceleration Scale. AFAIK it takes all these factors and more into account and gives a clear recommendation whether to skip or not. And there are decades of research on how beneficial grade skipping is for MOST kids (there will always be an anecdote in the vein of “but my uncle…”, with no evidence whether the uncle would have done any better if he hadn’t been skipped - most kids do worse.) check out A Nation Deceived. Would be good reading for the OP, too, who appears to have lost all interest in this topic.
There is no excuse whatsoever on the parts of the school. None. Unlike ability grouping, which would probably be the method most parents would prefer (check out the thread which inspired the OP - its from a dad who is very unhappy at the idea of sending his daughter off to college at 16, because the school system forced a second acceleration on them for administrative reasons) it doesn’t affect other kids, it has no political or philosophical implications for the system, it costs no money or effort apart from having to do the recommended testing, which is a one off expense, and by definition, is a rare occurrence. It’s really the least a school can do.
Exactly a district big enough to group the top 5 percent or so of kids in to a class the same size as a regular class at that grade level doesn’t even have to spend any extra money other than testing. And that grouping will serve the needs of all but a scant handful of super gifted kids.
I would be interested to know @Springbird, the OP, still feels the same way after reading these posts (assume s/he has done so).
The thing is, so many people think their child is extraordinary and they have no concept of what is truly amazing. I have told both my children who are gifted ( and one highly gifted in two areas) that there is no single road to life. You have to find your own way which may/may not lead through an Ivy league gate.
Parents who sell their kids a golden dream and don’t have the means to pay for it are not setting the kids up for success. I don’t shop for Rolls Royce’s. For some reason, folks seem to think that the best education should be open to all cost notwithstanding. This is not proving to be true ( esp. for middle class who cannot get the money provided to the poorest students).
It’s my understanding the IAS gives a point rating on ~32 criteria, the adds up the sum of the points. And if the points reach above a threshold, acceleration is recommended. The ~32 criteria include things like:
Motivation
Student does not complete assignments and appears disinterested in schoolwork – 0 points
Student completes those tasks that are of interest to him or her. – 1 point
Student completes virtually all assignments on time and shows a positive attitude. – 2 points
Current Grade Level of Siblings
Student has one or more siblings one grade above the student’s current grade or currently in the same grade as the student – 0 points
Student has one or more siblings one grade below the student’s grade level – 1 point
Student has one or more siblings two or more grades above or below the student’s
current grade – 2 points
Students has no siblings. – 3 points
It’s nice to consider a large number of criteria and have an objective scale to point to, but any type of score cutoff system will have flaws and miss important considerations. For example, the motivation category above states “does not complete assignments and appears disinterested in schoolwork.” The importance of this lack of motivation in relation to skipping grades is largely dependent on the underlying reasons for this feeling. A student being disinterested in schoolwork because he is bored out of his mind and not completing assignments because he is not showing work in math and not writing “complete answers” in other subjects is very different from a student being disinterested in schoolwork because he generally doesn’t enjoy learning and not completing assignments because he prefers video games to doing HW, even though they’d both receive the same points.
My mother skipped a grade. I’d expect one big consideration for her was she attended a small, rural high school that offered few if any alternative learning enhancement options… so it was skipping or nothing. It worked out okay for her, with being valedictorian and the first person from her HS to ever attend a selective college (few students from HS went to college) where she received a degree in math with honors, but I’d expect she would have had almost the same result had she not skipped. Based on her personality, I also doubt she would have enjoyed school or learning any more/less, had she skipped than had she not skipped. It was my impression, the main driving force was pleasing her parents rather than learning.
She did well on standardized testing, but well short of some of the 3 SD type thresholds that have been listed earlier. In spite of these achievements, I don’ think she considered herself especially bright because of comparing herself to her little brother, as well as some issues with the patriarchal culture in the familiy/community. Her brother had what she called a “photographic memory”. He could read college level STEM textbooks the way most people read novels and understand them well enough to ace related exams, with one quick read and no classes. Nevertheless, he did not do as well in HS and failed to graduate from a selective college for reasons relating to poor grades. His issue related to being more interested in a girl he met outside of the college than turning in assignments and in some cases attending exams.
My point is no cutoff score on a test is going to capture all of these important considerations relating to the unique individual and environment and weight them appropriately, and those unique individual and environment considerations can be critical for whether skipping is a good decision and academic success. Iowa Acceleration Scale and similar could be useful as a general, very crude filter, but the ultimate decision should come down to far more than whether a certain score threshold was met.
Do you think it would be in the interest of USA and the world to bring together these gifted kids at one university under full costs system? Good or bad idea? From a parent with a smart but non-gifted kid who will study at Stanford.
IQ testing done for son as part of early kindergarten entry was appropriate. Kid also had the choice of being with mom or the spring current kindergarteners while the psychologist figured out results and chose to be with them- a social marker. The IQ testing insured kid wasn’t just an early reader or the apple of mom’s eye.
Somehow I don’t think of an IQ of 150 as being highly or profoundly gifted because I see there are some who are so much further ahead- ie not a percentage of the population but the huge difference an extra 10 or 20 IQ points makes. Other parents wow me with what their gifted kids did at an early age compared to mine. Another thing- an overall IQ is not just the average of the parts I learned many years ago. It is less common for a kid to be gifted globally instead of having a high spike in one area. Think of the math genius or the highly capable in verbal skills but not as much in the other versus the kids who do both almost as well as either of the ones with a spike in one over other areas. Trying to explain this is awkward for me.
Being two, three or more standard deviations above the mean means finding far fewer kids close to your age to relate to on an intellectual et al level. This is where branching out doing more with out any challenges does not work, OP.
For most mid to high end gifted kids it is hard to find kids to be able to relate to as most just don’t process fast enough. Grade acceleration for these kids lets them do more and discuss at a higher level than with available agemates. But concepts are still not presented at the rate thaay can process them. Being gifted means being that square/round hole/peg fit. Some of you are fortunate to live in areas with a higher concentration of gifted kids because parents find jobs with their high abilities. Most of us have big fish in small ponds, with many not able to afford so many extras found in some places (being on CC had widened my horizons about available HS classes…).
re post #208. No, I don’t think any single U would be able to accommodate the wide variety of interests and personalities of gifted kids. One other reason is that you would have to take only globally gifted kids and miss out on those math or verbal geniuses who wouldn’t make the cutoff for both. It is good to have different U tiers but those young adults need to be able to relate to nongifted but very smart adults and isolating them would not prepare them for their real world after graduation. Top tier flagship U’s offer the opportunity to mingle with academic peers and top faculty with honors classes and experience classes with above average others.
Flagship U’s may have as many high ability students as a small elite school although the percentages are lower. Given a large pool of students there can be as many equally intelligent peers to take classes with and associate with. Some U’s have “Honors Colleges” while others have “Honors Programs”. Some differences. Also some do/don’t segregate housing by honors. My experience is that my honors friends in the same major and I had different preferences for housing- one size does not fit all with a common IQ.
I also see problems with those lower end of highly gifted students being in an atmosphere where they are frustrated by never being able to be excellent compared to others. There would likely be a 30 or more IQ difference among students. Being gifted encompasses a wide range of abilities, even if they are all in that less than one percent of the total population high end.
^ There’s always someone “smarter”. I try to teach mine that, and also that it doesn’t matter much. There are so many different ways in which gifted kids have talents - and different rates at which they develop - and it’s ultimately what they do with their abilities and how they develop as human beings that count, just like for everyone else.
A big part of the issue with gifted kids… Are all of the other things that are often present… The perfectionism, anxieties, sensory issues, Intensity level and frustrations etc. Academic decisions … including college… Are not always easy and need to take the whole person into account. Teachers of the gifted understand these qualities…regular classroom teachers often do not. Some may…
^ 100% agree. I deal with all of those things with my highly/profoundly gifted son, in spades, and spend at least as much time working on those as on providing academic acceleration/enrichment opportunities.
“Teachers of the gifted understand these qualities … regular classroom teachers often do not. Some may …”
I think this works both ways. Finding understanding teachers, appropriate pacing of material, and similarly gifted peers can be critical at times. But life is not a gifted classroom, so learning how to manage perfectionism, anxieties, sensory issues, intensity levels, frustrations, etc., to relate to others regardless of giftedness, and to develop skills to function in the “real world” can be at least as critical.
I think our university systems serve these kids pretty well at this point. I’d like to see states fully fund their state universities and the honors programs there! It is the K-12 situation that is a problem. Some families of profoundly gifted kids move to Reno so their kid’s can attend the Davidson Academy (which also recently started offering online school as well – they didn’t have it when my kid was a Davidson Young Scholar 5 years ago – we definitely would have looked at it if they had!).
@twogirls I volunteered during math and science in my daughter’s gifted classrooms for 3 years. I joked that the classroom was a mess of issues. My kid’s ADD and dyslexia fit right in.
These kids can be very difficult to parent… and teach… due to all of the issues. It’s amazing to me that some can write spectacular papers and present ideas so maturely to adults at a board of education meeting… In fifth grade. Yet… These same kids might be so frustrated because they feel you don’t understand their point… and throw a chair across the room or throw a tantrum that would scare a toddler. Then the next day they organize and conduct an extra help math session… only to become visibly upset … and totally unable to calm down… because somebody else won a kickball game. It’s wild.
On the one hand, I agree with renaissancedad that it is important for profoundly gifted students to learn “how to manage perfectionism, anxieties, sensory issues, intensity levels, frustrations, etc., to relate to others regardless of giftedness, and to develop skills to function in the ‘real world’.” But I might be reaching a different conclusion about how this should be accomplished. I think that a profoundly gifted student needs a sensitive teacher, who understands the child’s intensity and (possible) tendency to frustration, so that the child can be guided to manage his/her issues. A teacher who thinks that such a child is just being difficult or spoiled, or that a child who is “so smart” ought to be mature enough not to become frustrated, is out of touch with the world of the profoundly gifted child, and unlikely to be much help to the child in learning to cope (though a superficial conformity might be enforceable).
I work every day with people who become triumphant, exhilarated, angry, or dejected by ideas and reactions to ideas. An effective teacher of a gifted child needs to understand why a student could become so emotionally involved with an idea.
Evariste Galois is an interesting case in point. Wikipedia indicates that he failed the entrance exams for the Ecole Polytechnique “for lack of explanations on the oral exam.” I was told by a math prof that Galois threw chalk at his examiners because they did not understand results that were obvious to Galois. (I’m not sure whether this is true, but it could be.) Galois died at 20, but not before he had made a major, lasting impact on mathematics.
I completely agree with this. I certainly try to parent my kid in a VERY different way than my parents handled me for these very reasons. I’d look to teachers to do the same. It helped short cut a LOT of challenges I had in becoming a reasonable adult – my kid got the benefit of that experience.
Aga9n, if we are.truly talking about PG one in a million I do not think we can expect schools to handle. 3.or 4 kids per grade level at this level in the entire country.
Websensation, the idea of a single university with free cost of attendance for these gifted students sounds like a great idea at first. Then consider 21st century political considerations. First, the opposition of those who will argue public funds should be spent on the academically weakest, rather than the strongest. And then all the racial bean counting, and resulting lawsuits. Society would certainly benefit from such a school, but it would immediately become the most prestigious school and you would have legions of parents gaming the system and fighting savagely to see their children received that ultimate trophy.