Half of all children are below average

Parent Cafe
61

<p>I’ve only glanced at all the posts, however, a few comments:</p>

<ol>
<li><p>Average IQ range = 90-110</p></li>
<li><p><em>First impressions are often flawed</em></p></li>
</ol>

<p>My adopted son came from couple of average intelligence, who were non-college. Because of ADD, DS’s IQ can’t be accurately measured. DS’s development was delayed (couldn’t sit up until 9 months, couldn’t walk until 16+ months) and doctors were ready to test him for cerebral palsy…however, DS grew up to be nationally ranked athlete.</p>

<p>DS always had learning differences because of alcohol use and recreational drug use by birthmom and inherited STD pneumonia that deprived brain of oxygen early on…however, son triumphed over these because of loving/nurturing environment, solid and consistent hands-on educational work by mom, counseling, and true grit by son…so he’s now in a wonderful well-regarded LAC, where he currently has a 3.0. He’ll never rank among the gifted, but he is always sought out by the gifted as a friend…he has wonderful interpersonal skills and a strong understanding of people and a sincere empathy for them. He is very intuitive and can be very driven. He is a great friend to all, he is a down-to-earth, genuine person. And in spite of the challenges we’ve had with him over the years, he <em>will</em> turn out to be a terrific kid because I can see the metamorphosis occurring.</p>

<p>My point, is that money should be pumped into programs for the kids that may be at the margin, because it is “make or break” for them. I was gifted; I didn’t need a lot of extra opportunities to learn, because it was my love. I don’t buy the assertion that it is the gifted who suffer…no way. I see too much effort being made to further endow those who are already well endowed.</p>

<p>There should be rewarding educational and work opportunities for all kids. They should not be tracked too early in life, because kids develop at different rates.</p>

<p>Bay, I agree with you…people across the spectrum of IQ have something very valuable to offer society. We each choose to assume the work we love, that may be burdensome to others not so inclined. Therefore, we each should be respected for the contributions we make. IQ be damned.</p>

62

<p>StickerShock, Sorry, I didn’t see that you had asked me a Q way back- and the conversation has moved from that, but I did want to answer to say that I <em>have</em> read Bell Curve (I admit - not all 850 plus pages) , though a long time ago, - and many of the criticisms of it as well. The issue you raise (whether or not people had read the book) was a big deal when the book came out. Again, it was over 850 pages in length and very technical in many parts. Laypeople and those in the media really had little ability at the time to judge whether or not the numbers behind the science were accurate. </p>

<p>From what I recall, one of the main issues with the book, was on its reliance in part , not on original research but on psychometrics and work done by others who, based on other writings of theirs, had an agenda and were biased on this issue. But, even if the studies legitimately show what they claim (ie no issue with the actual research) , it doesn’t necessarily point to the conclusions of the authors. I don’t see how one can take a concept as loaded as this one and prove it by basically the use of a single technique (IQ testing ) over a group of statistics. It seems like an incredibly narrow interpretation and one that cannot take the many factors (cultural, societal, psychological, environmental) or future factors that could be at play into account. </p>

<p>Very little attention was ever paid to the negative history of similar research, and NO evidence from studies that pointed in the opposite direction, so a very one sided portrayal, which to me always suggests bias in a purported academic work.</p>

<p>My main purpose of commenting here, however, was just to raise awareness among the posters as to the identity of the author and let them draw their own conclusions.</p>

63

<p>Because of ADD, DS’s IQ can’t be accurately measured. DS’s development was delayed (couldn’t sit up until 9 months, couldn’t walk until 16+ months) and doctors were ready to test him for cerebral palsy…however, DS grew up to be nationally ranked athlete.</p>

<p>I don’t really have anything more to add, but I did want to speak to this
When learning differences are present, it can be very helpful to have an IQ test, administered by someone who knows what they are doing.
The differences in sub tests, can illustrate the strenghts and weaknesses in a way that just looking at grades can’t.
Also, if they will need extended testing or any accomodations in high school or college, the testing will provide the documentation needed for that.</p>

<p>My younger D also had irregular physical development. She didn’t roll over, but she sat up. However, she is now quite active & while she isn’t a national or even state champion, she is on sports teams year round
( and because I don’t know if any new moms are on these college boards ;), but I think walking at 16 months is pretty normal isn’t it? I think both my kids walked later)</p>

64

<p>Kity ~ I agree that a broad range of testing did help. Although the absolutes were “off,” the relatives among the subtests did provide superb documentation when appropriately interpreted.</p>

<p>FYI, DS’s pediatrician was the one who was all bent out of shape about “late” thresholds…I, on the other hand, didn’t panic because as mom, I understood his development curve.</p>

65

<p>I haven’t read all the posts on this thread, but the title, well, yes half are below average and half are above…isnt’ that what average means? </p>

<p>just checking :)</p>

<p>as an aside, my mom taught special ed for years, she would give me IQ tests just to guage the tests from the viewpoint of an average kids</p>

<p>one questions was interesting</p>

<p>why do we send people to jail?
the answer did not match reality…in the general sense, but it was an IQ test question</p>

<p>the choices were</p>

<p>to punish
to protect society
to rehabilitate
to set an example</p>

<p>to this day I am suprised at the answer the test makers deemed “correct”</p>

66

<p>Wow what a WEIRD question cgm…what was the correct one? I personally would pick “to protect society” or “to punish” because “to rehabilitate” is inaccurate and “to set an example” just plain scares me a lot!!!</p>

67

<p>

</p>

<p>Which was???</p>

68

<p>No legitimate IQ test has a question such as the one CGM mentioned. There are not multiple choice answers, number one, and number two, most verbal responses can receive a score of 0, 1, or 2. Scoring isn’t nearly as “absolute” as people think.</p>

<p>BTW, Sage, children with ADD can and do have their IQs tested effectively.</p>

69

<p>The “Flynn” effect, demonstrated internationally and over decades, pretty much cements the case for environmental causation.</p>

<p>Not really. Identical twin studies have demonstrated that there is a genetic and an environmental influence to intelligence. The largest study of its type was done in Minnesota. If I remember it correctly, it was 80-20 in favor of genetics. Other studies have suggested as low as 50-50.</p>

<p>The most courageous piece of writing I have seen came out after the publication of The Bell Curve. A large group of researchers in the field took out an editorial in the Wall Street Journal explaining what they know about intelligence.</p>

<p><a href=“Yahoo | Mail, Weather, Search, Politics, News, Finance, Sports & Videos”>Yahoo | Mail, Weather, Search, Politics, News, Finance, Sports & Videos;

<p>Disturbing as it is, recent studies seem to suggest worst is yet to come. They apparently found adopted children as they age are becoming less like their adopted parents and more like the biological parents that they have never met.</p>

70

<p>Definitely courageous, Canuckguy. The Bell Curve was hugely controversial, and as witnessed from some posts on this thread, still not appreciated by people who don’t want to consider its conclusions (or in some cases, even read the book.)</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Before anyone starts screaming:

</p>

71

<p>This was a question, yes in 1970, and the answer was rehabilitate</p>

<p>THat is why I remember, all of my mom’s students said punish, as did I, that is why it was so odd.</p>

<p>And it was a IQ test, sure they have changed, but imagine taking a test like that, having questions like that and getting “labeled”</p>

72

<p>The issue is that the test makers had their own ideas of “what was correct”…and that is the same today in many tests</p>

<p>When you have generally a small circle of people creating these tests, you will have strange questions with perhaps multiple valid answers</p>

<p>And as it was my mom’s JOB to administer these tests at her school, she paid particular attention to the questions and answers and some did not seem “fair” to say the least</p>

<p>I am not saying this was a good test, but it was a test that was used to partly determine a childs intelligence…it was what used, and what my mom was to use to “guage” a students IQ…back in the day…NOW imagine how that kind of test could easily squew results</p>

73

<p><a href=“http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/10/031020053951.htm[/url]”>http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/10/031020053951.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>Renorming IQ Tests Due To Flynn Effect May Have Unintended Consequences
Science Daily — WASHINGTON – The steady rising of IQ scores over the last century known as the Flynn effect causes IQ tests norms to become obsolete over time. To counter this effect, IQ tests are “renormed” (made harder) every 15-20 years by resetting the mean score to 100 to account for the previous gains in IQ scores. But according to new research, such renorming may have unintended consequences, particularly in the area of special education placements for children with borderline or mild mental retardation. The findings are reported on in the October issue of American Psychologist, a journal of the American Psychological Association (APA).</p>

74

<p>CGM, IQ measurements have only relative value. It doesn’t matter what the absolute number is, what matters is how an individual performs compared to some population. If IQ scores are increasing across the board, as mentioned, it doesn’t matter, since the high end keeps moving up and the basic shape of the curve is maintained – the distribution remains the same. What would be more significant is if the shape of the curve changed – fewer individuals scoring at either the high or low end, thus reducing the variance.</p>

75

<p>CGM,</p>

<p>Actually, I think “rehabilitate” is the correct answer, (even tho all the others make sense), as far as the American justice system is concerned. Incarceration for “punishment” is supposedly considered barbaric in a civilized society. Or so I was told in law school…</p>

76

<p>“What would be more significant is if the shape of the curve changed – fewer individuals scoring at either the high or low end, thus reducing the variance.”</p>

<p>That is EXACTLY what the Flynn effect describes - the 3 point change every 15 years mostly reflected consistent changes in the “bottom half” of the curve. All subject to environmental influences. </p>

<p>IQ test QUESTIONS have absolute, rather than relative, value. That is precisely why the Flynn effect can be demonstrated. But since schools have begun to cause substantial cognitive retardation, the Flynn effect seems to have vanished. </p>

<p>“When you have generally a small circle of people creating these tests, you will have strange questions with perhaps multiple valid answers.”</p>

<p>Questions about volume and density, which Adey and Shavey, were measuring, have not changed at all in 85 years, do not have mulitple valid answers, and are not in the least bit strange. That is precisely why the Flynn effect can be measured, and across multiple cultures.</p>

<p>(but get me started on things like the California Achievement Test, and I bet I’ve got more stories than you can possibly imagine.)</p>

77

<p>that is the point. I now all about I! tests, I am was describing what my mom was doing back in the day…</p>

<p>As for the question, on paper the answer was rehabilitate, in the world, well, not so much…and that was the quandry, the kids were thinking beyond the paper reasoning for imprisonment and thinking about why people are really sent to jail</p>

<p>And thus, the problem with IQ tests- they are only as good as the test makers, and the interpretation of the results</p>

<p>Once someone is “labeled” by a test…well…</p>

78

<p>I thought the answer was To protect society, because the other three goals could be accomplished by other means.</p>

79

<p>generally SPED teachers don’t give IQ tests- at least the SPED teachers that I have been familiar with are not educational psychologists, who have training and education to administer the WISC-R or Stanford Binet…-</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I wont argue that oftentimes they try and place kids in or out of SPED by using some other test like the Brigance- but that isn’t an IQ test.
<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ[/url]”>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>Considering that it can take hours to administer a test correctly and just as long to write up the report, its no wonder that many districts don’t use the test for evaluation except when pressed.</p>

80

<p>“I thought the answer was To protect society, because the other three goals could be accomplished by other means.”</p>

<p>SS,</p>

<p>I agree that it appears logical, but how could you ever let them out unless they were…rehabilitated!</p>