When I was in grade school (late 1970’s and early 1980’s) in Houston, I was in a program that required both academic and creative giftedness. I think there is something to be said for identifying and nurturing creative giftedness — but it is neither a proxy nor a substitute for academic giftedness. There should be programs to address both, whether separately or together.

This was in 1993 when I was 12, and they were identifying gifted kids based on creative skills back then. However, it was based on observable things like imaginative writing, artistic expression, and general creativity. One test was a worksheet with 10 boxes, each with a different small doodle/shape/mark in it. The object was to draw a picture incorporating the doodle and give it a title. The time limit was 20 min. I believe. Points were scored based on how creative (uncommon) the drawings were compared to other kids’ drawings. I remember one of the doodles was double curve similar to a lowercase m. The proctor told me afterwards that a typical kid would make it a bird flying and draw the sun and waves. I added a third curve, made it into an ant, added a a checkered blanket, another ant, and several foods, and titled it “Picnic Parade.” I earned full creative marks for that one.

My sister was initially identified based on the creativity in her writing and art. She chose unusual subjects for her pieces. She enjoyed writing from the point of view of household objects, and blew her teachers away with her creativity. When she was in 3rd grade, she wrote from the point of view of a lightbulb and then one of her teacher’s high heels. I remember seeing the form they used to identify creatively gifted kids, and one of the criterion was that the student drew unusual things (not puppies, rainbows, horses, houses, planes, cars, etc.)

This kind of giftedness should be identified and supported as well, but not in the same classes as academic giftedness. My sister’s class was focused on teaching them a variety of artistic mediums, polishing their creative writing skills, honing their drama skills, etc. My academic classes were focused on logic, experimentation, research, problem-solving, etc. Though some kids (like me) were suited for both, mixing ALL these kids together would have been counter-productive.

More money for progressive ‘researchers’.

Well said. But, again, the facts are irrelevant. The authors of this new test are on a mission. The mission is social justice or some other nonsense. Thus, practical intelligence can correlate to whatever you want, like…. identifying more black and Hispanic kids as gifted.

“Practical intelligence” correlates to…what, exactly?