Comments on: Gifted at 4, ordinary at 17

By: Tweets that mention Gifted at 4, ordinary at 17 « Joanne Jacobs -- Topsy.com

Tweets that mention Gifted at 4, ordinary at 17 « Joanne Jacobs -- Topsy.com — Sun, 07 Feb 2010 08:04:01 +0000

[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Liz Ditz, kriley19 and JoanneLeeJacobs, Charley Cowens. Charley Cowens said: @JoanneLeeJacobs Great comments in http://www.joannejacobs.com/2010/02/gifted-at-4-ordinary-at-17/ [...]

By: Sara

Sara — Sun, 07 Feb 2010 04:47:47 +0000

I agree that IQ test can be unreliable. I also think that there may be other reasons a child could test high at a young age and average at 17. I was actually so shy when I was first tested that I did not answer many of the teachers questions. I remember those questions to this day because it ate at me that I had not answered. I still tested at 131. I rarely brought homework home and spent at least half of every day painting in the hall, running teachers’ errands, or tutoring other kids in my class. I still had a passion for learning during elementary. I understood many advanced concepts like physics, art, astronomy, zoology, and design. I did have one problem, however. I did not have anybody to share what I knew with. Few people understood where I was coming from. By the time middle school rolled around I had practically given up. I just did the work and got into trouble. I started smoking, drinking, and staying up past 2 a.m. I let humor become my outlet. I was full of wit and fury and frustration. If I had been tested at the age of 17 I have no doubt I would not have done well. I did not care to push myself anymore. I am in my 20′s now and I still struggle. I have had to teach myself to do things whether they are interesting or not. I have trouble with structure and confidence. But sometimes for a brief second I stumble upon something that holds my attention, and I remember the amazing feeling of being able to make connections and see the world in a way few people will ever experience. I know the test can be unreliable. I know parents can drill information into their toddlers heads allowing them to squeeze into the gifted system. I witnessed it just last week when sitting in a elementary library waiting for my daughter’s screening for a magnet school. While some parents were performing last minute cram sessions with their 4-year-olds, my daughter was playing with different colored craft balls on the floor. My daughter has never needed a rehersal. She has never been to pre-k I know there are slip-ups in the magnet and gifted schools, but I also know that I do not want my daughter to go through what I went through as a child. I want her to push and pull and discover and explore, and I know from my own experience that she will never have that gift at a regular public school. Finally I would have to say that I have worked with many gifted children. I seem to stumble upon them every where I work or live. I have never needed a test to see it. I think the best markers for the gifted are the ways they use what they have. I can see it in the way they look around. I can see it in the way they explore. I think the best way to help the gifted is to recruit the gifted as testers and teachers. Afterall, how is someone supposed to be able to find the gifted and understand the gifted if they have never been gifted and felt and seen the world through gifted eyes.

By: umbahli

umbahli — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 13:30:09 +0000

“Don’t try to crown a few young children ueber special fantastically gifted, particularly on a test which is so easily coached.”

I second that! To me, conceiving the idea of being gifted as a static state of being is related to relegating a child’s potential based on the shade of their skin which can still happen in our society. Human beings are multifaceted beings who are not defined by one set of rules or tests. We need a world filled with people who are “gifted” in multiple ways or we will not function. So the question I ask is “Gifted? By whose definition?” If our gifted programs recognized area like humor and kindness and negotiation, they would have to be inclusive and it would become obvious that ALL children can be encouraged to develop their unique take on the world!

By: Cranberry

Cranberry — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 19:18:58 +0000

“if it really is easier to get that high score early”

I don’t think that’s the point of Lohman’s research. If early tests for IQ are unreliable at the top of the IQ scale, they’re unreliable in both directions.

If only 25% of 4-year olds dubbed “gifted” by these tests will test “gifted” at 17, that means that 75% were incorrectly dubbed “gifted.” Logically, it also means that a large number of children who would test as “gifted” at 17 were incorrectly identified as “not gifted” at 4.

The New York situation is nuts. We just watched the DVD, “Nursery University,” about preschool admissions in New York. I’m very glad we don’t live in New York.

The best system would be a challenging curriculum available for all who think their children need it, and accepting that some schoolchildren are being honest when they call the curriculum boring. Don’t try to crown a few young children ueber special fantastically gifted, particularly on a test which is so easily coached. Something about those labels make adults behave very strangely around children.

By: Rachel @ Minds in Bloom

Rachel @ Minds in Bloom — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 17:53:29 +0000

Having taught “gifted” populations, I found that there are some kids that are bright – they catch on fast, they master things quickly. And then there are some that are super-bright. They get things intuitively, they come up with amazingly creative ideas. They thrive on learning. I think sometimes IQ tests cannot differentiate the two.

Also, if it really is easier to get that high score early, and you want your kid in a gifted program, start the program as early as possible. Many gifted schools have preschool programs. Depending on the school students may be allowed to continue on into the higher grades without ever restesting.

By: Miriam Kurtzig Freedman

Miriam Kurtzig Freedman — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 07:12:47 +0000

That label! Gifted! Talented! It often ends up not helping as kids are afraid to fail, to venture out, to test their limits, fearing that the label may disappear.

After I read Carol Dweck’s book, Mindset, I understood a lot more about why this is. She writes about the fixed mindset (labels) and the growth mindset (sky’s the limit). I highly recommend her book.

By: greeneyeshade

greeneyeshade — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 05:29:23 +0000

I understand this is old news when it comes to higher mathematics. Rebecca Goldstein has looked into this in her novels ‘The Mind-Body Problem’ and ’36 Arguments for the Existence of God,’ and her book on Kurt Godel; it seems mathematicians regularly dry up early.

By: Ben F

Ben F — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 02:22:33 +0000

David Foster,

I agree with you.

By: Crimson Wife

Crimson Wife — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 00:57:22 +0000

Preschool IQ tests can be unreliable, but they’re much more likely to underestimate a kid’s IQ than overestimate it. My 2nd got bored with copying the evaluator’s design during the “block assembly” sub-test of the WPPSI at 3 1/2 years old and decided that it would be much more fun to play with the blocks. But he loved the puzzle sub-test and ceilinged on that. It didn’t matter because the psychologist was able to get the information she needed (that his speech delay was not due to an overall low IQ). If we want an accurate assessment of his potential, we’ll need to wait until he’s mature enough to follow the directions.

My oldest, however, recently took the CTY test at age 7 and her score is virtually identical to what would be predicted from her WPPSI score at age 4.

By: david foster

david foster — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 18:55:31 +0000

Long ago, Peter Drucker wrote that it is inherently vicious for companies to focus on “potential” rather than “performance” in making employee promotion decisions. The same applies here. The problem with the term “gifted” is that it describes something you *are* rather than something you *do*.

The various “gifted and talented” programs are mostly probably fine in concept EXCEPT that they should be retitled “performance programs” or “achievement programs” or something like that. I don’t think this is a trivial consideration.