My 4 Yr Old Son's FSIQ is 131, Now What?

[Anonymous]

Why are we discussing how to handle gifted children on a thread about a kid with only a 131?

[Anonymous]

A 4-year-old with a WPSSI is no more or less gifted than one with a WPSSI of 126 (a mere 5 points lower). One point on the curve does not gifted or a genius make. I look forard to future validation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why are we discussing how to handle gifted children on a thread about a kid with only a 131?

Why are you such an asshole?

[Anonymous]

The more civil answer is that every kid benefits from being treated as if s/he were gifted. The advice being given here (play games, read, talk, observe,visit museums, help your child find and pursue his or her passion(s)) is good advice regardless of how smart your kid is.

On some level, it doesn't matter what prompted OP to ask how to keep her preschooler intellectually stimulated and engaged. It's a good question -- so some people answered it without snarking about WPSSI scores. So do you think that the appropriate advice for someone whose kid got this particular score is "don't bother -- he's probably not really gifted?"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The more civil answer is that every kid benefits from being treated as if s/he were gifted. The advice being given here (play games, read, talk, observe,visit museums, help your child find and pursue his or her passion(s)) is good advice regardless of how smart your kid is.

On some level, it doesn't matter what prompted OP to ask how to keep her preschooler intellectually stimulated and engaged. It's a good question -- so some people answered it without snarking about WPSSI scores. So do you think that the appropriate advice for someone whose kid got this particular score is "don't bother -- he's probably not really gifted?"

OP here.
Thank you for this post. BTW, I never mentioned anything about my DS being gifted. People on this thread just assumed so.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are we discussing how to handle gifted children on a thread about a kid with only a 131?

Why are you such an asshole?

Ditto. I bet that poster's kid scored below 100.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Because I've given enough info/examples that anyone who is genuinely interested could google and find stuff herself. And, of course, what's interesting or relevant depends on the question you want to ask. Not to mention the fact that lots of the research isn't exactly scintillating to read. See, e.g. this study which, arguably, supports the don't tell your kid s/he's gifted approach: https://www.stanford.edu/dept/psychology/cgi-bin/drupalm/system/files/cdwecklearning%20success.pdf

If you get through that without poking your own eyes out, and decide you'd prefer a fun-to-read intro to the 10,000 hours argument (with footnotes to actual research), check out Bounce by Matthew Syed (more fun than Gladwell and more citations to actual research, IIRC).

If you want practicing academics, I've already mentioned Howard Gardner's work on multiple intelligences. K. Anders Ericsson is probably the most prominent of the purposeful practice folks.

I'm sorry; I didn't mean to infer that you needed to "put your money where you mouth is" so to speak. I just meant that if you had a particular article relating to the topic that you thought would be worthwhile I would enjoy learning more. I will certainly do some googling!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are we discussing how to handle gifted children on a thread about a kid with only a 131?

Why are you such an asshole?

Ditto. I bet that poster's kid scored below 100.

Just to clarify, and beat back some of the snarkiness: I believe gifted means over 120. Yes, as somebody pointed out, in any test like this there could be a deviation of 5 points or so. But this means the true score could be 126 to 136.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The more civil answer is that every kid benefits from being treated as if s/he were gifted. The advice being given here (play games, read, talk, observe,visit museums, help your child find and pursue his or her passion(s)) is good advice regardless of how smart your kid is.

On some level, it doesn't matter what prompted OP to ask how to keep her preschooler intellectually stimulated and engaged. It's a good question -- so some people answered it without snarking about WPSSI scores. So do you think that the appropriate advice for someone whose kid got this particular score is "don't bother -- he's probably not really gifted?"

OP here.
Thank you for this post. BTW, I never mentioned anything about my DS being gifted. People on this thread just assumed so.

All questions about WPPSI scores eventually turn to giftedness (in this forum, if not in life).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The more civil answer is that every kid benefits from being treated as if s/he were gifted. The advice being given here (play games, read, talk, observe,visit museums, help your child find and pursue his or her passion(s)) is good advice regardless of how smart your kid is.

On some level, it doesn't matter what prompted OP to ask how to keep her preschooler intellectually stimulated and engaged. It's a good question -- so some people answered it without snarking about WPSSI scores. So do you think that the appropriate advice for someone whose kid got this particular score is "don't bother -- he's probably not really gifted?"

OP here.
Thank you for this post. BTW, I never mentioned anything about my DS being gifted. People on this thread just assumed so.

People aren't assuming so; they are stating the fact based on the test result. On WPPSI III a score of between 130 and 138 is ranked as gifted. If you aren't comfortable with that it's fine but you should start getting used to the idea. Your child's full scale IQ is in the top 2% of the population. To put this in perspective, this is just as different from the norm as the bottom 2% of the population.

Also, gifted ed experts (including the Davidson Institute) believe that the GAI is a better measure of giftedness and many programs now defer to the GAI (which omits the working memory & processing speed which commonly lowers a gifted child's FSIQ). The working memory & processing speed measurement is most beneficial when assessing a child for delays or learning disabilities and is not that relevant in gifted testing unless a LD is suspected. Point being is that chances are your child's GAI will net an even higher IQ.

Another thing to point out is that there are ceilings on the WPPSI subtests. If your child scored either an 18 or 19 on any of the subtests it means that they hit the ceiling and the IQ score is depressed. To get a true idea of the IQ score you would need to move on to another test like the Stanford Binet. I'm not suggesting you do this unless you think the information would benefit your child in some way; I'm simply explaining the nuances.

There are certainly more top 2%'ers in the DC metro area than what is typical in other parts of the country. This is great because it means that your child will be more likely to find cognitive peers which is so important as gifted kids need to form deep friendships with those they feel understand them.

Some parents feel that "merely" gifted kids will do fine in a regular classroom either public or private. These parents know what is best for their children and for many gifted kids this is certainly true. But, if the same kids were put in an environment with cognitive peers, designed to address not only their academic but social and emotional needs I think you would see even greater strides to meet their potential. This is just my opinion.

In public school systems and the majority of privates there are no programs for gifted kids below third grade. This is a tragedy in my opinion because educators and psychologists agree that early intervention for any exceptionality is so important for optimal development. An exceptionality could be a learning disability, a developmental delay, or giftedness. I cringe when I hear the advice that, "your child is just 4; it doesn't matter!". It does matter and can make a big difference in their future success.

Here is an article that explains the testing further:
http://www.hoagiesgifted.org/highly_profoundly.htm

Here are some other articles you may find interesting (most are related to early intervention and early years of education):
http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/search/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=ED370268&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=ED370268
http://www.earlychildhoodnews.com/earlychildhood/article_view.aspx?ArticleID=248
http://www.kidsource.com/kidsource/content/early.intervention.html
http://www.nagc.org/index.aspx?id=160
http://personalweb.donet.com/~eprice/hanninen.htm
http://www.malonefamilyfoundation.com/whatisgifted_assessing2.html
http://www.cec.sped.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Home&TEMPLATE=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&CONTENTID=2517
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/234896/everyone_wants_to_think_their_toddler.html?cat=25

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The more civil answer is that every kid benefits from being treated as if s/he were gifted. The advice being given here (play games, read, talk, observe,visit museums, help your child find and pursue his or her passion(s)) is good advice regardless of how smart your kid is.

On some level, it doesn't matter what prompted OP to ask how to keep her preschooler intellectually stimulated and engaged. It's a good question -- so some people answered it without snarking about WPSSI scores. So do you think that the appropriate advice for someone whose kid got this particular score is "don't bother -- he's probably not really gifted?"

OP here.
Thank you for this post. BTW, I never mentioned anything about my DS being gifted. People on this thread just assumed so.

All questions about WPPSI scores eventually turn to giftedness (in this forum, if not in life).

That is certainly true on this board. I bet however if you frequented forums with parents of special needs children that the WPPSI discussion would look a lot different. Parents of kids with average scores don't really have a lot of questions because their kid did just fine and most curriculums are designed to meet the needs of kids like theirs.

[Anonymous]

OP here. I'm not saying I don't think he's gifted. I know he is, in fact, it is my belief that he may be a genius. I never did any type of work at home with him. I just treated him as any good mother would. I show him love without babying him at the same time. He was speaking in complete sentences when he was a yr and a half. He taught himself how to read basically. I wasn't trying to show off. If I was, I would state his name (and mines) along with add'l info about us. Like I said earlier, his teacher told me he is bored in class. When I learned of this website, I figured that great moms like me would offer up some great advice- and most of you have. Thank you for all positive feedback.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP here. I'm not saying I don't think he's gifted. I know he is, in fact, it is my belief that he may be a genius. I never did any type of work at home with him. I just treated him as any good mother would. I show him love without babying him at the same time. He was speaking in complete sentences when he was a yr and a half. He taught himself how to read basically. I wasn't trying to show off. If I was, I would state his name (and mines) along with add'l info about us. Like I said earlier, his teacher told me he is bored in class. When I learned of this website, I figured that great moms like me would offer up some great advice- and most of you have. Thank you for all positive feedback.

OP, you should really consider touring the Feynman School.

www.feynmanschool.org

This is an old article but has a good summary of their program.

http://www.washingtonparent.com/closerlook/x1007education/feynmanschool.php

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because I've given enough info/examples that anyone who is genuinely interested could google and find stuff herself. And, of course, what's interesting or relevant depends on the question you want to ask. Not to mention the fact that lots of the research isn't exactly scintillating to read. See, e.g. this study which, arguably, supports the don't tell your kid s/he's gifted approach: https://www.stanford.edu/dept/psychology/cgi-bin/drupalm/system/files/cdwecklearning%20success.pdf

If you get through that without poking your own eyes out, and decide you'd prefer a fun-to-read intro to the 10,000 hours argument (with footnotes to actual research), check out Bounce by Matthew Syed (more fun than Gladwell and more citations to actual research, IIRC).

If you want practicing academics, I've already mentioned Howard Gardner's work on multiple intelligences. K. Anders Ericsson is probably the most prominent of the purposeful practice folks.

I'm sorry; I didn't mean to infer that you needed to "put your money where you mouth is" so to speak. I just meant that if you had a particular article relating to the topic that you thought would be worthwhile I would enjoy learning more. I will certainly do some googling!

Sorry right back atcha. You're right -- I misread your intent and was snippier than I should have been as a result.

Bounce and The Genius in All of Us both have first chapters online for free (if you go to Amazon's Kindle section -- and the downloads are readable on any PC as well as iPads and other devices -- you don't need a Kindle). For me, the best part of the selection from Genius is the study of the "maze-bright" and "maze-dull" mice.

[Anonymous]

9:54 keeps posting, but others continue to challenge her. If I could take a stab at the underlying assumptions, it's a continuation of the age-old "nature vs. nurture" debate.

If I could characterize 9:54's assumptions very generally, it seems to be that IQ is mostly innate. That kid doing Algebra in 4th grade is there because her brain just works more efficiently. Her mind is like a steel trap, and although the other kids in the class need to hear the multiplication tables over and over, she is bored stiff by this.

Others point to the 10,000 hours research. That kid is doing Algebra in 4th grade because she started doing it in K and has since put in 10,000 or so hours. This is because of certain personal characteristics besides just intelligence. These personal characteristics could include (a) an innate love of math, and (b) the persistence, drive, and focus to pursue this particular passion for 10,000 hours.

Please correct me if you think I've misrepresented your assumptions.

Interesting issues. First, doing Algebra in 4th grade may just signal that the kid loves math and wants to spend his or free time doing -- not that the kid is a genius.

Second, are the qualities of "persistence" and "focus" that lead a kid to do 10,000 hours of math somehow associated with intelligence? And should we say that a kid who puts the same persistence into hitting baseballs (see the Genius book) is somehow "less intelligent"?

I don't have the answers. I think this is a developing field.