Intelligence Quotient (IQ)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Your child will have to work with all types of people to be successful in life. Relating to others is an important skill to learn in school.

Relating to others can be learned in many contexts. No need to curtail a child's education in the interest of teaching them to "relate well to others". There are so many ways to achieve that, but holding back learning isn't one of them.

[Anonymous]

I wish they would give IQ tests to adults so that only those with an IQ over 130 had the best jobs. The rest could be our worker bees. No reason not to start it in elementary school. That way there's no deceiving one another that "you can do anything when you grow up."

[Anonymous]

I read a book about that once. "The Smartest Guys in the Room."

I forget, how did that end again?

[Anonymous]

Well it's probably because they didn't get IQ tested in elementary school so that they could be separated from other children! If they had we would have avoided the 2008 recession.

[Anonymous]

Throw logic out the window. It's a double edged sword dripping with poisonous politics. If kids who tested higher got more intensive, accelerated course offerings appropriate to their learning ability, others would think they are being handed free ponies and rainbow ice cream and that they are being cheated. As such, it would be shut down. But meanwhile, never mind the fact that it also ends up hurting the kids with lower IQs who need more supports appropriate to their learning levels.

Instead we play the old game... "Everybody's equal..."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:16:46 That's wild - I tested into the MGM program in 3rd grade. Unfortunately, this was California, immediately post Prop 13 so my special enhanced educational experience consisted of plopping me and the other three MGMers in a corner with a pile of books, while the rest of the class actually received instruction.

That's hilarious. I remember Prop 13. I was never told I was MGM by my parents. In fact, I was such a dullard I never figured it out - but my educational and professional life did turn out to be an excellent testament to the MGM program. I found out only because I commented to my motherin recent years how strange it was that I had the same classmates every year from elementary school through high school and she looked at me like I was a moron (i was) and said I had been classified as MGM from age 9 so was placed with other MGM'rs until we went our separate ways after high school. No one ever informed me that I was gifted and had a high I.Q. In those days, we were tested every year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Would you want your local public elementary school to perform free psychologist-led IQ tests on all children? (If it was an option, that is.) Ostensibly for the purposes of putting children into different groups and offering those with IQs of above a certain amount (let's say 130) to take part in special small group instruction?

This is already happening. No IQ test needed. In fact IQ is irrelevant to the differentiated instruction - actual performance and ability are the measure; and since those are variable, the groups can/do change with the needs and development of the child.

Differentiation becomes near impossible when you have kids in the same class who are academic years and sometimes decades apart in ability. Kids with greater academic abilities will be left to their devices for the most part as teachers focus their efforts on struggling students. Also, by dividing a class into groups, it effectively means students get less direct instructional time with the teacher than when students are grouped by ability into different classrooms. Any teacher worth their mettle knows this.

People keep telling me that, but I guess we've just been really lucky with the 9 teachers DCs have had so far.

[Anonymous]

In DCPS specifically, the question should really be "can DCPS attract, retain, and develop educators who would be skilled enough to teach middle school content to an 8 year old?" A variant on this would be, "can DCPS train school leaders like principals, instructional coaches, counselors and whomever else is deemed overhead to analyze data and qualitative feedback from the many new SEM programs to figure out whether DC needs AAP?" That's like four questions in one. Ultimately, children's academic scores are snapshots in time that can't possibly convey the narrative of a student's life and needs.

If anyone should be tested, it should be the adults who would responsible for educating children who score exceptionally above their peers in tests.

[Anonymous]

what?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Would you want your local public elementary school to perform free psychologist-led IQ tests on all children? (If it was an option, that is.) Ostensibly for the purposes of putting children into different groups and offering those with IQs of above a certain amount (let's say 130) to take part in special small group instruction?

Yes, if I could have confidence that a) the testers were skilled and qualified, and b) DC wouldn't succumb to PC radical egalitarianism and pervert the tests to equalize scores across all conceivable demographics.

Our first grader has an out-of-the-park high verbal IQ, placing him (in theory) 8 grade level equivalents above where he is. We think that partly explains why he complains that class is so boring and tends to be disruptive. Call me selfish, but I wish he could be grouped with similar kids at least part of the time. Seems like it would be good for him, for the other kids, and for society as a whole.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Would you want your local public elementary school to perform free psychologist-led IQ tests on all children? (If it was an option, that is.) Ostensibly for the purposes of putting children into different groups and offering those with IQs of above a certain amount (let's say 130) to take part in special small group instruction?

Yes, if I could have confidence that a) the testers were skilled and qualified, and b) DC wouldn't succumb to PC radical egalitarianism and pervert the tests to equalize scores across all conceivable demographics.

Our first grader has an out-of-the-park high verbal IQ, placing him (in theory) 8 grade level equivalents above where he is. We think that partly explains why he complains that class is so boring and tends to be disruptive. Call me selfish, but I wish he could be grouped with similar kids at least part of the time. Seems like it would be good for him, for the other kids, and for society as a whole.

and c) won't subconsciously (or consciously!) discriminate based on race.

[Anonymous]

I feel that perhaps we should have separate classrooms (starting in K) for students whose IQs are 130 and above, then 100-129, then 85-99, 70-85, and below 70. I know our DCUM children will all be in the 130+ IQ classrooms and they can then be groomed to be the leaders of our city, our nation, our world in a generation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Would you want your local public elementary school to perform free psychologist-led IQ tests on all children? (If it was an option, that is.) Ostensibly for the purposes of putting children into different groups and offering those with IQs of above a certain amount (let's say 130) to take part in special small group instruction?

This is already happening. No IQ test needed. In fact IQ is irrelevant to the differentiated instruction - actual performance and ability are the measure; and since those are variable, the groups can/do change with the needs and development of the child.

Differentiation becomes near impossible when you have kids in the same class who are academic years and sometimes decades apart in ability. Kids with greater academic abilities will be left to their devices for the most part as teachers focus their efforts on struggling students. Also, by dividing a class into groups, it effectively means students get less direct instructional time with the teacher than when students are grouped by ability into different classrooms. Any teacher worth their mettle knows this.

People keep telling me that, but I guess we've just been really lucky with the 9 teachers DCs have had so far.

Differentiation can work really well as long as teachers balance time between different groups of students.However most posters on DCUM are convinced the only way their kid can be properly challenged is if their speshull snowflake is in a special snowflake classroom with a moat around it to keep the dumb kids out. Or pull outs so they can at least go off in another room for part of the day. I'm not sure if it's an ego thing (getting to brag your kid is in a gifted class, or because most people on DCUM have really incorrect notions on gifted/talented education (ie testing kids at 5, or worse using the CAS as proof of being gifted)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I wish they would give IQ tests to adults so that only those with an IQ over 130 had the best jobs. The rest could be our worker bees. No reason not to start it in elementary school. That way there's no deceiving one another that "you can do anything when you grow up."

"You can do anything when you grow up" is a big fat lie. I am 5 feet tall, I could never be a great basketball player, no matter how hard I tried.
Same with IQ, whether we like it or not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I feel that perhaps we should have separate classrooms (starting in K) for students whose IQs are 130 and above, then 100-129, then 85-99, 70-85, and below 70. I know our DCUM children will all be in the 130+ IQ classrooms and they can then be groomed to be the leaders of our city, our nation, our world in a generation.

You're a great example of a parent who know nothing about good sound educational practices. There's tons of evidence that tracking at kindergarten just picks early bloomers and well coached children. In some cases by third grade the non gifted kids outperform the gifted class. That is why reputable programs don't start gifted classes until 3rd or 4th grade.