Is IQ of 130 in WISC -IV really top 2%?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A 130 IQ is not so bright that a child needs a completely separate classroom. 140, 150+ sure. 130? That's just bright-average.

Nothing average about the 98th %ile.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't think the 130 IQ kids need to be taught any differently than the 100 IQ kids. True geniuses (145? 150+) obviously need a much more accelerate curriculum. 130 IQ kids are probably easily half the class at some elementary schools.

Precisely. Which begs the question - why the separation? Only the tiny amount of kids who absolutely can't learn in a typical classroom should be given "gifted" services. The rest could easily be mixed into flexible groupings (advanced, grade-level, etc.) depending on subject. Dismantling this stratified system would breathe new life into FCPS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Which begs the question - why the separation?

Here's why -- watch Dr. Jim Delisle. (90 minute video)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Which begs the question - why the separation?

Here's why -- watch Dr. Jim Delisle. (90 minute video)

Ain't nobody got time for a 90 minute video! Why don't you summarize it for us.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A 130 IQ is not so bright that a child needs a completely separate classroom. 140, 150+ sure. 130? That's just bright-average.

Nothing average about the 98th %ile.

The point is that in FCPS classrooms, 130 IQ is more like the 90th percentile. Compare the Fairfax CogAt percentiles with the national CogAt percentiles.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A 130 IQ is not so bright that a child needs a completely separate classroom. 140, 150+ sure. 130? That's just bright-average.

Nothing average about the 98th %ile.

The point is that in FCPS classrooms, 130 IQ is more like the 90th percentile. Compare the Fairfax CogAt percentiles with the national CogAt percentiles.

Fine. Even the 90th %ile isn't bright average.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Which begs the question - why the separation?

Here's why -- watch Dr. Jim Delisle. (90 minute video)

Ain't nobody got time for a 90 minute video! Why don't you summarize it for us.

Summary here:

http://giftedparentingsupport.blogspot.com/2014/07/dumbing-down-america-interview-with-dr.html

[Anonymous]

Interesting, but I doubt a kid with just a 130 IQ is so bright that he's going to be labeled emotionally-disturbed. He is just one of the masses of bright FCPS kids. A kid with 160 IQ? Yeah, I'd buy that that kid might have problems functioning in a standard class. The difference between a 130 kid and a 160 kid is as large as the difference between an average child (100) and an intellectually disabled child.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Interesting, but I doubt a kid with just a 130 IQ is so bright that he's going to be labeled emotionally-disturbed. He is just one of the masses of bright FCPS kids. A kid with 160 IQ? Yeah, I'd buy that that kid might have problems functioning in a standard class. The difference between a 130 kid and a 160 kid is as large as the difference between an average child (100) and an intellectually disabled child.

No no that is not true. I agree that we tend to have more children in this forum with IQ 130 but really? The difference between a 130 kid and a 160 kid is as large as the difference between an average child (100) and an intellectually disabled child.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting, but I doubt a kid with just a 130 IQ is so bright that he's going to be labeled emotionally-disturbed. He is just one of the masses of bright FCPS kids. A kid with 160 IQ? Yeah, I'd buy that that kid might have problems functioning in a standard class. The difference between a 130 kid and a 160 kid is as large as the difference between an average child (100) and an intellectually disabled child.

No no that is not true. I agree that we tend to have more children in this forum with IQ 130 but really? The difference between a 130 kid and a 160 kid is as large as the difference between an average child (100) and an intellectually disabled child.

Yes, of course that is correct.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting, but I doubt a kid with just a 130 IQ is so bright that he's going to be labeled emotionally-disturbed. He is just one of the masses of bright FCPS kids. A kid with 160 IQ? Yeah, I'd buy that that kid might have problems functioning in a standard class. The difference between a 130 kid and a 160 kid is as large as the difference between an average child (100) and an intellectually disabled child.

No no that is not true. I agree that we tend to have more children in this forum with IQ 130 but really? The difference between a 130 kid and a 160 kid is as large as the difference between an average child (100) and an intellectually disabled child.

I am not that PP, but are you claiming the last statement is outrageous? It is technically wrong, but the opposite of the way you're thinking. As a statistical matter, there is a more extreme difference between a 130 and a 160 than a 100 and a 70, when the scale is normalized to 100.

[Anonymous]

I have 3 kids and all are in AAP.

DC 1 has IQ of 155, is bright beyond bright, a little different - speaks in metaphors - just super intellectual - I feel like I am speaking to a super advanced colleague when in conversation with DC1. AAP was a best fit, hands down.

DC2 has IQ of 134. Very well-rounded child. Extremely smart and kind. Gets along with all children across all abilities. DC2 is very outgoing and very smart.

DC3 has IQ of 119 but GAI of 132. Low processing and Avg Working Memory scores brought down FSIQ. Very smart kid. AAP is a best fit. DC3 has a 504 and AAP teacher is on top of being innovative to help DC stay on track. Disorganization like you have never seen before. AAP is a great fit.

Of my 3, only DC2 would do well in GE class. DC1 would have checked out or would have continued being a teacher's helper, but would not have been pushed or taught new to DC things. 7th grade, current grade, is the first year that DC has been pushed beyond comfort zone. DC3 learns differently, and the AAP teachers are trained to teach to kids in a different way.

I don't think change is necessary. I think opening AAP up to all children is a must. Much like how Honors is open to all in MS and AP in HS. It should be up to the parents where they want their children.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In my case my child's word knowledge and vocabulary (meaning social and practical knowldge) a section in VCI came out to be weak. The other one "similarities" is 92%. Rest are above 90%. I am under impression that WMI,PSI are inherent(genetic) but VCI is environmental like how much exposure child is given. So can VCI be improved by giving good exposure? I might be comapletely wrong. Correct me if I am wrong.

My child had very low "comprehension" 2 years ago (when tested by GMU) -- think 25th percentile. A neuropsychologist tested her (for ADHD and LDs) this year and comprehension was in the 90th percentile range. I questioned the neurospcyh and she told me a lot of things in the earlier test seemed "off" compared to her 3 days of testing with my child (including the WISC). She told me to shred the first WISC because she thought it was totally wrong. I think either the tester was clueless or DD really matured over that 2 year period.

This is the long way of saying I think comprehension could come with maturity (especially considering what they are testing) and testers can be bad or have a poor rapport with your child.

Thanks for explaining it ti me, but in my case tester was not bad nor did he/she have poor rapport but I am hopeful that after few years my child's comprehension will improve with maturity.

OP (pp here whose son took the WISC V) a high score in similarities is fantastic. That is verbal, abstract reasoning. I was pleased to see that it was my DS's highest score in VCI. I was less interested in the other subtests. If your DD also did well in matrix reasoning, then intellectual potential is very high.

OP here- Yeah my DS's matrix reasoning is 91 % ile. His vocabulary and comprehension are weak sections . I should focus on them

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have 3 kids and all are in AAP.

DC 1 has IQ of 155, is bright beyond bright, a little different - speaks in metaphors - just super intellectual - I feel like I am speaking to a super advanced colleague when in conversation with DC1. AAP was a best fit, hands down.

DC2 has IQ of 134. Very well-rounded child. Extremely smart and kind. Gets along with all children across all abilities. DC2 is very outgoing and very smart.

DC3 has IQ of 119 but GAI of 132. Low processing and Avg Working Memory scores brought down FSIQ. Very smart kid. AAP is a best fit. DC3 has a 504 and AAP teacher is on top of being innovative to help DC stay on track. Disorganization like you have never seen before. AAP is a great fit.

Of my 3, only DC2 would do well in GE class. DC1 would have checked out or would have continued being a teacher's helper, but would not have been pushed or taught new to DC things. 7th grade, current grade, is the first year that DC has been pushed beyond comfort zone. DC3 learns differently, and the AAP teachers are trained to teach to kids in a different way.

I don't think change is necessary. I think opening AAP up to all children is a must. Much like how Honors is open to all in MS and AP in HS. It should be up to the parents where they want their children.

How do you know their IQs? Did you have to appeal and get WISCs, or are they in special ed?

[Anonymous]

I did WISC IV for all because I was curious. Only DC3 has a 504. No special Ed, per se.