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

[Anonymous]

11:40 here - I should note that my reply to the person with a "genius tested" brother who became a doorman didn't really apply to the OP's question regarding her child's test score and what she should do. It was more to that specific poster. (and sorry for typo's in that msg).

As for the OP - I would do for your child what I would do for any child - feed their interests and engage with them so they will have a life long love of learning. You will discover once that child is in the classroom whether there is a need to find a different environment for him/her. For the most part, as long as you are at a school where you have good teachers (who are not swamped with too many kids) - they will notice a gifted child and point it out to you. They see a lot of kids and will be a much better judge of what is outside the range of normal. Either that - or you child will tell you they are not satisfied with school.

[Anonymous]

It's unclear what the OP is seeking? The obvious response is continue your parental role. That's the only special requirement here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have a high scoring child on WPPSI-was I surprised initially no because I thought she seemed on track. What did surprise me was the fact that many of her playmates did not score high. This surprised me and has made me question the test because they all seem just fine. To your question about stimulation--I do think this applies to all and it is just to continue expose your child to educational opportunties. The only thing that does stick out in my mind regarding my dd is that she questions maybe more than some..it's a little annoying actually. She doesn't just accept a reason, it has to make sense to her and she will question until she is satisified she has gotten all of the info out of me and I can't bs her. The psychologist told me on a follow up that this can affect "gifted" kids more and is something to watch out for because it is annoying so she has to find ways to satisfy her curiosity in a group setting. I have never had a teacher complain but I have picked up on this. So maybe the round about answer is that if you notice this, this is a behavior to work on so your child doesn't annoy teachers/friends as life goes on and isn't impacted socially.

EEK! Please don't discourage your DC from asking questions and for not being satisfied until the answers make sense. Certainly, you help your child learn to raise questions/pursue answers in ways that don't antagonize other people (if that's an issue), but don't try to shut down the process.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP,
I did a lot of reading when my child got a comparable school.
Have at it!
Otherwise, just do what you've been doing. Follow his bliss. Do NOT tell him he's gifted. No, no, no. We value hard work in academics and making your best effort.

I strongly agree with this. I tested in 5th grade at 149, and it was one of the worst things that ever happened to me. Although I have a job with a good salary (even by DCUM standards), I still have atrocious work habits. My two kids also tested in the 90s percentile-wise at 4 and are in early elementary school. Luckily, the school has grouping for reading and math, so they don't know they are supposed to be one of the smart ones. They know they have to work to learn at school.

[Anonymous]

I think you guys are kidding yourselves if you think that all kids don't know who are the smart ones, the average ones, and the struggling ones are in a class. Give them some credit.

The experts in gifted education actually believe you should tell children if they are gifted. They know very well they are different and knowing that gives them answers they need to explain their differences.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP,
I did a lot of reading when my child got a comparable school.
Have at it!
Otherwise, just do what you've been doing. Follow his bliss. Do NOT tell him he's gifted. No, no, no. We value hard work in academics and making your best effort.

I strongly agree with this. I tested in 5th grade at 149, and it was one of the worst things that ever happened to me. Although I have a job with a good salary (even by DCUM standards), I still have atrocious work habits. My two kids also tested in the 90s percentile-wise at 4 and are in early elementary school. Luckily, the school has grouping for reading and math, so they don't know they are supposed to be one of the smart ones. They know they have to work to learn at school.

It's very common for gifted kids to never learn proper work habits and study skills in primary school because they were never challenged enough to need them. Are you sure this isn't one of the reasons for your lacking work habits?

[Anonymous]

Another poster who agrees about the lousy work habits. I, too, have an IQ of 140+. I was the smartest kid in the class in elementary and high school and never had to work at it. Even in college I barely studied and was Phi Beta Kappa.

My kids tested 99% on the WPPSI. So do many kids. As was pointed out earlier in the thread, if you read Nurture Shock you'll see that a high WPPSI score is not particularly indicative of eventual IQ or - especially - academic achievement.

Anyway, I am very careful not to tell my children they are smart. It's not their brains; it is how they apply them. My 4th grade daughter has only just figured out that she does better in school than her peers. My DH and I work to instill good work habits in her, i.e., staying organized, managing time (especially trying to avoid my worst fault - procrastinating), etc.

Keep encouraging your child to pursue knowledge and nurture him as you already do, OP. Good luck.

[Anonymous]

14:04 Can you provide links to articles with experts recommending that parents tell their children that they are gifted? There is another school of thought that advises not telling students they're smart or gifted, lest they think they do not have to work as hard.
I'm with 14:47.
Also, DC, now in HS, has a high IQ but was underachieving in elementary school. I took care of that by tutoring DC and having DC do Kumon.

[Anonymous]

The placebo effect works here. If you tell just about any kid they are "gifted" they will do better than if they think they are just average or dumb.

OP -- an IQ of 131 is really good -- but just par for the course here in DC where there are many, many smart kids. Feed the kid's passions and he will do well...try a lot of different things. Keep him busy.

[Anonymous]

OP here.
Thanks for all of your responses. I am aware that there's more to a child than their IQ. It was his teacher who in fact suggested that he gets tested, and switch to a private school when he leaves preschool. She has told me he becomes bored rather quickly in class, which is another reason I asked for advice on this forum. I will definitely begin implementing all of the positive suggestions I have received. Thank you all, and good luck if you are awaiting for responses from private schools.

[Anonymous]

This is the mom of the child who "asks too many questions"--I wanted to put some things in perspective. I don't by any means want to give the impression that I should or you should "reign" in your child's enthusiasm but.. and this is a big but..the world is a big place and it is not just about your child/my child's needs. I think it is good and healthy for kids to understand that yes ask questions but social norms and learning how to exist in the world is just as important. I think I would do my child a diservice to say "johnny you are so bright that you go on and on until you know"--that's not good. There is a time and place for everything. I am trying to stress that curiousity is good but make sure you don't fire off too many questions at once and be considerate of the teacher's time. Somtimes I do think "gifted" kids are told they are so special that they can't possibly follow all the appropriate rules and they can develop a certain smugness and other annoying qualities. I am thinking ahead twenty years and want to steer the ship in the correct direction so to speak.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP here.
Thanks for all of your responses. I am aware that there's more to a child than their IQ. It was his teacher who in fact suggested that he gets tested, and switch to a private school when he leaves preschool. She has told me he becomes bored rather quickly in class, which is another reason I asked for advice on this forum. I will definitely begin implementing all of the positive suggestions I have received. Thank you all, and good luck if you are awaiting for responses from private schools.

OP, you should check out Feynman School for your child.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is the mom of the child who "asks too many questions"--I wanted to put some things in perspective. I don't by any means want to give the impression that I should or you should "reign" in your child's enthusiasm but.. and this is a big but..the world is a big place and it is not just about your child/my child's needs. I think it is good and healthy for kids to understand that yes ask questions but social norms and learning how to exist in the world is just as important. I think I would do my child a diservice to say "johnny you are so bright that you go on and on until you know"--that's not good. There is a time and place for everything. I am trying to stress that curiousity is good but make sure you don't fire off too many questions at once and be considerate of the teacher's time. Somtimes I do think "gifted" kids are told they are so special that they can't possibly follow all the appropriate rules and they can develop a certain smugness and other annoying qualities. I am thinking ahead twenty years and want to steer the ship in the correct direction so to speak.

I'm the poster who responded about not shutting questions down. I agree with you that self-absorption/smugness/inconsiderateness, etc. are all bad traits and that smart kids shouldn't be lead to believe that they're above the rules. But I'd also being looking for a school environment in which questioning isn't socially disruptive --where, in fact, it's a crucial part of the educational process. What a good school/teacher will do with a kid who keeps asking questions until s/he is satisfied is give that kid the tools to answer his or her own questions rather than demand that someone else provide the answer. Intellectual development encouraged; social issue avoided.

[Anonymous]

OP and others - here is some good research based information to review from the University of Connecticut Neag Center of Gifted Education. It corrects a lot of misinformation that has circulated around this thread.

http://www.gifted.uconn.edu/nrcgt/newsletter/winter98/wintr983.html

Research Documentation


Cooperative learning in heterogeneous groups provides academic benefits for gifted and talented students.

Myth: Mixed-ability cooperative learning should be used sparingly for students who are gifted and talented, perhaps only for social skills development programs. Until evidence is accumulated that this form of cooperative learning provides academic outcomes similar or superior to the various forms of ability grouping, it is important to continue with the grouping practices that are supported by research (Rogers, 1991).


Acceleration options such as early entrance, grade skipping, early exit, and telescoping tend to be harmful for gifted and talented students.

Myth: Students who are gifted and talented should be given experiences involving a variety of appropriate acceleration-based options, which may be offered to gifted students as a group or an individual basis. It is, of course, important to consider the social and psychological adjustment of each student for whom such options are being considered as well as cognitive capabilities in making the optimal match to the student's needs (Rogers, 1991).


Gifted and talented children should spend the majority of their school day with others of similar abilities and interests.

Reality: Both general intellectual ability grouping programs (such as School Within a School, Gifted Magnet Schools, Full-time Gifted Programs or Gifted Classrooms) and full-time grouping for special academic ability (such as Magnet Schools) have produced marked academic achievement gains as well as moderate increases in attitude toward the subjects in which these students are grouped (Rogers, 1991).


When using cooperative learning, student achievement disparities within the cooperative groups should not be too severe.

Reality: When high, medium, and low achieving students are grouped together, high achieving students explain material to low achieving students, and medium achieving students have fewer opportunities for participation. Academically talented students report frustration when working in mixed ability groups with team members who are unwilling to contribute to the group goal. Placing students who are similar in achievement together continues to allow for heterogeneity in terms of ethnicity and gender in the groups. Cooperative learning might be used with groups of high achieving students (Robinson, 1991).


Cooperative learning can be effectively substituted for specialized programs and services for academically talented students.

Myth: Cooperative learning in the heterogeneous classroom should not be substituted for specialized programs and services for academically talented students. Cooperative learning models have not been compared to special education programs and services for academically talented students in the research literature. Thus, no clear superiority for cooperative learning in the heterogeneous classroom over specialized programs and services for academically talented students has been established. Even advocates of cooperative learning have acknowledged the need for separate course offerings for academically talented students (Robinson, 1991).


There is some evidence that labeling a child gifted has a positive impact on his/her self-esteem.

Reality: The label of gifted may influence a student to have more confidence in his/her own ability (Hoge & Renzulli, 1991). This has also been noted in the literature with regard to the Pygmalion effect and self fulfilling prophecy.


Gifted students have lower self-esteem than non-gifted students.

Myth: The majority of studies seemed to indicate somewhat higher levels of general and academic self-esteem for the exceptional group (Hoge & Renzulli, 1991).


Schools should call for the elimination of ability grouping because ability grouping has negative effects on student achievement.

Myth: On the contrary, Kulik (1992) found youngsters of all achievement groups benefited from ability grouping programs when the curriculum was appropriately adjusted to the aptitude levels of the groups and cautioned that if schools eliminated grouping programs with differentiated curricula, the damage to student achievement would be great. He indicated that higher and lower aptitude students would suffer academically from elimination of grouping. Conversely, he cautioned that schools should resist the call for the elimination of the use of ability grouping.


Bright, average, and slow youngsters profit from grouping programs that adjust curriculum to the aptitude levels of the groups.

Reality: Cross-grade and within class programs are examples of programs that provide both grouping and curricular adjustment. Children from such grouping programs outperform control children from mixed classes by two to three months on grade-equivalent scales (Kulik, 1992).


Highly talented youngsters profit from work in accelerated classes as well as from enriched curriculum.

Reality: Talented students from accelerated classes outperform nonaccelerates of the same age and IQ by almost one full year on the grade-equivalent scales of standardized achievement tests. Talented students from enriched classes outperform control students from conventional classes by four to five months on the grade-equivalent scales (Kulik, 1992).


Creativity tests are effective means of identifying artistically gifted and talented students.

Myth: Caution should be exercised in using creativity tests as a means of identifying artistically gifted and talented students. Creativity tests are used to measure problem solving skills and divergent thinking abilities applicable to a variety of situations. Many contemporary researchers and writers, however, have asserted that the concept of creativity often is poorly understood and poorly defined and that there are no reports of the validity of creativity tests in predicting success in gifted and talented programs for students with high abilities in visual arts (Clark & Zimmerman, 1992).


In identifying artistically gifted and talented students, attention should be paid to potential and works in progress as well as to final performance and products.

Reality: Many programs for artistically gifted and talented students are based upon defining art talent as the ability to create a superior product or perform in a distinguished manner. Many art educators are now eliminating such requirements; they are expressing concern for students' interest and desire to participate and their potential for performance. Researchers will be challenged to develop methods of identifying students with potential to perform at high levels of ability in the visual arts and at the same time access emerging skills, cognitive abilities, and affective abilities through work in progress, as well as final products (Clark & Zimmerman, 1992).


Television is bad for young gifted children.

Myth: Young gifted children spend significantly more hours in front of the television set than their same-age peers, but viewing does not necessarily warrant parental concern or dramatic time reductions or limitations. Sizable viewership of television programming at a very early age is reflective of gifted children's natural attraction to accessible and interesting sources of information. TV viewing during the preschool years is not a dysfunctional behavior unless it is taking place of, rather than complementing, other viable means of information (e.g., books); limiting interaction with parents and other children; and resulting in long-term viewing habits of a similar nature. This is not usually the case and once children enter the formal school system, their overall TV viewing drops dramatically (Ableman, 1992).


Primetime, commercial television offers inadequate and inappropriate role models for gifted children.

Reality: Only 9% of all the new programming during the past decade has had one or more children in the starring or title role, despite that over 17% of the nation's population is under 13 years of age. Gifted children are also highly underrepresented and typically depicted as social misfits (Ableman, 1992).


Creativity in children is a sign of and a contributor to psychological health.

Reality: It can be difficult to tolerate the individuality and nonconformity of highly creative students, but it helps to remember that creativity is an important personal asset (Runco, 1993).


Parenting young gifted children is labor intensive.

Reality: Parents report spending considerable time with gifted young children in reading, playing, making up rhymes and songs, and going to interesting places (Robinson, 1993).


Gifted children identified during their preschool years tend to stay ahead of other children with regard to academic performance.

Reality: Longitudinal studies of preschoolers identified for their early-emerging abilities (not just high test scores) find that they do maintain long-range momentum, even though it may not be as dramatic as when first seen. Early entrance to school is, therefore, one way to meet the needs of some young gifted children (Robinson, 1993).


Teachers need to show students examples of superior student work in order to challenge them to ever increasing levels of math achievement.

Reality: Talented math students need standards and models. Superior student work can serve to reinforce the development of emerging math skills (Sheffield, 1994).


Talented students are capable of greater mathematical power than we have ever asked of them.

Reality: When compared to students from other industrialized nations, our students lag far behind in the development of their mathematical skills, due largely, in part, to the fact that we do not expect them to achieve at great levels (Sheffield, 1994).


Early reading and writing skills should keep pace with each other.

Myth: Contrary to this commonly held belief, there is no relationship between reading and writing skills in the development of talented young children (Jackson & Roller, 1993).


In exemplary programs for gifted and talented students, the provision of challenges and choices are major influences on increasing student achievement and motivation.

Reality: Themes in exemplary gifted and talented programs identified included: Leadership (strong administrative voice to represent and implement the program); Atmosphere and Environment (supportive, accepting, and positive throughout the school); Communication (clear and frequent between and among parents, teachers, students, and administrators); Curriculum and Instruction (teachers' flexibility in matching to student needs); and Attention to Student Needs (commitment to serving students from traditionally underrepresented populations). In addition, the exemplary programs were found to influence student achievement and motivation through exposure to challenge and choices.
References
Ableman, R. (1992). Some children under some conditions: TV and the high potential kid (RBDM 9206). Storrs, CT: University of Connecticut, The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
Clark, G. A., & Zimmerman, E. (1994). Programming opportunities for students gifted and talented in the visual arts (RBDM 9402). Storrs, CT: University of Connecticut, The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
Delcourt, M. A. B., & Evans, K. (1994). Qualitative extensions of the learning outcomes study (Research Monograph 94110). Storrs, CT: University of Connecticut, The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
Hoge, R. D., & Renzulli, J. S. (1991). Self-concept and the gifted child (RBDM 9104). Storrs, CT: University of Connecticut, The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
Jackson, N. E., & Roller, C. M. (1993). Reading with young children (RBDM 9302). Storrs, CT: University of Connecticut, The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
Kulik, J. A. (1992). An analysis of the research on ability grouping: Historical and contemporary perspectives (RBDM 9204). Storrs, CT: University of Connecticut, The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
Robinson, A. (1991). Cooperative learning and the gifted and talented student (RBDM 9106). Storrs, CT: University of Connecticut, The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
Robinson, N. M. (1993). Parenting the very young, gifted child (RBDM 9308). Storrs, CT: University of Connecticut, The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
Rogers, K. B. (1991). The relationship of grouping practices to the education of the gifted and talented learner (RBDM 9102). Storrs, CT: University of Connecticut, The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
Runco, M. A. (1993). Creativity as a educational objective for disadvantaged students (RBDM 9306). Storrs, CT: University of Connecticut, The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
Sheffield, L. J. (1994). The development of gifted and talented mathematics students and the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics standards (RBDM 9404). Storrs, CT: University of Connecticut, The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.

[Anonymous]

Myth: There's an academic consensus on the best approach to educating gifted students.

Fact: The research cited is all from the early 1990s and was all published by the same organization whose work focuses on practices in US public schools.