Forum Index
»
Private & Independent Schools
NurtureShock
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
| Has anyone else read this, particularly the chapter about attempting to measure giftedness in children? Very interesting... |
Anonymous
| I read it. Very interesting. I did get the sense though that his arguments were skewed in that chapter, and I question whether the underlying studies really are as clear as he suggests. I dug up a couple of the underlying studies online, but have not read them yet. |
Anonymous
|
There are some inconsistencies in the book. In an earlier chapter, the authors actually say that the WPPSI is an accurate predictor of school performance.
The authors are not academics (and hence, the inconsistency in the argument), but they do I think help to provoke good questions and discussion. |
Anonymous
Actually, the authors maintain that the WPPSI/WISC is not accurate until 3rd or 4th grade. It's not an inconsistency at all. The chapter about giftedness says that performance in the top 1% at the K level doesn't indicate giftedness, and that those kids are bright but not necessarily going to be in the top 1% a few years later. It is a better indicator that the kids have attentive parents. Thus, we are all trying to get our 99% kids admitted before we actually have to confront whether they are gifted or not. Actually makes me think that NCS, StA, and other schools that begin a little later have the right idea. |
Anonymous
That makes some intuitive sense. I have seen some of these "gifted" early starters flame out in 3rd or 4th grade and some of the "late bloomers" really pull ahead around the same time. |
SAM2
Member Offline
Member Offline
|
I think their point was that early-age intelligence tests (like WPPSI) are only moderately correlated to academic success, when viewed over a long range of time (like 5-10 years). I think the actual studies they cite suggest a correlation of just below 50%, although they do not discuss the many studies showing correlation ranges of 60-80%. The authors complain that some schools based admissions and giftedness decisions only on one early-age snapshot test, and do not confirm the results with later tests. They seem to suggest that schools should be repeatedly retesting students over multiple years to gauge their development, and should add/remove students from gifted programs depending on the results.
I think they like claiming that the early-age tests are inaccurate, because it's a relatively controversial statement that fits with their overarching thesis of "everything you thought you knew about childhood development is wrong." But when I read closely, it seemed (to me at least) that they're not really saying those early tests are completely inaccurate. Instead, they're just saying it's much more accurate to use later-age tests and/or to re-test. One of the claims that made me suspicious was the claim that none of the largest schools systems (including Montgomery County) use re-tests to evaluate giftedness -- once a child tests into a gifted program, she's in forever. From what I know of MoCo schools, that's not accurate, since the kids must test into gifted programs at various grade levels (elementary vs. middle, vs. high school), and are not given any "free pass" just because they tested into a gifted program at a younger age. But my knowledge of MoCo is limited, so maybe I'm wrong about that. |
Anonymous
| I think the point is that the gifted selection process is quite imperfect. The bigger issue is not selecting the wrong, or undeserving kids, but missing the truly gifted kids completely. This happens WAY too much and the consequences can be devastating for the child. |
Anonymous
| It's a very thought-provoking book. The gifted chapter points out that the problem is with school districts making their gifted selection in the early years. Hopefully, this is not the usual practice among the majority of school districts. It's like reading about all the parents on here who are just horrified that their little gifted kids are forced to sit and be bored in Kindergarten because there are so many kids who cannot read yet! As if reading in Kindergarten is the barometer of giftedness and there is nothing else to be gained in school. |
Anonymous
|
I think it's also established that (a) your IQ really doesn't change much over time, even if it was measured fairly early; (b) IQ is only one part of predicting school success, and (c) gifted is vastly overdefined. Realistically it should be the top 5% of scores if you're looking at IQ, and MCPS is actually capturing kids who score somewhere around 75% and above.
This really hurts the small percentage of kids who truly need a different type of instruction and curriculum. |
Anonymous
| I have older kids and have come to the conclusion that pure intelligence is the least important aspect of school success. There are a lot of super intelligent kids out there with mediocre grades. I think it comes down to self-discipline and a love of learning. Kids who have those two qualities are the ones do well. |
Anonymous
You're flat wrong about (a). |
Anonymous
|
Poster at 14:55: Actually, I'm not. Most research shows that after the age of 7 or 8, which is when the first stage of neuroplasticity ends, a person's IQ doesn't vary more than 3 or 4 points, well under a standard deviation.
People's other abilities may improve and they may become better test-takers, but someone who tests at age 8 with an IQ of 120 is not going to be able to test again and get 135, even years later. That person may make the most of that 120, and there are lots of other "intelligences" that have a huge impact on what individuals can accomplish, but you're not going to change your actual IQ all that much, assuming that it's measured appropriately with an accepted testing instrument (like the WISC for example). The exception to this would be a lowering of IQ due to cognitive impairment, for example if someone had a brain injury. |
Anonymous
|
[quote=SAM2]
One of the claims that made me suspicious was the claim that none of the largest schools systems (including Montgomery County) use re-tests to evaluate giftedness -- once a child tests into a gifted program, she's in forever. From what I know of MoCo schools, that's not accurate, since the kids must test into gifted programs at various grade levels (elementary vs. middle, vs. high school), and are not given any "free pass" just because they tested into a gifted program at a younger age. But my knowledge of MoCo is limited, so maybe I'm wrong about that.[/quote] MoCo doesn't "officially" slot kids into gifted programs at an early age, from whence they never leave, and new ones never enter. But in practice it may often, if not always, work out this way. A lot is based on a test given in 2nd grade. Based on the results of this test, some kids are slotted into advanced math or english, and some aren't. If you're not in advanced math from the start, it would be really tough to catch up to the "advanced" kids and get into advanced math classes later on. This carries on through the MS and HS math magnets. From our elementary school, almost all the kids who went to the Takoma MS math/science magnet were doing math 2 years ahead. Only 1 kid was doing math 1 year ahead, and I don't know any kids who were doing "on-level" math who got into the magnet. I think English is more fluid, and they do move kids around from various "groups" within a class. But also, some MoCo schools appear to have a regrettable tendency to cast some kids as "smart" or "average", and to pass a kid's label on from grade to grade. (And this isn't sour grapes because both our kids are in magnets, just our observations.) |
Anonymous
| So would a kid in a good private school through 8th grade who did well in math but worked at grade level because of the small classes and lack of possibility to "work up" to the next grade be at a disadvantage moving to a public HS? |