Skip 2 to 3 grades asap and further subject accelerate math and then attend TJ. Also, get into JHU-SET for additional resources. My kid did.

Anonymous wrote:So what are the best school options for those kids, some of whom, we can guess, live in northern Virginia? (After all, the DC region has about 2% of the US population, so 2% of 3000 Davidson-identified kids would be 60 kids, not to mention others either not identified by tests or whose parents haven't applied to the program.)

Well that's easy -- FCPS or perhaps Potomac. FCPS AAP program requires something like 130 full-scale score, which I image is pretty well correlated with the children who are able to reach the Davidson threshold of 145 on one single substest.

Why can't said profoundly gifted child advise the parent on which school is best?!?

BASIS School McLean?

Anonymous wrote:Seems to me Davidson's criteria are fine for catching gifted children, but certainly don't seem to limit the program to whatever "profoundly gifted" means. As a result, I see no inconsistency between 3,000 Davidson kids versus only 50-100 kids in the US who are truly testing at PG levels.

Got it--you think the Davidson criteria are too low since they are lower than my source. So let's go with that level of gifted--Davidson-level. Perhaps this is what OP is talking about when she asks about PG kids, the criteria set out by one of the few organizations in the country trying to work with this population… Are you OK with a parent asking for specific advice for their child based on these criteria?

So what are the best school options for those kids, some of whom, we can guess, live in northern Virginia? (After all, the DC region has about 2% of the US population, so 2% of 3000 Davidson-identified kids would be 60 kids, not to mention others either not identified by tests or whose parents haven't applied to the program.)

My nephew and son are profoundly gifted, 147 and 155 FSIQ respectively on the WISC. They both attend charters. My nephew attends a charter school for the gifted (needs at least 130 IQ for admittance) in another state. DS attends an immersion language charter in DC.

Nephew is currently ranked in the top ten in the country in chess for his age. Will be attending the Davidson institute summer program.

DS will be going to China to attend language school in the summer.

Outside enrichment helps.

Anonymous wrote:Perhaps look into the Davidson scholar program?

+1.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fine, I'll grant you that some researchers think there might be more than 1-in-1.1 million who are PG, but surely you'll acknowledge that the number is extremely small, right? The very next sentence on the webpage (which you omitted) says that: "Even the most generous over-prediction would affirm that exceptionally and profoundly gifted children comprise a tiny minority even among the gifted." Can we compromise on the rough estimates by agreeing that there likely will be one PG student in the greater DC area, not every 28 years as my math suggested, but rather every 14 years (twice as frequently!) to account for the belief of some researchers that profound giftedness might be more common? Given the extreme rarity of the odds in either event, I don't want to argue over the specifics.

No, I will not compromise on the rough estimates because I actually know several PG kids in the DC area, with verified scores. You may not believe it (and who would, since I'm an anonymous poster), but it's true.

I will add: there are about 53 million kids aged 5-17 in the U.S. By your first estimate, there would be 53 PG kids in the US. By your second estimate, there would be 106.

However, currently there are "more than 3000" kids in the Davidson Young Scholars program, for profoundly gifted kids (http://www.davidsongifted.org/youngscholars/). So maybe you might argue that their criteria is different (lower?) than the source you used. But that's still 3000+ kids who are, by some accounts, profoundly gifted and living in the US. (And whose parents did the application to get them in--no doubt others are unidentified.) That's much higher than your rough estimates.

I think you may be misunderstanding the Davidson criteria (http://www.davidsongifted.org/youngscholars/Article/Davidson_Young_Scholars___Qualification_Criteria_384.aspx). They seem to require a score of only 145 on just one subject matter test, not a full-scale score of 145. And even a full-scale score of "merely" 145 on any test would not qualify for profoundly gifted status according to the link you posted earlier. Seems to me Davidson's criteria are fine for catching gifted children, but certainly don't seem to limit the program to whatever "profoundly gifted" means. As a result, I see no inconsistency between 3,000 Davidson kids versus only 50-100 kids in the US who are truly testing at PG levels.

Perhaps we should end our exchange now. You claim to personally know several PG kids in the DC area right now, so I'm not going to convince you of anything. And I am going to remain more convinced by my math and my research than by some anonymous poster's claims, so even if your anecdotes are true, I'm unlikely to change my mind based on your say-so.

Perhaps we just have different definitions of "profoundly gifted," in which case there's no point in taking up space with an argument over semantics.

What do you think? Have we exhausted this issue? Or is there any more discuss productively?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fine, I'll grant you that some researchers think there might be more than 1-in-1.1 million who are PG, but surely you'll acknowledge that the number is extremely small, right? The very next sentence on the webpage (which you omitted) says that: "Even the most generous over-prediction would affirm that exceptionally and profoundly gifted children comprise a tiny minority even among the gifted." Can we compromise on the rough estimates by agreeing that there likely will be one PG student in the greater DC area, not every 28 years as my math suggested, but rather every 14 years (twice as frequently!) to account for the belief of some researchers that profound giftedness might be more common? Given the extreme rarity of the odds in either event, I don't want to argue over the specifics.

No, I will compromise on the rough estimates because I actually know several PG, with verified scores. You may not believe it (and who would, since I'm an anonymous poster), but it's true.

Oops, not looking too PG myself. Meant to say:

No, I will not compromise on the rough estimates because I actually know several PG kids in the DC area, with verified scores. You may not believe it (and who would, since I'm an anonymous poster), but it's true.

I will add: there are about 53 million kids aged 5-17 in the U.S. By your first estimate, there would be 53 PG kids in the US. By your second estimate, there would be 106.

However, currently there are "more than 3000" kids in the Davidson Young Scholars program, for profoundly gifted kids (http://www.davidsongifted.org/youngscholars/). So maybe you might argue that their criteria is different (lower?) than the source you used. But that's still 3000+ kids who are, by some accounts, profoundly gifted and living in the US. (And whose parents did the application to get them in--no doubt others are unidentified.) That's much higher than your rough estimates.

Anonymous wrote:My exhusband is profoundly gifted. One child is highly gifted and one is exceptionally gifted. I am thrilled neither of my kids are profoundly gifted. It is no wonderful "gift" to be profoundly gifted. I can say without a doubt, no parent with a profoundly gifted child should be looking for feeback on this anonymous site for input on schooling choices.

I need to add, attended public schools.

Anonymous wrote:Fine, I'll grant you that some researchers think there might be more than 1-in-1.1 million who are PG, but surely you'll acknowledge that the number is extremely small, right? The very next sentence on the webpage (which you omitted) says that: "Even the most generous over-prediction would affirm that exceptionally and profoundly gifted children comprise a tiny minority even among the gifted." Can we compromise on the rough estimates by agreeing that there likely will be one PG student in the greater DC area, not every 28 years as my math suggested, but rather every 14 years (twice as frequently!) to account for the belief of some researchers that profound giftedness might be more common? Given the extreme rarity of the odds in either event, I don't want to argue over the specifics.

No, I will compromise on the rough estimates because I actually know several PG, with verified scores. You may not believe it (and who would, since I'm an anonymous poster), but it's true.

My exhusband is profoundly gifted. One child is highly gifted and one is exceptionally gifted. I am thrilled neither of my kids are profoundly gifted. It is no wonderful "gift" to be profoundly gifted. I can say without a doubt, no parent with a profoundly gifted child should be looking for feeback on this anonymous site for input on schooling choices.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP, with a question about "profoundly gifted."

A. I just did some quick searching, and I see from Hoagies that researchers believe PG (180+ IQ) children occur at a rate of about 1-in-1.1 million.

I think you're quoting from here (http://www.hoagiesgifted.org/underserved.htm)--and just following the table giving that number is this statement: "Several researchers over the last 70 years have proposed that the number of children who score in the extremely high ranges of IQ exceeds the theoretical expectations derived from the normal curve (Terman, 1925; Burt, 1968; Silverman, 1989; Gross, 1993)." So there's a difference between hypothetical and actual frequency.

Fine, I'll grant you that some researchers think there might be more than 1-in-1.1 million who are PG, but surely you'll acknowledge that the number is extremely small, right? The very next sentence on the webpage (which you omitted) says that: "Even the most generous over-prediction would affirm that exceptionally and profoundly gifted children comprise a tiny minority even among the gifted." Can we compromise on the rough estimates by agreeing that there likely will be one PG student in the greater DC area, not every 28 years as my math suggested, but rather every 14 years (twice as frequently!) to account for the belief of some researchers that profound giftedness might be more common? Given the extreme rarity of the odds in either event, I don't want to argue over the specifics.

Anonymous wrote:In addition, another link on Hoagies gives more detail about the different levels of giftedness. (http://www.hoagiesgifted.org/highly_profoundly.htm). The 180+ cited in the link above is for a different test (Stanford-Binet L-M). Full-scare IQ scores of 152-160 on the WISC-IV and WPSSI-III (very common tests around here) are score as profoundly gifted.

The actual score required to generate a label of "profoundly gifted" is irrelevant as far as I'm concerned. No matter whether it's 180 on one test or 165 on another test, the actual number of PG children is exceedingly small. So small IMHO, that it's unlikely they are posting here.

My underlying point remains -- Don't use these labels, because they just generate more heat than light in the discussion.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:11:16 again. I do agree, however, that there are plenty of other ranges of giftedness, and I understand those children will have particular schooling needs. So I don't want to discourage people from pursuing the resources they need. I just don't think using labels like "profoundly gifted" helps advance the discussion.

Well how do you want to differentiate them, then? Rec league gifted and travel league gifted?

Don't be ridiculous. If you think you have a child that needs special attention, then say that. But when you claim PG, you muddy the conversation with a discussion (like this one) where people need to dissect the meaning of giftedness and what the child's particular scores are. That tangent does not help anyone.

The unfortunate reality of DCUM is that no matter how you ask a question like this and no matter how circumspect the original question, any number of replies will revolve around probing just why the question is being asked.

For example, if I asked, "I'm looking for a school in NOVA that can challenge my academically gifted DC." I would get a ton of responses about why I think my child is academically gifted and questioning why I would even ask such a question. On the other hand, if I asked, "I'm looking for a school in NOVA that can challenge my DC, who has an IQ of 180, scored off the charts on every standardized test he's ever been given, and has been labeled as profoundly gift by several professionals." I would be excoriated for the humble brag, or chided for not understanding giftedness, or chided for not getting that all of these tests are just snapshots on the day of a test, or ridiculed for trolling or fabricating a story.

DCUM would be a much happier place if people simply took questions at face value and to give posters the benefit of the doubt that they're genuinely seeking answers to questions and that there are no hidden agendas, because the simple truth is that if people answered with that type of focus the posters who are trolls or who have hidden agendas won't stir up the craziness they seek.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:11:16 again. I do agree, however, that there are plenty of other ranges of giftedness, and I understand those children will have particular schooling needs. So I don't want to discourage people from pursuing the resources they need. I just don't think using labels like "profoundly gifted" helps advance the discussion.

Well how do you want to differentiate them, then? Rec league gifted and travel league gifted?

Don't be ridiculous. If you think you have a child that needs special attention, then say that. But when you claim PG, you muddy the conversation with a discussion (like this one) where people need to dissect the meaning of giftedness and what the child's particular scores are. That tangent does not help anyone.