Gifted

Parents Forum
41

<p>doddsmom, the standards for qualifying for educational services under IDEA are NOT the same as the standards for diagnosis of various learning related problems like dyslexia, ADD, etc. It is very, very common for very bright and gifted students with specific learning barriers to perform at or above average when compared to their peers, yet to have a very real disability that is impairing them from performing to full potential.</p>

<p>Simple before/after stats for my son, on standardized school-administered test, 4th/6th grade. </p>

<p>Before dyslexia was recognized - 4th grade
Math & Reading: 45th %ile </p>

<p>After specific intervention for dyslexia - 6th grade:
Math - 99th %
Reading - 75th %</p>

<p>What happened is simple: my son, whose potential was to be in the top 2% of students nationwide (PSAT results), had performance impaired by a reading disability. By the standard of looking at whether the child is "performing well" in school, my son never would have gotten help - he would have grown from a 5th grade nonreader to a 10th grade nonreader and probably would not have gone on to college, or ended up with a community college being his best option. </p>

<p>As a matter of fact, my son never was given help within the school system - I asked when he was in 2nd grade, in 3rd grade, in 4th grade, and again in 5th grade. The summer before 6th grade I finally realized the school didn't care that the kid was frustrated and angry and that his self-esteem was crushed by the degree of effort he had to put in just to keep up. So I took matters into my own hands and got real help for him. </p>

<p>As I said before, my son didn't have accommodations on any standardized tests. I thought he could just take the PSAT cold and use that as a guideline as to whether he needed more help -- and his scores showed us that he didn't need the help. Ivy and elite colleges weren't in his horizon in any case - we never even looked at those schools until after the SATs were in. </p>

<p>But if a student has a learning barrier that is masking true ability -- then that learning issue does have educational impact. If educational achievement is tied to scores on a standardized test, whether it is an SAT or a high school exit exam -- then even though the test is arbitrary, by virtue of the fact that the test is used, then if the LD impacts test performance, the child IS suffering an adverse educational impact. So it is not an abuse of the system for families to seek testing accommodations when the only educational impact has to do with processing speed -- which by definition only causes problems in timed-test settings typical for standardized tests. (Most classroom teachers do not give tests that are designed to be hard to finish in the alloted time - teachers usually want their students to have the opportunity to fully demonstrate their knowledge). </p>

<p>I mean, lets say that the issue was a physical one -- that college admissions were decide on the performance in a foot race, and there is a child with a limp who uses a cane who is nonetheless able to walk fast enough to get to his classes on time... but he's left far behind in the foot race. Would it be fair to insist that the child run as fast as his peers, simply because he seems to be able to walk fast enough to keep up on a day-to-day basis? </p>

<p>No one here was advocating that Birdie's child come up with a feigned disability for purpose of getting test accommodations - and Birdie herself said that she wasn't looking for that. But sometimes the test score is the first indication we parents get that the child has a learning barrier - and if we want to help our kids, then it makes sense to get an appropriate evaluation. </p>

<p>I also have to say that it is extremely frustrating for parents like Birdie and me to see a kid who is clearly exceptionally bright run into inexplicable difficulty in these tests. The tests aren't perfect, but the entire college selection system rests on the assumption that the tests give a somewhat consistent measure of ability. It would be one thing if the kid was an A student who had to work very hard to keep up -- but we have kids who have tested out as gifted, who have been in special programs for their giftedness, and whose top grades seem to come as naturally as breathing. These aren't kids struggling to keep up -- they are at the top eschelon of their school, clearly among the smartest kids. And then they bomb the test -- and we figure its a one-time thing, and they take another test... and same results. </p>

<p>Yes, our idea of "bombing" the test is an educator's idea of "above-average" - it hardly seems fair to give extra help to a kid who scores 1150 on a test when the median score is about 1000. But that test score doesn't reflect the students true abilities or potential. We're not overly doting parents blinded by our love -- we simply are well aware of what our daughters are capable of.</p>

<p>As I posted above, I think the problem is simply that the test is terribly flawed. It doesn't measure a student's individual ability or achievement level - it measures the student's ability to correctly answer multiple choice questions in a hurry. The fact that the test is designed to be difficult to complete in the time given is part of the evidence of its lack of validity: intelligence has nothing to do with speed.</p>

42

<p>Can I just add one more thing to this discussion. I am of the opinion that the most important purpose to go ahead with testing, with any testing, is to understand how a child learns and what they know. I think then testing can do what it is supposed to do, help guide instruction and allow for demystification. </p>

<p>In the US, I think it is safe to say, most school based testing is done for another purpose, to determine whether or not a child "qualifies" for one thing or another.</p>

<p>For Birdie's little chick, the former is clearly the more important issue-- to understand her learning better. Whether or not she chooses to pursue the implications of 'trying to qualify' is secondary...</p>

43

<p>doddsmom ..... Why do you assume that we are trying to invent disabilities and bogus impact statements to insure that our children get unfair advantages? This discussion really doesn't have anything to do with asking for additional time on the SAT. It was suggested that it was an option that could be researched. It was never my intent to request the extra time. </p>

<p>I can guarantee you when I spoke to our psychologist she was behind my d 100%. She felt that we needed to get right on top of this. If there happens to be an issue then our plan was to seek services during her senior year to help her deal with the problem. </p>

<p>My goal was to gain the support and advice from parents on this forum who may have already been in a similar situation. It is nice to know that I am not in this situation alone. When calmom talks about her d, I hear myself talking. </p>

<p>Our school district has an outstanding gifted program. I couldn't be happier with the program, the results and the professionals who play such a large part in its success. </p>

<p>There are many school districts that have the same mind set as you appear to have....that gifted students don't need the services because they are smart. I believe in your position you are required to treat the gifted, at both ends of the spectrum equally, but by immediately assuming that we are "working" the system you are denying the gifted student their rights. </p>

<p>I understand you feel strongly about helping only the students with real disabilities but if you deny a gifted child the right to be tested then you may very well be denying a child with "real disabilities."</p>

44

<p>There are some students at my children's school who have been tested and given the permission to have longer on tests. These are kids who would probably get 95 or higher without the extra time. But they are given extra time and get 100's. I find this to be unfair. Okay, a kid who is getting B's or C's, but has the ability, I can buy it. But, this does seem to be an abuse</p>

45

<p>hi palermo..... Here is a very short explanation of a process that involves many people and a great deal of time. In order to obtain the extra time the student must have an IEP, which is an Individualized Education Plan. The students are not given permission to have the extra time, they must qualify through a battery of tests. A formula is used when comparing tests and the differential between the tests helps identify the student in need of services. You can't assume that the kid in your school would make a 95% without the extra time. I am assuming the person in your school who does receive the extra time probably wishes he didn't need it. Do you know the saying it is always greener on the other side of the fence.....that sums it up.....</p>

46

<p>Birdie: I'd check and see if your d feels comfortable "skipping" over a question that is taking her longer to answer. I know that some very methodical people can be really uncomfortable doing that...even though they "know" they can go back to it & try to answer it later...and this emphasizes the timed aspect of the test. You want to run right down the column of questions & answers to finish in time. You don't want to be flipping backanother page to go finish something you skipped over. It can really distract some students or disrupt their test-taking rythmn; though it makes "sense" to move to the next question, some methodical, perfectionist-type students may not like doing so.</p>

<p>And calmom: I definitely agree that intelligence has nothing to do with speed...i particularly feel that way with math! But my math teacher spouse says that the ability to do math quickly or "in your head", IS a real sign that you are 'better at math'. He feels that students who really master those multiplication, division drills, will be able to move more quickly into higher level mathematics and be able to grasp and process formulas & equations and master more involved problems than those who work much more slowly.
I say, "well if I get the right answer in 45 minutes and someone else gets it in 15 minutes, both answers are equally right." And he says yes, but the the 15 minute person is "better at math." And there is a part of me that has to agree. people who can accomplish some things with greater ease and rapidity than someone else,(whether its analyzing a reading passage or solving an equation) are probably better at it than someone who is slower. So, I think we do use speed as a way to determine who has "mastered" a skill.</p>

47

<p>irishbird you are so right....she does feel she has to do every question </p>

<p>I agree with you husband about speed but only in the lower grades when dealing with multiplication, addition and subtraction facts. As we know if you can't subtract then you can't do long division so on and so on. The exception is with higher level math such as ApCalc. Two people can have the correct answer but have different grades because points are deducted for not includeing all the steps necessary for solving the problem. So speed has nothing to do with mastery at this level.</p>

48

<p>
[quote]
But my math teacher spouse says that the ability to do math quickly or "in your head", IS a real sign that you are 'better at math'. He feels that students who really master those multiplication, division drills, will be able to move more quickly into higher level mathematics and be able to grasp and process formulas & equations and master more involved problems than those who work much more slowly.
I say, "well if I get the right answer in 45 minutes and someone else gets it in 15 minutes, both answers are equally right." And he says yes, but the the 15 minute person is "better at math."

[/quote]

The 15 minute person CAN DO better in math tests; IS that person better at math? There's a real difference.
My S was able to think through algebra problems before he could do long divisions or mastered the multiplication table (he knew the principles of long division, and could figure out multiplication). What he had going for him was highly developed analytical skills. What he had going against him was a dislike of practice and memorization. For a time, he was slower than his classmates who were drilled in multiplication facts. But there was never any doubt that he was gifted and functioning several grades ahead of his classmates.</p>

49

<p>Sorry, I am not an educator, but I really have a hard time understanding this. Yes, I can understand helping your child to learn how to work within the contraints of their "disability", if that is even the appropriate word. But, I do not believe giving extra time on a test solves the problem, especially if they are exceptionally bright. We need to help these kids to work through these issues now, while they are in school. Maybe their grades/scores will be lower than they might otherwise be. I have worked as a consultant for 30 years and I do not imagine that my clients would give me extra time for a project because I have been tested and need it to complete the task at a slower pace than my coworker. I just do not see how this is helping the student. By the way, I have a daughter who seems to have the same problems, but rather than have her tested and allow her to get extra time for testing, I am trying to help her work through this now rather than as an adult in the workplace. Her grades are probably lower than they would be if she had more time. Maybe I am doing the wrong thing for her, time will tell.</p>

50

<p>i have to respond to the contention that intelligence has nothing to do with speed. my argument is going to speak to intuition, logic, and ethics.</p>

<p>even intuitively, we all know that speed => intelligence. the mathematician gauss was first noted as a genius because of how he did a math problem in 10 seconds when it took adults hours. or faraday, hamilton, etc, with their vast skills in instant visualization of complex fields. as early as elementary school, the fast readers and fast mental math students are noted for their speed and promoted with new assignments accordingly. we always associate the kid who finishes a 3hr math exam in 15 minutes and gets the 100 with being the smartest. perhaps someone else got a 100 on the same exam, but we would all say that the faster student is the more intelligent one because he/she has acheived such mastery of the material. i know someone who is at princeton now (he could've gone anywhere), and he would literally walk into a 90min morning final 30 minutes late, groggy from awaking, come out in 15 minutes, and get a 100 on the final , which had an average of 55. if that's not intelligence, i don't know what is. speed is undoubtedly a primary component of ability and talent. </p>

<p>logically, if you define intelligence as mental ability, and if we extend ability to mean capability to accomplish certain tasks requiring thought, then we see that the faster one was, the more one tasks one could accomplish. if someone "thinks faster" than someone else, than that person is "more apt" at thinking.</p>

<p>ethically, SAT tests are meant to see who has those certain skills. there are many things that schools look for, and the SAT attempts to represent a diagnostic of raw reading speed and brain power/speed. would you want a rapid-response surgeon who takes 2x time than another one for the same result? who is the better surgeon? if you are programming and you take 2x as much time to finish a project, who is the better programmer?</p>

<p>this all has nothing to do with success. most jobs dont require lightning-fast intelligence at all--in fact, the perfectionist has the advantage there. but that doesnt change the fact that speed is undoubtedly a crucial part of what we call intelligence.</p>

51

<p>It is kind of complex isn't it? I disagree about timed tests showing much at elementary level. I put my S in Kumon for a short time, because he was good at math, and I thought it would be something that would be fun for him and that that could help him do even better. He never did master those timed tests and was stuck at a very elementary level, because in Kumon you have to do the problems accurately and fast before you can go to the next level. He kept making the same arithmetic mistakes again and again. So we gave up on that. Nevertheless, he has always been ahead in math in school, top of his class. He accelerated a bit in high school, finally, when given the chance and did very well on the standardized tests in high school (top scores on SAT/SATII). I bet he would still not shine on timed addition and multiplication tests though. </p>

<p>I'm feeling kind of sad for him right now though. While he seems to be enjoying his first year at UChicago, he says his math class this quarter is "horrible" :( . I hoped for better than that at UChicago.</p>

52

<p>There is a difference betwen a gifted child with learning differences and a gifted child who hasn't learned to push themselves to finish their assignment or test because up to now their intelligence has carried them.
Our school district has services for gifted students and they have services for disabled students ( both prtty crappy- although the parents of gifted- often those with lots of post gd 12 education are very capable of advocating for those students- particularly when compared with parents of special education students- who need a break more than anyone)
But a student like my eldest- who was tested as over IQ of 160 but that included subtests that showed that she was significantly below her age range- especially when you took into account her other scores- is not served in the district because you can't be gifted & learning disabled.</p>

<p>Although we had the testing- and knew she had learning "issues" she didn't have accomodations as such- because her private schools were already set up with extra small classes- and specially designed curriculum to address different learning styles- she was able to continue doing well because she didn't balk at spending 4 hours a night on homework for nonAP classes, and because her strengths carried her . But around junior year- she hit a wall and more time just wasnt helping- thats when we sought help with meds and other strategies.
When we looked at colleges- we had learning disability support as a main criteria.
I am concerned that there are children who are getting accomodations who don't need them for the SAT- particulary since it is no longer highlighted on your scores but I am more concernd about the students who aren't getting the support they need in college because they were afraid that if they were upfront about needing accomodations they wouldn't be admitted.</p>

53

<p>There are tasks for which time is of the essence, and some for which it is not. The SAT privileges certain kinds of skills and de-emphasizes others. Even the new essay privileges the ability to write fast and thus copiously. But not all measures of intelligence or knowledge are predicated on the ability to be quick. Term papers, problem sets and other requirements that are so much part of college-level learning are not timed. Nor are take-home exams. </p>

<p>It remains important for individuals to be able to perform a task within a reasonable time frame. But it should not be the sole measure of ability or intelligence.</p>

54

<p>Mstee:
We never considered Kumon for our S after it was described to us. It would have destroyed his love of math. Instead, we enrolled him in the Boston-area Math Circle that has no drill whatsoever. It has always been a joy when he returns from a session ready to talk math some more under the guise of explaining it to me.</p>

55

<p>calmom... I would like my daugher to take the ACT. That test is probably is a better match to her learning style and it will be interesting to see how she does with the time crunch! </p>

<p>We have thought about her sport but figured we would go through admissions then contact the coaches. But that certainly is another avenue worth investigating. </p>

<p>I feel for what you went through with your son and the school district. I feel so lucky that our district is so aware of our gifted students and so willing to work beside us not against us. You son is so lucky to have you!</p>

<p>as a side bar....It was very interesting to read that the two parts of the SAT test that actually test intelligence were removed.</p>

56

<p>the real world doesn't give people 2x extra time to do what they have to do. a lot of competitive firms now are giving sudden IQ tests during interviews to see if the candidate actually has the ability to think on the fly. they pose hypothetical situations and problems and expect a qualified or at least rationalized answer immediately. how is changing the rules for people going to help them? doesn't it just make them feel stupid and make people around them resentful? why not just say, "not good with test-taking--please take into account when evaluating." this stuff never made any sense to me.</p>

57

<p>It depends on what people "have to do." Personally, I prefer to read a great book, even though its author took many years to write it, over some formulaic one that was put together in weeks or months. Not all careers depend on being quick on one's feet. And not everybody appreciates speed. If your prof or TA spends 1 minute instead of 10 over a paper you wrote, will you be happy to learn that and praise them for their speed? Or would you prefer a more thoughtful reading (and grading)?</p>

58

<p>The "real" world as you call it has to make accomodations if you have a 504. It is a civil rights- equal access issue</p>

<p>A 504 plan helps open access to individuals with disablities. For instance if I am blind, I may be very capable of contributing to society, however, unless I have certain accomodations, I will not be able to do so.
If I do not have the use of my right side of my body, I also may need accomodations.</p>

<p>I doubt if anyone can argue the world is not a better place with the contributions of Stephen Hawking, but with out the use of technology, would we all benefit?</p>

<p><a href="http://www.ldam.org/ldinformation/adults/504_gotthelf.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.ldam.org/ldinformation/adults/504_gotthelf.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

59

<p>mstee,
it is very complex - my son's arithmetic skills aren't what they should be either. Long division was his all time low. </p>

<p>Birdie,
I am not a psychologist, but I do create computer training materials - so I constantly look for ways of conveying information so that people can easily learn it. As it happens, one of my hobbies is dressage. Unlike most adults, I am still taking lessons in something - something that can be learning under stress due to the possibility of failing and / or getting chucked off the horse. Its hard to focus and learn when you are stressed (more so for xx's than xy's). Telling someone to 'just relax' is, IMO, about as useful as telling them to fly. There are a variety of techniques to help - sports psychology books have them. Talking a walk and laughing is just one way.</p>

<p>Back to the SAT. </p>

<p>Disclaimer - a lot of this is my take on the Xiggi method, and working with my son. </p>

<p>If your D takes a section or two under untimed and reasonably stress free conditions, you and she can figure out the types of mistakes she is making without the time factored in. Once you know the type of mistake, you can work on it. If she talks with you about it, you can delevop a problem / solution methodology for it that she controls. </p>

<p>If you know the time she is taking on a section, you can work on that issue in a couple of ways. If she is aiming at 700 points per section, she needs to know how many problems she can skip (assuming a few wrong). If she doesn't like that, then, if she can't get an accomadation, have her do the sections at her comfort level time - with the clock in the room. Next time, her comfort level time less 2 minutes. The point is, you take the confidence you have established at your comfort level, and then you challenge it a little.
One thing she needs to understand is that it is possible to get pretty good at taking these miserable tests. </p>

<p>Then there's the issue of stamina but I expound on that later if you want!</p>

60

<p>Speed/intelligence/etc.</p>

<p>In my experience, people who solve problems more quickly than others often see the problems differently. They do NOT use the same methods as others. Yesterday, I was working with a group of students on an advanced physics problem (as a sub, proctoring a study hall); we worked out a "brute force" method, and then looked for a more elegant method. A student stood up and said "let's make these assumptions" and the problem fell apart in seconds, and we had the two limits (largest and smallest) to the solution. Everyone there understood the problem and the brute force solution, but IMHO, the student who can find a different way is the "smartest" and the most desirable for colleges and employers (which is often what we mean when we say "smart").</p>