Topics covered in this issue include:
1) Re: ASAT -- Tracy can you contact me offlist?
by Sally_L@comcast.net
2) ASAT: ADMIN - Wrapping UP
by Sally_L@comcast.net
3) RE: ASAT -- how are the tests changing
by Aimee Yermish <ayermish@alum.mit.edu>
4) RE: ASAT: Does the V/P gap have a meaning?
by Luc Kumps <luc.kumps@pandora.be>
5) RE: ASAT -- how are the tests changing
by Aimee Yermish <ayermish@alum.mit.edu>
6) thank you
by Sarah Garrison <msgarrison@sbcglobal.net>
7) Re: OURGIFTED-L digest 116
by Margaret DeLacy <mdelacy@pacifier.com>
8) RE: ASAT -- how are the tests changing
by Julie Knapp <littleredhenschool@yahoo.com>
9) RE: More "testing the young child" questions
by Luc Kumps <luc.kumps@pandora.be>
10) Re: ASAT -- how are the tests changing
by Kuna821@aol.com
11) RE: ASAT -- how are the tests changing
by Luc Kumps <luc.kumps@pandora.be>
12) RE: ASAT -- how are the tests changing
by Laurie Jensen <lauriej49@yahoo.com>
13) ASAT: Are SB5 scores lower? No.
by Meredith Warshaw <mwarshaw@uniquelygifted.org>
14) ASAT: SBLM
by Cheryl Chaffee <cherylchaffee@comcast.net>
15) ASAT: SBLM
by Cheryl Chaffee <cherylchaffee@comcast.net>
16) Re: ADMIN - Wrapping UP
by TOMMYA COSCO RODGERS <tcrwjr@worldnet.att.net>
17) Re: ASAT -- how are the tests changing
by Laurie Jensen <lauriej49@yahoo.com>
18) ASAT: ADMIN - Posts to the list
by Sally_L@comcast.net
19) RE: ASAT School GT gate tests
by "Logue, Theodosia Nowell (UMC-Student)" <tnltg2@mizzou.edu>
20) Re: ASAT -- how are the tests changing
by Cyberbren@aol.com
21) Re: ASAT -- how are the tests changing
by Tracy Chaloner <tracy@cycloneco.com.au>
22) Re: ASAT: SBLM
by Tracy Chaloner <tracy@cycloneco.com.au>
23) Re: Regarding the new SAt Re: ASAT
by Hilary Nigro <hnigro@mybluelight.com>
24) Re: Are SB5 scores lower? No.
by Tracy Chaloner <tracy@cycloneco.com.au>
25) Re: ASAT -- how are the tests changing
by "Lisa C." <ljchoquette@cox.net>
26) Re: Are SB5 scores lower? No.
by "Lisa C." <ljchoquette@cox.net>
27) Re: Are SB5 scores lower? No.
by Tracy Chaloner <tracy@cycloneco.com.au>
28) RE: Are SB5 scores lower? No.
by Andrew_Carson@hmco.com
29) Re: ASAT: comparing scores on different tests
by Andrew_Carson@hmco.com
30) RE: Regarding the new SAt Re: ASAT
by Aimee Yermish <ayermish@alum.mit.edu>
31) Freedom from Distractibility Index
by Julie Pickett <julie@pickettspatcher.com>
32) our lessons from testing
by KF <kfpang@isop.ucla.edu>
33) ASAT: Developing Your Child For Success
by "Barbara J. Gilman" <bobbie.gilman@comcast.net>
34) RE: Are SB5 scores lower? No.
by Karl Bunday <kmbunday@earthlink.net>
35) RE: ASAT -- how are the tests changing
by Aimee Yermish <ayermish@alum.mit.edu>
36) Re: ASAT: What's the 'best' age for testing?
by Clarke312004@aol.com
37) Re: Can you answer this, Drew? (FW: ASAT: SB 5 Results)
by Andrew_Carson@hmco.com
38) RE: ASAT thank you Kathi and Bobbie
by "Carolyn & Mark K." <carolyn@thehoagies.com>
39) ASAT: OT - A bit off topic - An article on one school's use of GT
funding
by Sally_L@comcast.net
40) RE: ASAT -- how are the tests changing
by Aimee Yermish <ayermish@alum.mit.edu>
41) Re: Are SB5 scores lower? No.
by Lawver@aol.com
42) RE: ASAT -- how are the tests changing
by Julie Knapp <littleredhenschool@yahoo.com>
43) Re: Are SB5 scores lower? No.
by Meredith Warshaw <mwarshaw@uniquelygifted.org>
44) RE: ASAT: OT - A bit off topic - An article on one school's use o f GT
funding
by Jo Oehrlein <joehrlein@upc.com>
45) RE: ASAT -- how are the tests changing
by Luc Kumps <luc.kumps@pandora.be>
46) RE: ASAT -- how are the tests changing
by Andrew_Carson@hmco.com
47) Re: Are SB5 scores lower? No.
by Andrew_Carson@hmco.com
48) Re: Are SB5 scores lower? No.
by Andrew_Carson@hmco.com
49) Re: ASAT -- how are the tests changing
by Cyberbren@aol.com
50) RE: ASAT -- how are the tests changing
by Julie Knapp <littleredhenschool@yahoo.com>
51) Re: ASAT -- how are the tests changing
by RDlouruf@cs.com
52) Re: regression toward the mean
by RDlouruf@cs.com
53) RE:ASAT:Thanks
by gurgle <gurgle2@bigpond.com.au>
54) RE: ASAT -- 11-15 kids per grade level above 161? (was how are the
tests changing)
by Gillian Overholser <overalls02421@yahoo.com>
55) RE: ASAT -- how are the tests changing
by "Carolyn & Mark K." <carolyn@thehoagies.com>
56) Re: ASAT -- how are the tests changing
by "R.J. Herbison" <wubison@optonline.net>
57) Re: ASAT: OT - A bit off topic - An article on one school's use of GT
funding
by SMB6448@aol.com
58) Re: ASAT: OT - A bit off topic - An article on one school's use of GT
funding
by Sally_L@comcast.net
59) Re: ASAT -- how are the tests changing
by Sarah Garrison <msgarrison@sbcglobal.net>
60) Re: our lessons from testing
by Laurie Jensen <lauriej49@yahoo.com>
61) ASAT: ADMIN - schedule
by Sally_L@comcast.net
62) Re: regression toward the mean
by "Kathryn M. Finn" <kitfinn@cox.net>
63) Re: ASAT -- how are the tests changing
by "Barbara J. Gilman" <bobbie@h2net.net>
64) RE: ASAT -- how are the tests changing
by Andrew_Carson@hmco.com
65) RE: ASAT -- 11-15 kids per grade level above 161? (was how are the
tests changing)
by Andrew_Carson@hmco.com
66) RE: ASAT: SB 4 sub-test question on mathematical ability
by Jerry And Ranae Monsen <jrmonsen@yahoo.com>
67) ASAT: regression toward the mean
by "Carolyn & Mark K." <carolyn@thehoagies.com>
68) RE: ASAT: Developing Your Child For Success
by "Carolyn & Mark K." <carolyn@thehoagies.com>
69) Re: regression toward the mean
by Rebecca Cunningham <slypigs@tampabay.rr.com>
70) RE: ASAT: SB 4 sub-test question on mathematical ability
by Laurie Jensen <lauriej49@yahoo.com>
71) Re: ASAT -- 11-15 kids per grade level above 161? (was how are the
tests changing)
by Meredith Warshaw <mwarshaw@uniquelygifted.org>
72) Re: ASAT: Does the V/P gap have a meaning?
by Kathi Kearney <kkearney@ttlc.net>
73) Re: ASAT: Developing Your Child For Success
by "Barbara J. Gilman" <bobbie@h2net.net>
74) Re: notes on tests
by Kathi Kearney <kkearney@ttlc.net>
75) Re: ASAT -- how are the tests changing
by Kathi Kearney <kkearney@ttlc.net>
76) Re: ASAT: SBLM
by Kathi Kearney <kkearney@ttlc.net>
77) Re: ASAT -- how are the tests changing
by Kathi Kearney <kkearney@ttlc.net>
78) Re: ASAT School GT gate tests
by Kathi Kearney <kkearney@ttlc.net>
79) RE: ASAT: Vision Therapy
by Laurie Jensen <lauriej49@yahoo.com>
80) Re: ASAT -- how are the tests changing
by Tracy Chaloner <tracy@cycloneco.com.au>
81) Re: regression toward the mean
by Meredith Warshaw <mwarshaw@uniquelygifted.org>
82) request to contact Tracy offline
by Sue McA <watsmac@ozemail.com.au>
83) Re: ASAT:vision therapy
by TODD CLENNY <TCLENNY@msn.com>
84) Re: Testing in New York City (was: ASAT: What's the 'best' age for
testing?)
by Kathi Kearney <kkearney@ttlc.net>
85) Re: Freedom from Distractibility Index
by Kathi Kearney <kkearney@ttlc.net>
86) Re: ASAT -- how are the tests changing
by Karen Boutilier <karenboutilier@mchsi.com>
87) Re: ASAT -- WJ-III
by Laurie Jensen <lauriej49@yahoo.com>
88) Re: knowing the Levels of Giftedness on the SB5
by RDlouruf@cs.com
89) RE: Freedom from Distractibility Index
by "Carolyn & Mark K." <carolyn@thehoagies.com>
90) RE: ASAT -- CHC theory
by Laurie Jensen <lauriej49@yahoo.com>
91) RE: knowing the Levels of Giftedness on the SB5
by "Carolyn & Mark K." <carolyn@thehoagies.com>
92) Re: WJ-III fluency subtests (was: our lessons from testing)
by Kathi Kearney <kkearney@ttlc.net>
93) ASAT: ADMIN - Schedule to finalize ASAT conference
by Sally_L@comcast.net
94) Re: WJ-III fluency subtests (was: our lessons from testing)
by Laurie Jensen <lauriej49@yahoo.com>
95) Re: knowing the Levels of Giftedness on the SB5
by Kathi Kearney <kkearney@ttlc.net>
96) Re: WJ-III fluency subtests (was: our lessons from testing)
by Kathi Kearney <kkearney@ttlc.net>
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 06:12:37 +0000
From: Sally_L@comcast.net
Subject: Re: ASAT -- Tracy can you contact me offlist?
To: OURGIFTED-L@neiu.edu
Message-id: <032220040612.7710.4027@comcast.net>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN
Content-transfer-encoding: 8BIT
Hi Tracy,
Can you contact me offlist?
Thanks,
Sally_L
Sally_L@comcast.net
> on 22/3/04 12:55 PM, Aimee Yermish at ayermish@alum.mit.edu wrote:
>
> > I have some thoughts on the whole new/old IQ test thing that I've
been
> > kicking around, and I'd be interested in hearing from those more
> > knowledgeable as to whether I have any valid points or whether I'm
just
> > blowing smoke.
>
> Great thoughts Aimee... gave me some food for thought too!
>
> I need to reread your post a few more times, but one thing I think I can
> offer on a cursory read is that often the achievement of the child can
give
> a clue as to how accurate test scores are. This may not be school-based
> achievement, or even academic achievement. In many cases it could be from
> observing the child in their natural learning state. This is one of the
> reasons why I still like ratio IQs, because it gives some good quality
data
> that is relevant to the reason for taking IQ tests in the first place.
>
> For example, my son was accelerated 5 grade levels and was still very bored
> and thus distressed at school. At the time his WISC III score was 134,
but
> due to an excellent tester we also knew that this was a function of multiple
> learning disabilities. Hence, as you comment, that type of test may be
> better in guaging weaknesses rather than strengths.
>
> Six months later DS 'ceilinged' the SBLM as previously commented, achieving
> an IQ score in the pg range. We almost didn't do the test due to the WISC
> III scores showing a higher PIQ than VIQ. We almost didn't get it done
> because we had to fly a tester 2500 miles to do it. If we didn't get it
done
> we would still only be guessing as to the upper limit of his ability.
It put
> into stark context why 5 grade skips was still not enough to intellectually
> challenge him.
>
> I hear this type of story often enough to convince me that the SBLM and
> ratio IQs are far better at assessing the STRENGTHS, and comparative
> ability, of a particular cohort of children. For that reason, and the fact
> that Flynn effect has not been proved at the upper extremes, that the
SBLM
> should still be considered to be a test of choice for pg children. It will
> not be perfect for all pg children, but it does provide a high enough
> ceiling to identify a lot of them. In combination with the SB5 perhaps
we
> may well see an amalgum of testing instruments that finally DO give a better
> picture of profound giftedness and how it manifests.
>
> I have other ideas on intelligence theory as well, but will address that
> later. Perhaps a good conference topic Sally?
>
> all the best
> Tracy
> Pemberton, Western Australia
> tracy@cycloneco.com.au
> ----------------------
> "The future belongs to those who believe in the beauty of their dreams."
> ‹Eleanor Roosevelt, American First Lady, Civil Rights Activist
>
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 06:28:01 +0000
From: Sally_L@comcast.net
Subject: ASAT: ADMIN - Wrapping UP
To: OURGIFTED-L@neiu.edu
Message-id: <032220040628.19187.27ea@comcast.net>
Hi List Members,
Wow, prolific phenonmenal posting - As conference coordinator I have fried
brains. LOL I will not be processing any more posts at this time.Actually it
has
been determined that having fried brains is highly contagious among the three
of
us - Bobbie, Kathi & myself. I hope this is not a virus thing. LOL
Tomorrow, we will continue to wrap up. Please refrain from posting any new
questions to our guest experts, LOL there are still outstanding posts:)
More later from the guest experts, but..... tomorrow!!!! Well, let me re-word
that due to the international nature of our list. After the three of us get
some
rest.
Kindest regards,
Sally_L
Conference Coordinator
List Manager
www.neiu.edu/~ourgift
PS
Please feel free to continue to post online THANKS for our guest experts!!!
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 01:18:16 -0500
From: Aimee Yermish <ayermish@alum.mit.edu>
Subject: RE: ASAT -- how are the tests changing
To: OURGIFTED-L@neiu.edu
Message-id: <003101c40fd5$7985d080$6601a8c0@TESLA>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Bobbie Gilman writes:
> Just one experience with a high PG kid would be enough
> to see the variance, but we've seen many... Tests should
> confirm observable differences.
Meredith Warshaw writes:
> However, there are a lot of theoretical reasons to question
> whether IQ follows a unimodal distribution (that is, a normal
> curve with one hump in the middle) or whether it is multimodal
> (that is, has more than one hump). For example, there are
> good theoretical reasons to think that it might be trimodal
> (have 3 humps), since the specific factors that cause people
> to fall outside the center of the distribution might cause
> clusters of IQs.
I actually agree with you that the trimodal hypothesis has a reasonable
chance of being true, for the same reasons you cite (this is what I was
getting at with the ideas of synergy and metacognition). I just have a
hard time overturning a hypothesis that has explained data in many other
realms for a very long time (the normal curve hypothesis) without hard
data. Like Bobbie (although I'm probably not in her league), I can
generally make pretty good estimates of kids' levels of intelligence
without resorting to standardized test information, and I do see more PG
kids than the normal curve would suggest could possibly exist in the
local population, but I'd hardly be willing to hold up "my intuitive
sense" or even Bobbie's "observable differences" as something
one could
make correlations against for the purposes of test standardization. The
very diverse nature of these kids makes it difficult to get anything
reliable and quantifiable, and it is unclear to me how one goes from the
more ordinal data these kind of observations would yield to anything on
an interval scale. That is, I know that I see smart kids, really smart
kids, brilliant kids, and downright scary kids, but I don't have any way
of being certain that my categories correspond to z+2, z+3, z+4, and
z+5, when they could just as easily correspond to z+1.5, z+2, z+2.5, and
z+3, and then I wouldn't be wondering why there are so darned many of
them. I'm not sure how we go about getting that hard data in a fashion
that doesn't run us into circularity problems, such that we would be
able to convince a skeptical test developer.
-- Aimee Yermish
da Vinci Learning Center
aimee@davincilearning.org
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 07:34:23 +0100
From: Luc Kumps <luc.kumps@pandora.be>
Subject: RE: ASAT: Does the V/P gap have a meaning?
To: OURGIFTED-L@neiu.edu
Message-id: <011a01c40fd7$b6cab620$8a7ba8c0@spc2>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
> Luc, I'm going to ask you a question, too. Is your child's first language
> English at the time she took the WPPSI-R, and was the test given
> in English?
Our first language is Dutch, and the Dutch translation of the test was
given.
Now I'm *very* curious to know if this can have an influence on the V/P gap!
Luc K (Felix jun98)
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 01:46:43 -0500
From: Aimee Yermish <ayermish@alum.mit.edu>
Subject: RE: ASAT -- how are the tests changing
To: OURGIFTED-L@neiu.edu
Message-id: <003201c40fd9$749b2120$6601a8c0@TESLA>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Tracy Chaloner writes:
> often the achievement of the child can give
> a clue as to how accurate test scores are.
Yes and no. A PG kid is PG from birth, and remains PG whether or not he
is educated. There are so many issues with gifted kids getting *access*
to education that can affect their achievement scores, number of skipped
grades, etc. (This is probably the source of the commonly-held
misconception amongst educators that, "They all even out by third
grade.") Achievements of all sorts can provide clues, sure, but they
often are mostly providing clues about the socioeconomic class of the
parents, the ability of the parents to ensure the child receives an
appropriate education, and parents' and teachers' opinions as to what
constitutes an appropriate education. The kids can only push the
parents as far as the parents are willing to be pushed, after all. And
don't even get me started on the issue of underachievement...
Furthermore, I've seen kids with very similar levels of (out-of-level)
achievement demonstrate very different levels of underlying
intelligence. Sometimes the kids really *are* highly gifted, and
sometimes they're more like trained seals, where they're bright and
their parents have taught them things that they really weren't ready to
learn (they aren't able to recognize the same information when it's
presented differently, nor are they able to use what they know in novel
contexts). They tend to be quite proud of their recitations, but not to
have any real idea what they're talking about.
-- Aimee Yermish
da Vinci Learning Center
aimee@davincilearning.org
Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2004 22:54:20 -0800 (PST)
From: Sarah Garrison <msgarrison@sbcglobal.net>
Subject: thank you
To: OURGIFTED-L@neiu.edu
Message-id: <20040322065420.52627.qmail@web80508.mail.yahoo.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-1597318358-1079938460=:51614"
--0-1597318358-1079938460=:51614
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Thank you Kathi and Bobbie for taking the time to answer our questions on this
topic. The posts have been fascinating, if a bit hard to digest all at once
(I
returned from a hockey game to 130 new messages!). Thank you also to the other
experts and professionals who shared their perspectives with us, as well. And
last but not least, thanks to Sally for presenting yet another great conference
and handling the extra challenges of technical difficulties and moderating
posts. These conferences are such great resources for those of us who tend to
feel rather isolated.
SarahG
msgarrison@sbcglobal.net
"It really is difficult to imagine how people who have entirely given
up
managing their own affairs could make a wise choice of those who are to do that
for them. One should never expect a liberal, energetic and wise government to
originate in the votes of a people of servants." -- Alexis de Tocqueville
--0-1597318358-1079938460=:51614
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
<DIV>Thank you Kathi and Bobbie for taking the time to answer our questions
on
this topic. The posts have been fascinating, if a bit hard to digest
all
at once (I returned from a hockey game to 130 new messages!). Thank
you
also to the other experts and professionals who shared their perspectives with
us, as well. And last but not least, thanks to Sally for presenting
yet
another great conference and handling the extra challenges of technical
difficulties and moderating posts. These conferences are such great
resources for those of us who tend to feel rather isolated.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>SarahG </DIV><BR><BR>msgarrison@sbcglobal.net<br><br>"It
really is
difficult to imagine how people who have entirely given up managing their own
affairs could make a wise choice of those who are to do that for them. One
should never expect a liberal, energetic and wise government to originate in
the
votes of a people of servants." -- Alexis de Tocqueville
--0-1597318358-1079938460=:51614--
Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2004 23:01:04 -0800
From: Margaret DeLacy <mdelacy@pacifier.com>
Subject: Re: OURGIFTED-L digest 116
To: OURGIFTED-L@neiu.edu
Message-id: <5.0.0.25.2.20040321225226.02865b30@mail.iinet.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=us-ascii
At 12:01 AM 3/21/04 -0600, Bobbie wrote:
>The best solution is to use the Verbal Comprhension and Perceptual
>Reasoning Composites for gifted identification and not insist on the
>FSIQ. Using the Composites of the new test, it has much to offer testing
>gifted children.
>
>We are still recommending re-testing on a test with a higher ceiling when
>children earn two or more scores of 17-19 on the Verbal Comprehension
>subtests. We are evaluating this and it appears to be working well with
>the new test.
Our state law (as it has been interpreted) appears to require the use of a
full test--not subtests in qualifying a student as gifted. Does that mean
that the SB-V is a poor choice?
Does the scoring correlate to percentiles in a way that is similar to the
old tests? That is, even if a student gets a lower number score on the
SB-V, does it "translate" to percentile level or age/grade level that
is
similar to what would be indicated by a higher score on an older test?
Finally, I am wondering whether placing a greater weight on verbal
comprehension might not create a bias against students who do not hear
Standard English spoken constantly in their homes? If that is the case, is
there a way to compensate for it? ELL students are one obvious issue, but
I am also wondering about, for example, children with hearing impaired
parents, or rural children from areas where the English dialect is
significantly different from Standard English.
Margaret DeLacy
Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2004 23:24:10 -0800 (PST)
From: Julie Knapp <littleredhenschool@yahoo.com>
Subject: RE: ASAT -- how are the tests changing
To: OURGIFTED-L@neiu.edu
Message-id: <20040322072410.50923.qmail@web80502.mail.yahoo.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-87609726-1079940250=:45721"
--0-87609726-1079940250=:45721
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Aimee Yermish ayermish@alum.mit.edu wrote:
>>...Sometimes the kids really *are* highly gifted, and sometimes they're
more
like trained seals, where they're bright and their parents have taught them
things that they really weren't ready to learn (they aren't able to recognize
the same information when it's
presented differently, nor are they able to use what they know in novel
contexts). They tend to be quite proud of their recitations, but not to
have any real idea what they're talking about....<<
I'm not a testing expert... (nor do I play one on TV :-) ... but couldn't what
you are describing be symptoms of an undiagnsed learning disability, rather
than
a sign of rote memorization...?
just musing...
-julie
--0-87609726-1079940250=:45721
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
<DIV><BR><B><I>Aimee Yermish <A
href="mailto:ayermish@alum.mit.edu">ayermish@alum.mit.edu</I></B></A> wrote
: </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>>>...Sometimes the kids really *are* highly gifted,
and sometimes
they're more like trained seals, where they're bright and their parents have
taught them things that they really weren't ready to learn (they aren't able
to
recognize the same information when it's<BR>presented differently, nor
are they
able to use what they know in novel<BR>contexts). They tend
to be quite
proud of their recitations, but not to<BR>have any real idea
what they're
talking about....<<</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I'm not a testing expert... (nor do I play one
on TV :-) ... but
couldn't what you are describing be symptoms of an undiagnsed learning
disability, rather than a sign of rote memorization...? </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>just musing...</DIV>
<DIV>-julie</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
--0-87609726-1079940250=:45721--
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 08:42:04 +0100
From: Luc Kumps <luc.kumps@pandora.be>
Subject: RE: More "testing the young child" questions
To: OURGIFTED-L@neiu.edu
Message-id: <012001c40fe1$2b7c4840$8a7ba8c0@spc2>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Hi Kathi,
>
> > What would you do in a country where no other test
> > than the WPPSI/WISC is available ? The Stanford Binet
> > L-M has not been translated in Dutch.>>>>
>
> Dominique, I am very curious. Have the WPPSI/WISC tests not only been
> translated into Dutch, but also have the two tests been normed on Dutch
> children? Or are they using American norms?
The translations of the Wechsler tests used in The Netherlands and the Dutch
speaking part of Belgium were normed using children from both The
Netherlands and Belgium.
Luc K (Felix jun98)
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 02:50:14 -0500 (EST)
From: Kuna821@aol.com
Subject: Re: ASAT -- how are the tests changing
To: OURGIFTED-L@neiu.edu
Message-id: <e6.4a586119.2d8ff4b6@aol.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: multipart/alternative;
boundary=-----------------------------1079941813
-------------------------------1079941813
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In a message dated 3/22/2004 12:03:10 AM Eastern Standard Time,
ayermish@alum.mit.edu writes:
I would hope that future editions of
these tests (and their associated scoring software) would take this idea
into consideration...
Just some random musings...
-- Aimee Yermish
da Vinci Learning Center
aimee@davincilearning.org
Wow Aimee, You have cleared so much up for me. Thanks!
Kara Sorrentino
kuna821@aol.com
-------------------------------1079941813
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<HTML><HEAD>
<META charset=3DUS-ASCII http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html;
cha=
rset=3DUS-ASCII">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2800.1400" name=3DGENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; BACKGROUND-COLOR:
#fffff=
f">
<DIV>
<DIV>In a message dated 3/22/2004 12:03:10 AM Eastern Standard Time, ayermis=
h@alum.mit.edu writes:</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE style=3D"PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT:
blue=20=
2px solid"><FONT face=3DArial>I would hope that future editions
of<BR>these=20=
tests (and their associated scoring software) would take this idea<BR>into
c=
onsideration...<BR><BR>Just some random musings...<BR><BR>--
Aimee Yermish<B=
R> da Vinci Learning Center<BR>
<A href=3D"mailto:ai=
mee@davincilearning.org">aimee@davincilearning.org</A></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE></=
DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Wow Aimee, You have cleared so much up for me. Thanks!</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Kara Sorrentino</DIV>
<DIV><A href=3D"mailto:kuna821@aol.com">kuna821@aol.com</A></DIV></BODY></HT=
ML>
-------------------------------1079941813--
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 11:05:29 +0100
From: Luc Kumps <luc.kumps@pandora.be>
Subject: RE: ASAT -- how are the tests changing
To: OURGIFTED-L@neiu.edu
Message-id: <012901c40ff5$347789f0$8a7ba8c0@spc2>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Hi Aimee,
Quite interesting, the musings that you posted ;-)
Let me try to add some of mine...
I don't have a lot of comments, but there's one thing I would like to point
out, as it addresses the core of why we are gathering here instead of
enjoying the nice spring weather ;-)
Heated discussions always surface when discussing which tests give 'correct'
scores, and comparing tests to each other. We can go on and on forever and a
day about this, since we can't even *define* what 'correct' means...
Why don't we go back to the basic question: what are we interested in? Do we
want a 'correct' number? Or do we want to find (and/or create) an
'appropriate' learning environment for our children, and do we hope that a
test could help us in this search in one or another way?
While I'm very interested in the scientific background of the tests, and
certainly in 'random musings' like yours, when it comes to our son I'm only
interested in letting him develop in a balanced way, i.e. in being able to
respond to questions like
- "How do we choose a 'good' school?"
- "Is he challenged appropriately?"
- "Should we consider any 'radical actions' like (grade or subject)
acceleration?"
And then I wonder: how would a 'correct' number help us more than an
'approximate' one?
I'm also trying to be pragmatic.
For example: yes, it's great that there are tests that can differentiate
among different 'levels of giftedness'.
But when I see all the parents struggling to find a school addressing even
the 'lowest levels' of giftedness, I can only wonder: what would we do with
the knowledge of the 'correct' number? Would we look for a private school?
Or homeschool? These seem to be the only remaining options...
We don't have a Dutch translation of the SB L-M. But what difference would
it make if we had one?
What I'm saying here surfaced regularly in the current conference, albeit in
a slightly different way. Parents are getting excited because some tests
give 'different' numbers. Not because they WANT a 'big number', but because
they're afraid their child would not be admitted (any longer) to the gifted
program/school/whatever... My conclusion: the tests might give a 'correct'
number, but if kids are not getting what they need, then surely somebody's
not interpreting the numbers in the 'correct' way, or is relying too much on
a single number coming out of a a single test...
All this leads me to one of my pet topics: The Need for Identification. In
a
lot of cases, children are refused access to the 'appropriate' environment
UNTIL they are Identified. It is as if schools are afraid to 'hurt' children
which have not been Properly Identified. In the mean time, NOTHING is done.
For example would it REALLY harm to give a pretest to ALL children? To
provide some 'challenging' content to ALL children? I'm convinced that a LOT
of children are (sometimes almost literally) dying in the waiting room of
identification, while not a single child has ever been hurt by being
'challenged' once in a while...
This is why I'm such a big fan of Susan Winebrenner's "Let the kids identify
themselves". Throw all children in the deep water from time to time (i.e.
provide 'challenging' content), and simply watch which ones are enjoying it!
(well, it isn't QUITE as simple as that, but you get the point I guess)
(yes, I do know that critics of this approach will argue that this will
cause the programs for gifted kids to become watered down, but I think
that's a different problem, one of actual implementation of gifted programs)
But hey, that's Utopia. Here in the real world, we still need to wave our
test reports with A Number Larger Than 130 to make -in the best case-
schools even consider a 'change' for our kids (if we can find a
'cooperative' school at all). We don't need a 'correct' number. We want 130,
if that gets our kids what they need ;-)
Luc K (Felix jun98)
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 04:46:12 -0800 (PST)
From: Laurie Jensen <lauriej49@yahoo.com>
Subject: RE: ASAT -- how are the tests changing
To: OURGIFTED-L@neiu.edu
Message-id: <20040322124612.37033.qmail@web20207.mail.yahoo.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-865437728-1079959572=:36783"
--0-865437728-1079959572=:36783
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
I still believe the bell curve works, but I think there are many more on the
extreme ends than would normally be seen. Lots of you have seen lots of very
high kids, and there are scads of kids at the low end who are untestable by
ordinary means. How do test makers account for those kids who are so profoundly
disabled that they can't be tested? These are the kids in institutions. I'm
sure there are many more of them than are accounted for, just as there are
many more profoundly gifted kids than are accounted for.
Laurie
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time.
--0-865437728-1079959572=:36783
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
<DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=replbq style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px;
BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid">
<P>I still believe the bell curve works, but I think there are many more
on the
extreme ends than would normally be seen. Lots of you have seen lots
of
very high kids, and there are scads of kids at the low end who are untestable
by
ordinary means. How do test makers account for those kids who are
so
profoundly disabled that they can't be tested? These are
the kids in
institutions. I'm sure there are many more of them than are
accounted
for, just as there are many more profoundly
gifted kids
than are accounted for. </P>
<P>Laurie<BR></P></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV><p><font
face=arial size=-1>Do you
Yahoo!?<br>
<a href="http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html"><b>Yahoo!
Finance Tax
Center</a></b> - File online. File on time.
--0-865437728-1079959572=:36783--
Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2004 21:28:21 -0500
From: Meredith Warshaw <mwarshaw@uniquelygifted.org>
Subject: ASAT: Are SB5 scores lower? No.
To: OURGIFTED-L@neiu.edu
Message-id: <1c5101c40fb5$5933ca00$6400a8c0@MEREDITH>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
I didn't see this go through, so I'm resending it - apologies if you get it
twice.
----- Original Message -----
From: <Andrew_Carson@hmco.com>
>
> The distribution of scores in the SB: IV norm sample and the SB5 norm
> samples are, so far as I know, equivalent. As stated in the SB5 manual,
the
> SB5 scores were only four points lower than SB: IV scores in the concurrent
> validity study reported in the manual (N = 104)
Was this difference not considered a cause for concern? And were any
statistical analyses done to determine if the differences were larger at the
extremes (that is, if the spread were wider for kids with particularly high
or
low IQs)?
> ...It is highly unlikely that one
> would fine a 20-point difference in scores in a representative sample of
> gifted children, coadministered the SB5 and the SB: IV
It may seem highly unlikely to you, but I am hearing this from a tester whom
I
highly respect and who is very well versed in testing gifted kids.
> All of this suggests that
> it is an unfortunate myth--spread by I know not whom (possibly our
> competitors?)--that SB5 scores are any lower than other test scores except
> as might be expected from a general increase in intelligence of the
> population over time (Flynn effect).
Furthermore, it is from someone who prefers using the SB over the Wechsler,
so I
very much doubt that your explanation of it being a myth spread by your
competitors.
> I'll qualify what I just said, however: If the SB5 is given only after
> administration of the SB: IV, and you only test kids who score highly on
> the SB:IV, then through regression to the mean SB5 scores might often be
> lower than SB: IV scores. There are sound statistical reasons for that;
it
> doesn't mean there's a problem with the SB5 at all.
I am a statistician, and I believe that you are misusing the concept of
regression to the mean. One would not expect a consistent difference of over
1
standard deviation between SB IV and SB V scores due solely to regression to
the
mean.
M
--
Meredith Warshaw, M.S.S., M.A., mailto:mwarshaw@uniquelygifted.org
Special Needs Educational Advisor, http://uniquelygifted.org
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I've learned that people will forget what you said, people will forget what
you
did, but people will never forget how you made them feel. ~ Maya Angelou
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 08:09:40 -0500
From: Cheryl Chaffee <cherylchaffee@comcast.net>
Subject: ASAT: SBLM
To: OURGIFTED-L@neiu.edu
Message-id: <KIEDKMEEJCGKJAJBJOBOGENECKAA.cherylchaffee@comcast.net>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=Windows-1252
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Is there an optimal age at which a child should take the SBLM? I have heard
that age 11-12 might be too "late" to get an accurate score. What
does this
mean? If I was able to get my ds tested on the LM at this age, what kind of
information would this testing give us? (He previously scored 156 on the
WPPSI (I think it was WPPSI?) hitting ceilings on several subtests.
Thanks,
Cheryl in FL
cherylchaffee@comcast.net
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.638 / Virus Database: 409 - Release Date: 3/21/2004
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 08:12:06 -0500
From: Cheryl Chaffee <cherylchaffee@comcast.net>
Subject: ASAT: SBLM
To: OURGIFTED-L@neiu.edu
Message-id: <KIEDKMEEJCGKJAJBJOBOKENECKAA.cherylchaffee@comcast.net>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=Windows-1252
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
OH, I forgot to mention that we have always suspected him to be PG (self
taught reader at age 2!)
Cheryl in FL
cherylchaffee@comcast.net
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.638 / Virus Database: 409 - Release Date: 3/21/2004
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 05:12:46 -0800
From: TOMMYA COSCO RODGERS <tcrwjr@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: ADMIN - Wrapping UP
To: OURGIFTED-L@neiu.edu
Message-id: <000201c4100f$71310b90$2219480c@default>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Thank You to Bobbie and Kathi. I have learned so much in such a short
period of time, I'll be catching up with myself for a week or more.
Thank you for your time, knowledge and your comittment.
Tommya
----- Original Message -----
From: <Sally_L@comcast.net>
To: <OURGIFTED-L@neiu.edu>
Sent: Sunday, March 21, 2004 10:28 PM
Subject: ASAT: ADMIN - Wrapping UP
> Hi List Members,
> Wow, prolific phenonmenal posting - As conference coordinator I have fried
brains. LOL I will not be processing any more posts at this time.Actually it
has been determined that having fried brains is highly contagious among the
three of us - Bobbie, Kathi & myself. I hope this is not a virus thing.
LOL
>
> Tomorrow, we will continue to wrap up. Please refrain from posting any
new
questions to our guest experts, LOL there are still outstanding posts:)
>
> More later from the guest experts, but..... tomorrow!!!! Well, let me
re-word that due to the international nature of our list. After the three of
us get some rest.
>
> Kindest regards,
> Sally_L
> Conference Coordinator
> List Manager
> www.neiu.edu/~ourgift
>
> PS
>
> Please feel free to continue to post online THANKS for our guest
experts!!!
>
>
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 05:31:52 -0800 (PST)
From: Laurie Jensen <lauriej49@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: ASAT -- how are the tests changing
To: OURGIFTED-L@neiu.edu
Message-id: <20040322133152.88908.qmail@web20201.mail.yahoo.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-205760185-1079962312=:88854"
--0-205760185-1079962312=:88854
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
The WJ-III tests have weighted scores. All subtests are not counted equally!
Some tests weigh more heavily at certain ages, and some develop more quickly
at
different ages. Unfortunately, it's all hidden in the scoring software. The
Willis/Dumont website addresses this - somewhere! - Laurie
Kuna821@aol.com wrote:In a message dated 3/22/2004 12:03:10 AM Eastern Standard
Time, ayermish@alum.mit.edu writes:
I would hope that future editions of
these tests (and their associated scoring software) would take this idea
into consideration...
Just some random musings...
-- Aimee Yermish
da Vinci Learning Center
aimee@davincilearning.org
Wow Aimee, You have cleared so much up for me. Thanks!
Kara Sorrentino
kuna821@aol.com
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time.
--0-205760185-1079962312=:88854
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
<DIV>The WJ-III tests have weighted scores. All subtests are
not counted
equally! Some tests weigh more heavily at certain ages, and some develop
more quickly at different ages. Unfortunately, it's all hidden in
the
scoring software. The Willis/Dumont website addresses this -
somewhere! - Laurie<BR><BR><B><I>Kuna821@aol.com</I></B>
wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE class=replbq style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px;
BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1400" name=GENERATOR>
<DIV>
<DIV>In a message dated 3/22/2004 12:03:10 AM Eastern Standard Time,
ayermish@alum.mit.edu writes:</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT:
blue 2px
solid"><FONT face=Arial>I would hope that future editions of<BR>these
tests (and
their associated scoring software) would take this idea<BR>into
consideration...<BR><BR>Just some random musings...<BR><BR>--
Aimee
Yermish<BR> da Vinci Learning Center<BR>
<A
href="mailto:aimee@davincilearning.org">aimee@davincilearning.org</A></FONT></BL
OCKQUOTE></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Wow Aimee, You have cleared so much up for me. Thanks!</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Kara Sorrentino</DIV>
<DIV><A
href="mailto:kuna821@aol.com">kuna821@aol.com</A></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV>
<p><font face=arial size=-1>Do you Yahoo!?<br>
<a href="http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html"><b>Yahoo!
Finance Tax
Center</a></b> - File online. File on time.
--0-205760185-1079962312=:88854--
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 13:47:34 +0000
From: Sally_L@comcast.net
Subject: ASAT: ADMIN - Posts to the list
To: OURGIFTED-L@neiu.edu
Message-id: <032220041347.27770.3a57@comcast.net>
Hi List Members,
Please feel free to continue to post to the list, but please do not direct
any
further questions of the guest experts - Bobbie or Kathi:)
They will be trying to wrap up and post their Closing Statements during the
next
hours which may actually not be until quite late for one of our guest experts.
Again thanks to all of being patience with our fried brains and inability to
process everything and wrap up last night. LOL
Well, it didn't help to have an uncooperative server being down at the
beginning. LOL
Please feel free to continue to post thanks and exchange emails among
yourselves.
Again no further posts directed to our guest experts:)
I will try to check the list on and off through the day to send your posts
through.
Kind regards,
Sally_L
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 07:45:41 -0600
From: "Logue, Theodosia Nowell (UMC-Student)" <tnltg2@mizzou.edu>
Subject: RE: ASAT School GT gate tests
To: OURGIFTED-L@neiu.edu
Message-id: <E04CBC981EC8E6488947205B3698A9E6054FEC@UM-EMAIL05.um.umsystem.edu>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C41014.20AE62C0"
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------_=_NextPart_001_01C41014.20AE62C0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Kathi wrote:
(But be aware of two things: group
tests such as these tend to miss about 25% of highly gifted students, =
and
both of these tests have ceilings of 150)
Kathi, Could you qualify your statement about missing 25% of gifted =
kids. Our district uses the Otis-Lennon (for screening purposes), and =
I'd like to understand your point of view bette. Thanks for =
responding--on or off-list.
------_=_NextPart_001_01C41014.20AE62C0
Content-Type: application/ms-tnef;
name="winmail.dat"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64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------_=_NextPart_001_01C41014.20AE62C0--
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 08:49:51 -0500 (EST)
From: Cyberbren@aol.com
Subject: Re: ASAT -- how are the tests changing
To: OURGIFTED-L@neiu.edu
Message-id: <1d3.1cbd7ee1.2d9048ff@aol.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: multipart/alternative;
boundary=part1_1d3.1cbd7ee1.2d9048ff_boundary
--part1_1d3.1cbd7ee1.2d9048ff_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In a message dated 3/22/2004 8:07:00 AM Eastern Standard Time,
luc.kumps@pandora.be writes:
> This is why I'm such a big fan of Susan Winebrenner's "Let the kids
> identify
> themselves". Throw all children in the deep water from time to time
(i.e.
> provide 'challenging' content), and simply watch which ones are enjoying
it!
>
This has been a fascinating conference, and I agree with the posters who are
afraid that the schools will misuse the results of the new ability tests. I
have no doubt that they will misuse these tests to deny kids access to
programs. I have no doubt that my own school system (which relies on
Otis-Lennon and
Naglieri) will do so if parents present privately administered tests to
counter the O-L results if there child is one of the 25% of gifted kids who
doesn't
do well on that test.
And my school system was lauded a few years back for its gifted programming
by one of the national gifted associations...just think what other school
systems will do!
I LIKE the idea of Susan Winebrenner's. I do NOT like exclusionary programs,
which serve ONLY the gifted. I think they miss way too many kids, and I also
think that lots of kids should have the opportunity to access things that are
currently only available in the exclusionary programs.
~Brenda
--part1_1d3.1cbd7ee1.2d9048ff_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<HTML><FONT FACE=3Darial,helvetica><HTML><FONT SIZE=3D2
PTSIZE=3D10 FAMILY=
=3D"SANSSERIF" FACE=3D"Arial" LANG=3D"0">In
a message dated 3/22/2004 8:07:0=
0 AM Eastern Standard Time, luc.kumps@pandora.be writes:<BR>
<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=3DCITE style=3D"BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT=
: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">This is why I'm such a
big fan=20=
of Susan Winebrenner's "Let the kids identify<BR>
themselves". Throw all children in the deep water from time to time (i.e.<BR=
>
provide 'challenging' content), and simply watch which ones are enjoying it!=
<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE><BR>
<BR>
This has been a fascinating conference, and I agree with the posters who are=
afraid that the schools will misuse the results of the new ability tests.&n=
bsp; I have no doubt that they will misuse these tests to deny kids access t=
o programs. I have no doubt that my own school system (which relies
on=
Otis-Lennon and Naglieri) will do so if parents present privately administe=
red tests to counter the O-L results if there child is one of the 25% of gif=
ted kids who doesn't do well on that test. <BR>
<BR>
And my school system was lauded a few years back for its gifted programming=20=
by one of the national gifted associations...just think what other school sy=
stems will do! <BR>
<BR>
I LIKE the idea of Susan Winebrenner's. I do NOT like exclusionary
pro=
grams, which serve ONLY the gifted. I think they miss way too many
kid=
s, and I also think that lots of kids should have the opportunity to access=20=
things that are currently only available in the exclusionary programs.<BR>
<BR>
~Brenda</FONT></HTML>
--part1_1d3.1cbd7ee1.2d9048ff_boundary--
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 21:54:09 +0800
From: Tracy Chaloner <tracy@cycloneco.com.au>
Subject: Re: ASAT -- how are the tests changing
To: OURGIFTED-L@neiu.edu
Message-id: <BC851101.1A901%tracy@cycloneco.com.au>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sorry Sally. By the time you get up again I will be asleep. The tyranny of
the time differences. So I hope you don't mind me sending this through in
the interim.
I feel somewhat taken out of context by Aimee's comments so I will seek to
clarify.
on 22/3/04 2:46 PM, Aimee Yermish at ayermish@alum.mit.edu wrote:
> Tracy Chaloner writes:
>> often the achievement of the child can give
>> a clue as to how accurate test scores are.
>
> Yes and no. A PG kid is PG from birth, and remains PG whether or not he
> is educated.
Agreed, she may be PG throughout the lifespan, except under adverse
circumstances such as brain trauma. In fact there is also some speculation,
and theorising, about how people with certain types of intelligence get
'smarter' as they get older. I understand from this that they would be 'late
bloomers', not really demonstrating their full potential in childhood. I
would come under this definition, going back to university at 38 after
dropping out at 18.
The term 'educated' is loaded, IMO. More below.
> There are so many issues with gifted kids getting *access*
> to education that can affect their achievement scores, number of skipped
> grades, etc. (This is probably the source of the commonly-held
> misconception amongst educators that, "They all even out by third
> grade.")
Now here I pick up on 'achievement scores' and notions of achievement being
school education based. This is not at all what I am talking about.
I would argue that a pg kid 'educates' themselves (or rather, learns)
irrespective of environment, socio-economic status etc. They absorb
information and manipulate it naturally, like breathing. Living pg is like
that and is difficult to switch off IMO.
Sure, there are some very deprived children but IMO even they have certain
capacities which cannot be completely buried by their adverse circumstances,
and which can be teased out with the right expertise.
What is at stake in 'achievement scores' is whether the 'education' and
'achievement' is commensurate with market needs, which is what formal
'education' is all about IMO. To me, this is not necessarily the marker of
real 'achievement'.
I came from an extremely poor financial background and am still extremely
financially poor (but rich in so many other ways). My extended family
(mother, father, sisters) to this day relish telling me that I am not
gifted, and that I have severely damaged my son (lots of hostility about me
returning to university and my high grades, as well as DS' acceleration and
dropping out of school). Irrespective of that I have developed my own
intellect, and my son has developed his, not necessarily academically,
although that manifestation of his intelligence is always present in
everything he does.
We have not had access to many material opportunities, but thinking doesn't
cost anything. Some of the most eminent thinkers came from destitute or poor
backgrounds.
> Achievements of all sorts can provide clues, sure, but they
> often are mostly providing clues about the socioeconomic class of the
> parents, the ability of the parents to ensure the child receives an
> appropriate education, and parents' and teachers' opinions as to what
> constitutes an appropriate education. The kids can only push the
> parents as far as the parents are willing to be pushed, after all. And
> don't even get me started on the issue of underachievement...
This is where I feel somewhat taken out of context. My original statement
says:
"often the achievement of the child can give
a clue as to how accurate test scores are. ***This may not be school-based
achievement, or even academic achievement. In many cases it could be from
observing the child in their natural learning state.***" [my emphasis]
What I was endeavouring to convey is that when achievement is present, in
whatever form that may take, with an experienced eye it can validate or
invalidate certain test scores. In any good assessment these observations
should form part of an holistic approach to assessing the child.
At the same time a test instrument can be validated or invalidated for that
particular child. As we start to accumulate this data in significant
quantities, patterns emerge. These patterns inform us just as effectively as
any so-called 'objective' research (which is usually not objective at all,
otherwise why all the differing results and opinions!) using small samples
and universalising results (another flaw of so-called objective research).
I also used the word 'often' and 'clue' deliberately to suggest that this is
only one facet of many in terms of giving qualitative weight to a
quantitative assessment.
I very clearly want to say again that IME achievement is not necessarily
'fit into the box' achievement expected in formal education, and which
appears to be influencing modern test construction. To achieve something is
to gain a certain mastery. Many pgs have areas of mastery that are
completely self-directed, with no reliance on either parents or
institutions, and may or may not be academically orientated, or needed by
the market (yet).
When data such as this is available it provides valuable information to a
clinician, and/or a 'switched-on' parent or educator. Just looking at a
child's play, listening to them speak, watching them interact within their
environment tells us much about the child's innate abilities.
In the absence of that data -- such as in underachieving, distressed,
mentally ill or masking children -- or in situations where the child has
suffered emotional trauma which manifests as behavioural problems, then
other methods need to be employed to ascertain whether a test instrument has
accurately depicted the complete picture of ability (and/or disability) of
the child.
>
> Furthermore, I've seen kids with very similar levels of (out-of-level)
> achievement demonstrate very different levels of underlying
> intelligence. Sometimes the kids really *are* highly gifted, and
> sometimes they're more like trained seals,
Agreed, depending on your definition of intelligence (and I am an advocate
of the fluid/crystallised intelligence model), but my point is that a
clinician experienced with gifted children will spot this.
I don't discount the 'trained seals' intelligence that simply because it
takes a certain type of intelligence (crystallised) which is of value in
many situations. Just as you want your fast processing speed valued in spite
of the notion that many pgs are slow processors, so too is crystallised
intelligence of importance in many areas of our society and should be valued
as such.
What I am finally arguing is that to complete a whole picture, data
available from the child's achievement, whether school acquired or self
aquired, should enable an experienced clinician, parent or teacher to
understand more fully whether a test score is accurate, needs teasing out,
or has totally missed the mark, and to use this data to more appropriately
provide opportunities for the child.
The accumulation of this data informs us as to whether particular testing
instruments have embedded flaws for particular populations, as I believe to
be the case in the new testing regime.
The rest is really symantics and philosophical wrangling that, whilst
entertaining for the grown-ups, should not have the impact that it does on
our children.
I hope this serves somewhat to clarify my previous argument on
discriminating between tests and their validity.
all the best
Tracy
Pemberton, Western Australia
tracy@cycloneco.com.au
----------------------
"The future belongs to those who believe in the beauty of their dreams."
‹Eleanor Roosevelt, American First Lady, Civil Rights Activist
>
> -- Aimee Yermish
> da Vinci Learning Center
> aimee@davincilearning.org
>
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 22:16:02 +0800
From: Tracy Chaloner <tracy@cycloneco.com.au>
Subject: Re: ASAT: SBLM
To: OURGIFTED-L@neiu.edu
Message-id: <BC851622.1A906%tracy@cycloneco.com.au>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
We left it too late at 11-5 and ended up with a '+' score, which means that
we still don't really know the full extent of DS' ability since he
'ceilinged' the SBLM test (noting that 'ceiling' is used in another way with
respect to the SBLM). It was very frustrating, but empowering as well since
we at least had something more to go on. We do not regret him taking the
test, late as it was.
It helped us to understand more fully why 5 grade skips were not enough when
educators were trying to tell us we were pushing him and that was why he was
distressed (even though HE was telling them he was bored).
HTH
all the best
Tracy
Pemberton, Western Australia
tracy@cycloneco.com.au
----------------------
"The future belongs to those who believe in the beauty of their dreams."
‹Eleanor Roosevelt, American First Lady, Civil Rights Activist
on 22/3/04 9:09 PM, Cheryl Chaffee at cherylchaffee@comcast.net wrote:
> Is there an optimal age at which a child should take the SBLM? I have
heard
> that age 11-12 might be too "late" to get an accurate score.
What does this
> mean? If I was able to get my ds tested on the LM at this age, what kind
of
> information would this testing give us? (He previously scored 156 on the
> WPPSI (I think it was WPPSI?) hitting ceilings on several subtests.
>
> Thanks,
> Cheryl in FL
> cherylchaffee@comcast.net
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 14:25:03 +0000
From: Hilary Nigro <hnigro@mybluelight.com>
Subject: Re: Regarding the new SAt Re: ASAT
To: OURGIFTED-L@neiu.edu
Message-id: <20040322142503.7568.qmail@kant.synacor.com>
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Sun, 21 Mar 2004 15:40:42 -0700 Kathi Kearney <kkearney@ttlc.net>
wrote:
> I wrote, re: the SAT-I used as an out-of-level test with the talent
> searches:
>
> >
> > I've heard that a shift to the ACT might be a solution. Does this
sound
> > reasonable?>>>>>
>
> Well, it not only sounds very reasonable, since there are years of data
on
> the performance of young gifted students on the ACT as an out-of-level
test,
> but it is probably the direction the Belin-Blank Center will go in since
> they already use the ACT
> Doing well on the new SAT-I will depend on having some knowledge of Algebra
> II. It will also require essay drafting and writing under time pressure
> using handwriting, not a computer. And the verbal abstract reasoning items,
> such as the analogies, will be replaced by a critical reading section,
as I
> understand it
The ACT already requires knowledge of algebra, geometry and some trig, and
has
critical reading too - so how is the new SAT different from the ACT? Other than
the writing section, which is why my son is taking the ACT, as Northwestern's
CTD allows either test. I always thought of the ACT as primarily achievement
based, so using the ACT instead of the new achievement-oriented SAT doesn't
seem
to be getting around the problem of achievement vs aptitude testing. Or am I
missing something?
Sign up for Internet Service under $10 dollars a month, at
http://isp.BlueLight.com
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 22:35:18 +0800
From: Tracy Chaloner <tracy@cycloneco.com.au>
Subject: Re: Are SB5 scores lower? No.
To: OURGIFTED-L@neiu.edu
Message-id: <BC851AA6.1A907%tracy@cycloneco.com.au>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
on 22/3/04 8:42 AM, Andrew_Carson@hmco.com at Andrew_Carson@hmco.com wrote:
> that SB5 scores are any lower than other test scores except
> as might be expected from a general increase in intelligence of the
> population over time (Flynn effect).
It really bugs me that Flynn is quoted in generalised terms when his data
and analysis was quite specific. There is no evidence (that I am aware of)
that the Flynn effect occurs at the extremes, and quite some evidence to the
contrary. Yet at the extremes occur the greated losses under modern testing
regimes. This is a stark inversion of 'reality'.
Why is this conveniently overlooked in discussions of intelligence, testing
regimes, normal distributions and particularly the Flynn effect itself.
I would argue it is because we have a 'fit in the box' mentality emerging,
even in research, that blinkers the vision to such an extent as to render
anything 'outside of the box' invisible. Only the 'hump' of the 'bell curve'
seems to matter any more, since that is where the bulk of 'the market' is.
Our domain is at the extremes. It is about time that those who now construct
testing instruments acknlowledge our existence respectfully (as was formerly
the case), rather than universalising results that have little or no
relevance to our population, but which have a substantial impact on our
ability to access opportunities and to develop our potential in such a way
as might benefit the mainstream.
<this soapbox is getting mighty worn out>
all the best
Tracy
Pemberton, Western Australia
tracy@cycloneco.com.au
----------------------
If fifty million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing.
Anatole France
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 08:48:24 -0600
From: "Lisa C." <ljchoquette@cox.net>
Subject: Re: ASAT -- how are the tests changing
To: OURGIFTED-L@neiu.edu
Message-id: <004101c4101c$babfb0b0$bfaae144@nngco.mehcpipelines.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
I know this is totally anticdotal, but it's true, not theory.
I have 2 sons, both tested. Ds11 took the WISC-R, WJ-III, and SBLM. Ds7
took the WPPSI-R and SBLM. All of their scores (except Ds11's SBLM) were in
the 145-155 range. Certainly they are two different people with different
strengths and weaknesses but these scores would lead me to believe that they
would have similar academic needs. Finding appropriate academic placement
is presumably one of the biggest reasons to test gifted children.
In reality, the academic needs of these two boys is light years different.
Ds11 learned to read almost spontaneously at age 2 and was making change by
4. All we had to do was answer a question once and he knew it - and he was
full of questions. True, we read to him every night before bed, but we also
read to Ds7 before bed. Ds7 is learning to read with his 1st grade
classmates right now. Ds7 fits into school with some minor modifications
for his math strengths and speech delays - and is making friends quite
easily. Ds11 skipped K and 3rd - and was soaking everything up in his
unique and quirky way until he crashed at age 7 - academically and
emotionally shut down. What we've come to understand is that Ds11 doesn't
fit in any one grade. His abilities are extremely asynchronous - and his
SBLM score, way into the PG range, helps us understand this - and keeps us
from insisting that he try to find someway to fit like his brother.
If the goal is to understand the academic needs of these children, I simply
don't see how we can do that if we insist on fitting these kids into the
standard bell curve. I can't argue which is the right theory of
intelligence, but I can tell you that there are kids that do not fit the
unimodal one.
Lisa C.
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 08:51:49 -0600
From: "Lisa C." <ljchoquette@cox.net>
Subject: Re: Are SB5 scores lower? No.
To: OURGIFTED-L@neiu.edu
Message-id: <004b01c4101d$350f7d00$bfaae144@nngco.mehcpipelines.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
> on 22/3/04 8:42 AM, Andrew_Carson@hmco.com at Andrew_Carson@hmco.com
wrote:
>
> > that SB5 scores are any lower than other test scores except
> > as might be expected from a general increase in intelligence of the
> > population over time (Flynn effect).
>
Tracy replied: > It really bugs me that Flynn is quoted in generalised terms
when his data
> and analysis was quite specific. There is no evidence (that I am aware
of)
> that the Flynn effect occurs at the extremes, and quite some evidence to
the
> contrary.
Having a PG child, lowing his score by a few 'Flynn effect' points would
hardly make a difference, unless someone wants to argue the Flynn effect
could raise a score by multiple standard deviations. <sigh>
Lisa C.
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 23:15:42 +0800
From: Tracy Chaloner <tracy@cycloneco.com.au>
Subject: Re: Are SB5 scores lower? No.
To: OURGIFTED-L@neiu.edu
Message-id: <BC85241E.1A910%tracy@cycloneco.com.au>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
on 22/3/04 10:51 PM, Lisa C. at ljchoquette@cox.net wrote:
> Having a PG child, lowing his score by a few 'Flynn effect' points would
> hardly make a difference, unless someone wants to argue the Flynn effect
> could raise a score by multiple standard deviations. <sigh>
The problem is that it is not a 'few points'. Linda Silverman wrote an
article titled 'Lost: One IQ Point Per Year for the Gifted' where she
discusses the disproptionate losses at the upper extreme, up to 1 point per
year (1.5+ SDs) in comparison with 0.3 point in the average population (0.5
SD). Another post suggested that an SBLM IQ of 191 was equivalent to a SB5
IQ of 144. That's a 'loss' of almost 50 points or over 3 SDs! By any measure
these discrepancies are 'significant', irrespective of the metric used to
construct the test.
So yes, my understanding is that the reverse of the Flynn effect, as it is
incorrectly applied, could raise scores by multiple standard deviations if
this effect was not a factor underpinning test construction at the upper
extreme.
The old and new tests are based on different metrics, and we know that, but
conveying this sort of information to educators and legislators is often
beyond their scope to understand. The 'number' is the number and it must fit
into the agreed range as developed before the current substantial changes to
the testing regime. IME, educators and legislators are painfully slow to
make change. They do not understand the notion of accelerated time for
gifted children, as they dither and deliberate.
At the bottom of the pile, loaded under all this rhetoric and theoretical
wrangling, is the extremely gifted child wallowing in an educational
environment nowhere near her ability level, and developing ongoing mental
illnesses and behavioural problems. Flynn, metrics, theories of intelligence
etc. have no bearing when it is a child who suffers.
all the best
Tracy
Pemberton, Western Australia
tracy@cycloneco.com.au
----------------------
"The future belongs to those who believe in the beauty of their dreams."
‹Eleanor Roosevelt, American First Lady, Civil Rights Activist
on 22/3/04 10:51 PM, Lisa C. at ljchoquette@cox.net wrote:
>> on 22/3/04 8:42 AM, Andrew_Carson@hmco.com at Andrew_Carson@hmco.com
> wrote:
>>
>>> that SB5 scores are any lower than other test scores except
>>> as might be expected from a general increase in intelligence of
the
>>> population over time (Flynn effect).
>>
> Tracy replied: > It really bugs me that Flynn is quoted in generalised
terms
> when his data
>> and analysis was quite specific. There is no evidence (that I am aware
of)
>> that the Flynn effect occurs at the extremes, and quite some evidence
to
> the
>> contrary.
>
> Having a PG child, lowing his score by a few 'Flynn effect' points would
> hardly make a difference, unless someone wants to argue the Flynn effect
> could raise a score by multiple standard deviations. <sigh>
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 09:29:21 -0600
From: Andrew_Carson@hmco.com
Subject: RE: Are SB5 scores lower? No.
To: OURGIFTED-L@neiu.edu, tnltg2@mizzou.edu
Message-id: <OF81B60526.66027F24-ON86256E5F.005423AD-86256E5F.005516CB@hmco.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: multipart/mixed;
Boundary="0__=09BBE4CCDFC7A53D8f9e8a93df938690918c09BBE4CCDFC7A53D"
Content-disposition: inline
--0__=09BBE4CCDFC7A53D8f9e8a93df938690918c09BBE4CCDFC7A53D
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Hi Theodosia, some quick thoughts.
Anytime you test a student on one test and get a gifted level score, and
then you retest them on another, you're (all things being equal) going to
get a lower score. So if the kids were previously identified as gifted with
another test, and then you give the SB5, you (all things being equal) will
get a lower score on the SB5.
I know of no presented or published empirical work that would suggest that
the WISC-IV would result in higher scores than those of the SB5. This is
anecdotal. By linkage back through concurrent validity studies between the
most recent editions and WISC-III or other Wechsler scores, scores on the
SB5 and those of the Wechsler tests are about the same. That's the
strongest empirical data we have, and in fact the ONLY empirical data we
have, so I'll trust that until I see good quality research that says
otherwise. So I don't accept the premise that there are any score
differences at all--and so there's no need to account for them.
That being said, there may be differences between individual's scores
across test batteries because individuals are relatively stronger on some
mental factors than others (they have profiles), and test batteries differ
in the degree to which they emphasize these various factors. But because so
much of the SB5 variance is g (general ability/intelligence), most of the
SB5 variance will be related to g, and to a somewhat greater degree than
for other tests out there (based on the data I've seen).
Drew
Andrew D. Carson, Ph.D.
Senior Project Director
The Riverside Publishing Company
425 Spring Lake Drive
Itasca, Illinois 60143-2079
phone (630) 467-6036 or 1-800-767-8420 (extension 6036)
fax (630) 467-6150
email Andrew_Carson@hmco.com
"Logue, Theodosia
Nowell To: OURGIFTED-L@neiu.edu
(UMC-Student)" cc:
<tnltg2@mizzou.ed Subject: RE: Are SB5 scores
lower? No.
u>
Sent by:
owner-OURGIFTED-L
@neiu.edu
03/21/2004 07:48
PM
Please respond to
OURGIFTED-L
I attended a conference recently where local psychologists were discussing
the SB5 as it relates to older tests, and the primary difference
highlighted was the difference in subtests and what was being measured. Is
this mainly what accounts for different scores? One of the presenters
discussed the idea of using different tests for achieving different ends,
i.e. identifying more or less of the school district's population for
gifted programs, or using one test over another because it better suited
the child (and perhaps showed him/her in a better light). Can you comment
on either of these ideas? (Incidentally, they pointed out that the SB5
would probably give a student a lower score, therefore identifying fewer
kids for local gifted programs, than say, the WISC-IV, which may have been
used to identify students already IN the programs.)
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-OURGIFTED-L@neiu.edu on behalf of Andrew_Carson@hmco.com
Sent: Sun 3/21/2004 6:58 PM
To: OURGIFTED-L@neiu.edu
Subject: Re: Are SB5 scores lower? No.
Hi Bobbie,
I'm not sure. I guess I'd be surprised if there's a large and consistent
difference in the number of children getting different scores on the SB5
and, say, the WISC-IV, assuming you were to randomly assign order of
testing. This would particularly be the case if you used the Gifted
Composite as your primary indicator (that's the one that leaves off the two
working memory subtests and nonverbal visual-spatial processing). They
really should be yielding comparable scores, assuming similar methods were
used to collect the sample and determine the score distributions.
Regards,
Drew
Andrew D. Carson, Ph.D.
Senior Project Director
The Riverside Publishing Company
425 Spring Lake Drive
Itasca, Illinois 60143-2079
phone (630) 467-6036 or 1-800-767-8420 (extension 6036)
fax (630) 467-6150
email Andrew_Carson@hmco.com
"Barbara J.
Gilman" To:
OURGIFTED-L@neiu.edu
<bobbie@h2net.net cc:
> Subject: Re: Are SB5 scores
lower? No.
Sent by:
owner-OURGIFTED-L
@neiu.edu
03/21/2004 06:41
PM
Please respond to
OURGIFTED-L
Hi Drew,
With the gifted children coming to us, we're not having any difficulty
obtaining lots of scores above 130 on the new Wechsler tests, but we are
having that difficulty on the SB5. To what do you attribute that
problem, if the tests utilize similar scoring?
Bobbie Gilman
Andrew_Carson@hmco.com wrote:
>
> The SB5 norms were created in the standard way, and presumably do reflect
> distributions of ability in the general population. Scores on the SB5 and
> Wechsler and other tests should and generally will be equivalent. There
was
> no intention to create lower scores on the SB5! Our goal, and I believe
we
> succeeded in it, was to create accurate scores.
>
(See attached file: winmail.dat)
--0__=09BBE4CCDFC7A53D8f9e8a93df938690918c09BBE4CCDFC7A53D
Content-type: application/octet-stream;
name="winmail.dat"
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="winmail.dat"
Content-transfer-encoding: base64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--0__=09BBE4CCDFC7A53D8f9e8a93df938690918c09BBE4CCDFC7A53D--
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 09:39:36 -0600
From: Andrew_Carson@hmco.com
Subject: Re: ASAT: comparing scores on different tests
To: OURGIFTED-L@neiu.edu
Cc: minmay@cableone.net, kkearney@ttlc.net
Message-id: <OF7EC22769.0FEEDD2B-ON86256E5F.00556900-86256E5F.00560708@hmco.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Barbara,
This is exactly what you would expect to see. The SB5 and SB: IV scores are
comparable, indicating high stability of general ability over time. In
fact, if anything the general ability appears to have increased with
maturation, assuming Flynn effect at work (and although Flynn doesn't know
that it holds at the upper ability range, he doesn't know that it doesn't
either, so until proven otherwise I'll assume it does, particularly for the
knowledge factor).
Form L-M scores in the upper range tend to be elevated relative to
standard-score based tests such as the Wechslers and SB: IV and SB5. This
is not because the L-M has a higher ceiling per se, or more difficult
items, although many of its upper end items are difficult (as are those of
the SB5). It is because the L-M is based on a different scoring metric,
primarily, one based on ratio IQ scores. For comparison, you can compute a
Rasch ratio IQ on the SB5 using the following formula: age-equivalent
[based on SB5] / chronological age. The resulting score should be about
191.
Regards,
Drew
Andrew D. Carson, Ph.D.
Senior Project Director
The Riverside Publishing Company
425 Spring Lake Drive
Itasca, Illinois 60143-2079
phone (630) 467-6036 or 1-800-767-8420 (extension 6036)
fax (630) 467-6150
email Andrew_Carson@hmco.com
"Barbara A.
Minton, Ph.D." To: OURGIFTED-L@neiu.edu
<minmay@cableone. cc:
net> Subject: ASAT: comparing scores
on different tests
Sent by:
owner-OURGIFTED-L
@neiu.edu
03/21/2004 08:04
PM
Please respond to
OURGIFTED-L
My 8 year old son received a 144 on the SB5 with an age equivalent score
of
31 years. He received a 191 on the SBLM. When he was five he received a
score of 145 on a poor administration of the SB-IV (though his quantitative
subscale score was calculated at 162). Anyone care to comment?
Thanks,
Barb
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 11:17:31 -0500
From: Aimee Yermish <ayermish@alum.mit.edu>
Subject: RE: Regarding the new SAt Re: ASAT
To: OURGIFTED-L@neiu.edu
Message-id: <006301c41029$30e8c040$6601a8c0@TESLA>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Hilary Nigro writes:
> The ACT already requires knowledge of algebra, geometry and
> some trig, and has critical reading too - so how is the new
> SAT different from the ACT?
I posted about this in detail on Saturday, I think. The main difference
is the science section (present on the ACT, absent on the new SAT). And
all three are achievement tests -- none is an aptitude test from our
kids' point of view. The scores from these tests do have some limited
predictive validity for freshman year college grades, which is what the
test designers are generally shooting for, since the primary function of
these tests is to enable colleges to predict which applicants are most
likely to be academically qualified. But that predictive validity is, I
think, largely because the tests are achievement tests loading many of
the same academic skills which those freshman year classes are going to
load (depressing, but true).
-- Aimee Yermish
da Vinci Learning Center
aimee@davincilearning.org
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 00:34:20 +0800
From: Julie Pickett <julie@pickettspatcher.com>
Subject: Freedom from Distractibility Index
To: OURGIFTED-L@neiu.edu
Message-id: <000001c4102b$8c8326a0$0100a8c0@harry>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Hi all
I was just wondering if Kathi or Bobbie could tell me why a child who we
were advised was most likely ADD (primarily inattentive) did better on the
Freedom from Distractibility Index on the WISC111 than any other Index (this
was the situation with both our children). Wouldn't attention problems make
this the lowest Index?
Also, I was wondering which subtests on the WISC111 were the ones where
ceilings indicated further testing on the SBLM might be useful.
Thanks for a great conference, yet again.
Julie
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 10:03:05 -0800
From: KF <kfpang@isop.ucla.edu>
Subject: our lessons from testing
To: OURGIFTED-L@neiu.edu
Message-id: <5.1.0.14.2.20040322091425.00aa3260@isop.ucla.edu>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=us-ascii
Hello,
This is kind of late for our guests, but perhaps other posters can relate!
It is interesting to read about testing 2E kids, and it is probably it is
the PG kid with LDs who needs the testing results most because it can
probably save his/her life, if not his/her sanity! The kid knows and feels
smart in many ways (and different), but it is often the easiest routine
work that are easy for other kids that are hardest for him ... math tables
and Math Minutes, copying, writing by hand, and that situation can spiral a
child into depression ... so for us, getting our child fully evaluated was
a lifesaver.
Since we were dealing with the school district for many years --- countless
unsuccessful IEPs, two mediations with two lawyers (we prevailed!) and now
into our final one --- between ages of 9 and 14, during which we
essentially homeschooled for over three years and we basically still are in
conjunction with community college, we have had to do educational testing
several times ... sometimes the same instruments twice! I think we are
finally done with testing ... and we still have questions but we haven't
found all the answers despite the best of experts. He is happiest now, so
we will just sit back and enjoy the rest of the ride into the future ...
What we learned, through the arduous journey, are:
1. Schools usually don't quite know what to do with SB-LM scores --- but
that score does help us have confidence in our own educational
decisions. If a child does well in an audited UC astronomy course, we feel
he can certainly handle community college classes. Taking a three-course
load at CC is the right balance for us .... we see the typical high school
load as way too much for our child ...
2. Our school did look at achievement tests and we did Woodcock Johnson
Achievement tests at least three times ... but what can schools do when a
kid has some scores in the "over 31 years" range and "fluency"
and combined
"academic fluency" scores at 2nd grade level?
Question for anyone who has kids scoring in WCJ-Achievement in "over 31"
years ... is that the ceiling? What does that really mean in terms of
equivalency in real life as far as the construction of WCJ goes?
And on fluency scores .. I think that says something about either
processing speed. Can it indicate anything else but slower processing speed?
3. It is because schools don't know how to deal with our case and they
have no appropriate placements that we have prevailed in our mediation
cases. We did get some of our evaluations and remediation reimbursed and
ongoing psychological counselling, which has been great. But our IEP
process did accomplish is to document the need for extra time
accommodations for future needs. And our high school gave us permission for
him to come back to enjoy the D and D club whenever he wishes ... one of
his highlights of his 8 weeks in high school!
4. No one knows your child as well as you do .. while all our evaluations
by experts have helped somewhat, we have had our child's dyslexia missed by
our first comprehensive evaluation ... pg kids with LDs or other
differences are not easy to completely "diagnose." For all the potential
our child has despite his LDs, it is his happiness we want most. So, we
are taking a easy community college load, leaving time for scouting,
soccer, time with friends ... and the most difficult of all, time to just
"be" ...
What are other lessons from testing have other posters learned as families?
KF
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 11:53:18 -0700
From: "Barbara J. Gilman" <bobbie.gilman@comcast.net>
Subject: ASAT: Developing Your Child For Success
To: OURGIFTED-L@neiu.edu
Message-id: <405F361E.7020105@comcast.net>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=us-ascii
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
To all who may be interested, I am told by Lee Ann at the GDC
(303-837-8378 or www.gifteddevelopment.com) that we always try to keep
this book in stock (in our small stock of frequently requested books),
and have it now. Hope this helps.
Bobbie Gilman
> Luc Kumps wrote:
>
>> The book *Developing Your Child for Success* by Dr. Kenneth
>> Lane also describes these issues and offers vision exercises (helpful
if
>> you don't have a behavioral optometrist nearby).
>
>
>
> Thanks for the suggestion, Bobbie.
> Do you know of any other books or websites, because this book appears
> to be
> out of print, and therefore it's hard to get?
>
> Luc K (Felix jun98)
>
>
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 09:30:43 -0600
From: Karl Bunday <kmbunday@earthlink.net>
Subject: RE: Are SB5 scores lower? No.
To: OURGIFTED-L@neiu.edu
Message-id: <001c01c41022$ab5a2280$59e9df18@ibm8kcuwn0cop6>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Tracy asked
> > that SB5 scores are any lower than other test scores except
> > as might be expected from a general increase in intelligence of the
> > population over time (Flynn effect).
>
> It really bugs me that Flynn is quoted in generalised terms when his data
> and analysis was quite specific. There is no evidence (that I am aware
of)
> that the Flynn effect occurs at the extremes, and quite some evidence to
> the contrary. Yet at the extremes occur the greated losses under modern
> testing regimes. This is a stark inversion of 'reality'.
>
> Why is this conveniently overlooked in discussions of intelligence,
> testing
> regimes, normal distributions and particularly the Flynn effect itself.
Flynn comments on this issue in his published writings, from the early
articles published in Psychological Bulletin (which I possess in the form of
photocopies) to his more recent writings in monographs of collected
articles. The short answer is that softening of norms on IQ tests occurs in
all parts of the IQ range, and the slight correction to the message quoted
(not written) by Tracy is that Flynn most certainly does NOT characterize
the phenomenon he observes as a "general increase in intelligence of the
population over time." So characterizing the undeniable empirical
observation of rising raw scores on IQ tests is a hypothesis, a hypothesis
that Flynn rejects on what I think is the basis of good evidence.
Much more detail on these points can be found in various monographs and
articles I cite in my bibliography "Books on IQ and Human Intelligence"
http://learninfreedom.org/iqbooks.html
especially the monograph edited by Neisser (1998), which includes an article
by Flynn addressing this and other misunderstood points on the Flynn effect,
and the monograph by Mackintosh (1998), which puts the Flynn effect in a
broader context of predictions that are confirmed or refuted by IQ test
data.
Karl M. Bunday
P.O. Box 1456 Minnetonka, MN 55345 U.S.A.
Learn in Freedom (TM) http://learninfreedom.org/
kmbunday AT earthlink DOT net (preferred email address)
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 11:41:10 -0500
From: Aimee Yermish <ayermish@alum.mit.edu>
Subject: RE: ASAT -- how are the tests changing
To: OURGIFTED-L@neiu.edu
Message-id: <006401c4102c$7eafea80$6601a8c0@TESLA>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0065_01C41002.95D9E280"
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_0065_01C41002.95D9E280
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Brenda < <mailto:Cyberbren@aol.com> Cyberbren@aol.com > writes:
> I LIKE the idea of Susan Winebrenner's.
So do I, in theory, but I also feel that once you've found the kids by
whatever means, you're not going to be able to effectively serve the
highly gifted kids in heterogeneous classrooms.
> I do NOT like exclusionary programs, which serve ONLY the gifted.
> I think they miss way too many kids, and I also think that lots of
> kids should have the opportunity to access things that are currently
> only available in the exclusionary programs.
Sadly, the way this usually plays out in reality is that when you let
the average kids into the gifted program, it very quickly stops being a
gifted program (I've seen it happen many times, even in my own
classroom, even in a school supposedly built around the needs of gifted
kids). It can still provide *some* programming that is vaguely
appropriate for the gifted kids, but the pressures on the teachers to
ignore the needs of the highly gifted kids in favor of the moderately
gifted and the non-gifted, and to not intimidate the moderately gifted
and non-gifted kids, are enormous. I'm not saying it's not possible for
highly gifted kids to get their needs met in mainstream programs (which
is what you have when you open the enrichment program to everyone), but
I haven't seen it happen very often, and the few times I've seen it
happen, it hasn't been allowed to persist long, because of that
pejorative term "exclusionary." Hey, it's not exclusionary for to
keep
an average kid out of a special day class for developmentally disabled
kids who are severely enough affected that they cannot be mainstreamed,
it's not exclusionary to have varsity, junior varsity, and intramural
level sports, so why exactly is it exclusionary for to keep an average
kid out of a class for highly gifted kids who need room to spread their
wings?
Trust me, if you let the teacher keep the class focused around the
highly gifted, the average kids wouldn't get anything out of their
participation anyhow. I had a group of PG 1st and 2nd graders once,
back when I was a classroom teacher. We were doing analytic geometry
and calculus. None of their classmates would have gained anything by
participating in that class. When the parents of the MG kids insisted
upon the class being open to any kid who was interested, no matter how I
tried to keep the level where it had been, no matter how I
differentiated, it wasn't possible to keep the experience for the PG
kids from being dragged down by the MG kids (the key to classroom
management is making sure everyone is learning). Eventually, the PG
kids who the class had originally been designed for chose to *leave* the
class, because it no longer met their needs, and I was stuck babysitting
a bunch of nice MG kids whose needs could have quite adequately been met
in their existing classrooms.
-- Aimee Yermish
da Vinci Learning Center
aimee@davincilearning.org
------=_NextPart_000_0065_01C41002.95D9E280
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV=3D"Content-Type" CONTENT=3D"text/html; =
charset=3DUS-ASCII">
<TITLE>Message</TITLE>
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2800.1400" name=3DGENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY dir=3Dltr>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D179451716-22032004><FONT face=3DTahoma =
size=3D2>Brenda=20
<</FONT></SPAN><FONT face=3DTahoma><A =
href=3D"mailto:Cyberbren@aol.com"><FONT=20
size=3D2>Cyberbren@aol.com</FONT></A><FONT size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D179451716-22032004><FONT face=3DArial =
color=3D#0000ff> <FONT face=3DTahoma=20
color=3D#000000>> =
writes:</FONT> </FONT></SPAN><BR></FONT></FONT><FONT=20
lang=3D0 FAMILY=3D"SANSSERIF" PTSIZE=3D"10"><BR><FONT
face=3DArial><FONT =
size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D179451716-22032004><FONT color=3D#0000ff> >
=
</FONT></SPAN>I=20
LIKE the idea of Susan Winebrenner's. <SPAN=20
class=3D179451716-22032004><FONT=20
color=3D#0000ff> </FONT></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT lang=3D0 FAMILY=3D"SANSSERIF" PTSIZE=3D"10"><FONT
=
face=3DArial><FONT=20
size=3D2><SPAN =
class=3D179451716-22032004></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT lang=3D0 FAMILY=3D"SANSSERIF" PTSIZE=3D"10"><FONT
=
face=3DArial><FONT=20
size=3D2><SPAN class=3D179451716-22032004>So do I, in theory, but
I also =
feel that=20
once you've found the kids by whatever means, you're not going to be =
able to=20
effectively serve the highly gifted kids in heterogeneous=20
classrooms.</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT lang=3D0 FAMILY=3D"SANSSERIF" PTSIZE=3D"10"><FONT
=
face=3DArial><FONT=20
size=3D2><SPAN =
class=3D179451716-22032004></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT lang=3D0 FAMILY=3D"SANSSERIF"
=
PTSIZE=3D"10"><FONT><FONT=20
size=3D2><SPAN class=3D179451716-22032004>> </SPAN>I
do NOT =
like=20
exclusionary programs, which serve ONLY the gifted.<SPAN=20
class=3D179451716-22032004><FONT=20
color=3D#0000ff> </FONT></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT lang=3D0 FAMILY=3D"SANSSERIF"
=
PTSIZE=3D"10"><FONT><FONT=20
size=3D2><SPAN class=3D179451716-22032004><FONT=20
color=3D#0000ff>></FONT> </SPAN> I
think they miss way too =
many=20
kids, and I also think that lots of <SPAN =
class=3D179451716-22032004><FONT=20
color=3D#0000ff> </FONT></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT lang=3D0 FAMILY=3D"SANSSERIF"
=
PTSIZE=3D"10"><FONT><FONT=20
size=3D2><SPAN class=3D179451716-22032004><FONT=20
color=3D#0000ff>></FONT> </SPAN>kids should have
the opportunity =
to access=20
things that are currently <SPAN class=3D179451716-22032004><FONT=20
color=3D#0000ff> </FONT></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT lang=3D0 FAMILY=3D"SANSSERIF"
=
PTSIZE=3D"10"><FONT><FONT=20
size=3D2><SPAN class=3D179451716-22032004><FONT=20
color=3D#0000ff>></FONT> </SPAN>only available
in the =
exclusionary=20
programs.<SPAN class=3D179451716-22032004><FONT=20
color=3D#0000ff> </FONT></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT lang=3D0 FAMILY=3D"SANSSERIF"
=
PTSIZE=3D"10"><FONT><FONT=20
size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D179451716-22032004></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></FONT> </DIV=
>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D179451716-22032004><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff
=
size=3D2>Sadly,=20
the way this usually plays out in reality is that when you let the =
average kids=20
into the gifted program, it very quickly stops being a gifted program=20
(I've seen it happen many times, even in my own classroom, even in
=
a school=20
supposedly built around the needs of gifted kids). It can still =
provide=20
*some* programming that is vaguely appropriate for the gifted kids,
=
but the=20
pressures on the teachers to ignore the needs of the highly gifted kids =
in favor=20
of the moderately gifted and the non-gifted, and to not intimidate the=20
moderately gifted and non-gifted kids, are enormous. I'm
not =
saying=20
it's not possible for highly gifted kids to get their needs met in=20
mainstream programs (which is what you have when you open the enrichment =
program=20
to everyone), but I haven't seen it happen very often, and the few
=
times=20
I've seen it happen, it hasn't been allowed to persist long, because of =
that=20
pejorative term "exclusionary." Hey, it's not exclusionary
for to =
keep an=20
average kid out of a special day class for developmentally disabled kids =
who are=20
severely enough affected that they cannot be mainstreamed, it's not =
exclusionary=20
to have varsity, junior varsity, and intramural level sports, so why =
exactly is=20
it exclusionary for to keep an average kid out of a class for highly =
gifted kids=20
who need room to spread their wings? </FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D179451716-22032004><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff
=
size=3D2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D179451716-22032004><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff
=
size=3D2>Trust=20
me, if you let the teacher keep the class focused around the highly =
gifted, the=20
average kids wouldn't get anything out of their participation =
anyhow. =20
</FONT></SPAN><SPAN class=3D179451716-22032004><FONT face=3DArial
=
color=3D#0000ff=20
size=3D2>I had a group of PG 1st and 2nd graders once, back when I was a
=
classroom=20
teacher. We were doing analytic geometry and calculus. None
=
of their=20
classmates would have gained anything by participating in that =
class. When=20
the parents of the MG kids insisted upon the class being open to any kid =
who was=20
interested, no matter how I tried to keep the level where it had been, =
no matter=20
how I differentiated, it wasn't possible to keep the experience for
=
the PG=20
kids from being dragged down by the MG kids (the key to classroom =
management is=20
making sure everyone is learning). Eventually, the PG kids who the
=
class=20
had originally been designed for chose to *leave* the class, because it =
no=20
longer met their needs, and I was stuck babysitting a bunch of nice MG =
kids=20
whose needs could have quite adequately been met in their existing=20
classrooms.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D179451716-22032004><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff
=
size=3D2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D179451716-22032004><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff
=
size=3D2>--=20
Aimee Yermish</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D179451716-22032004><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff
=
size=3D2> da Vinci Learning Center</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D179451716-22032004><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff
=
size=3D2> <A=20
href=3D"mailto:aimee@davincilearning.org">aimee@davincilearning.org</A></=
FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D179451716-22032004><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff
=
size=3D2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV></BODY></HTML>
------=_NextPart_000_0065_01C41002.95D9E280--
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 11:54:09 -0500 (EST)
From: Clarke312004@aol.com
Subject: Re: ASAT: What's the 'best' age for testing?
To: OURGIFTED-L@neiu.edu
Message-id: <1d7.1cb3b03b.2d907431@aol.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: multipart/alternative;
boundary=-----------------------------1079974449
-------------------------------1079974449
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
My daughter was tested at the suggestion of her teacher in first grade in the
state of Mississippi where I believe that the standards are different from
here in New York where we have relocated due to my husbands job. I attempted
to
use the scores that she received here in the NYC public school system and was
informed that they couldn't use the score which were well above the average
7
year old. Can anyone give me an idea as to where to go retest my daughter in
the NYC area?
Angela Glenn-Clarke
www.pleasureboundparties.com
-------------------------------1079974449
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<HTML><HEAD>
<META charset=3DUS-ASCII http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html;
cha=
rset=3DUS-ASCII">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2800.1400" name=3DGENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; BACKGROUND-COLOR:
#fffff=
f">
<DIV>My daughter was tested at the suggestion of her teacher in first
grade=20=
in the state of Mississippi where I believe that the standards are different=
from here in New York where we have relocated due to my husbands job. I att=
empted to use the scores that she received here in the NYC public school sys=
tem and was informed that they couldn't use the score which were well above=20=
the average 7 year old. Can anyone give me an idea as to where to go retest=20=
my daughter in the NYC area?</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT lang=3D0 face=3D"BernhardMod BT" size=3D4 FAMILY=3D"SERIF"
PTSIZE=
=3D"14"><I><BR><BR>Angela Glenn-Clarke<BR></FONT><FONT
lang=3D0 face=3D"Bern=
hardMod BT" color=3D#0000ff size=3D4 FAMILY=3D"SERIF" PTSIZE=3D"14">www.plea=
sureboundparties.com</I></FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>
-------------------------------1079974449--
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 09:32:23 -0600
From: Andrew_Carson@hmco.com
Subject: Re: Can you answer this, Drew? (FW: ASAT: SB 5 Results)
To: tonya.andersen@verizon.net
Cc: OURGIFTED-L@neiu.edu
Message-id: <OFD7C236D1.681394A0-ON86256E5F.0055562B-86256E5F.00555E03@hmco.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Yes, feel free.
Andrew D. Carson, Ph.D.
Senior Project Director
The Riverside Publishing Company
425 Spring Lake Drive
Itasca, Illinois 60143-2079
phone (630) 467-6036 or 1-800-767-8420 (extension 6036)
fax (630) 467-6150
email Andrew_Carson@hmco.com
----- Forwarded by Andrew Carson/RPC/hmco on 03/22/2004 09:32 AM -----
Tonya
<tonya.andersen@v To: OURGIFTED-L@neiu.edu
erizon.net> cc:
Sent by: Subject: Re: Can you answer
this, Drew? (FW: ASAT: SB 5
owner-OURGIFTED-L Results)
@neiu.edu
03/21/2004 08:02
PM
Please respond to
OURGIFTED-L
Hi Drew,
I appreciate the information you are sharing on the SB5. I have a
couple of very specific questions. Would it be ok to contact you off-list?
Regards,
Tonya
tonya.andersen@verizon.net
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 11:14:35 -0500
From: "Carolyn & Mark K." <carolyn@thehoagies.com>
Subject: RE: ASAT thank you Kathi and Bobbie
To: OURGIFTED-L@neiu.edu
Message-id: <001201c41028$c61333e0$6400a8c0@coatsv01.pa.comcast.net>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=Windows-1252
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Yes, thank you Bobbie and Kathi, and Sally for facilitating our venue, Drew
for jumping in, and all of you for your insightful questions! I've got tons
more to read now...
Carolyn K. carolyn{at}thehoagies.com
Hoagies' Kids and Teens Page http://www.hoagieskids.org
Hoagies' Gifted Education Page http://www.hoagiesgifted.org
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 20:01:07 +0000
From: Sally_L@comcast.net
Subject: ASAT: OT - A bit off topic - An article on one school's use of GT
funding
To: OURGIFTED-L@neiu.edu
Message-id: <032220042001.19163.5937@comcast.net>
Hi List Members,
Since we are just chatting among ourselves until Bobbie and Kathi are able to
come back to post their Closing Statement. Please humor me with posting a link
to an article depicting one school's program in using gifted and talented funds.
IF the link doesn't work, just visit www.desnews.com - the article is current
and is in today's online newspaper which is located in Salt Lake City, UT. there
is no requirement to register.
http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/1%2C1249%2C595050711%2C00.html
Sally_L - I think I am recovering from the weekend. LOL
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 14:37:02 -0500
From: Aimee Yermish <ayermish@alum.mit.edu>
Subject: RE: ASAT -- how are the tests changing
To: OURGIFTED-L@neiu.edu
Message-id: <007a01c41045$100ecdd0$6601a8c0@TESLA>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Tracy Chaloner writes:
> I feel somewhat taken out of context by Aimee's comments so I
> will seek to clarify.
Oh, I'm sorry -- I didn't mean to make you feel that I completely
disagreed with you, because actually I mostly agree with what you've
said.
I agree that gifted children educate themselves, but their ability to do
this is going to be affected by what they've got available, which is
often out of their control. I agree with your statement that
achievement can provide *clues*, but the problem is that there are so
many variables confounding achievement (no matter whether you define
this as school-based achievement, out-of-school achievement, grades
skipped, out-of-level achievement test scores, or whatever else you
like) and so much diversity amongst the gifted population that, however
achievement is measured, it is not going to provide any rigorous
estimates of what percentage of the population actually exists at any
given IQ level. Thus, it's not likely to shed any useful light on the
problem of how to reconcile the differences between what we think we're
observing and what the developers of IQ tests think they're observing.
It's useful for looking at individual cases and figuring out what
individual kids need, as you say (and this is what I do, too), but it
doesn't do anything about the underlying problem of the modern IQ tests
having potentially much lower validity than we would hope.
> In fact there is also some speculation, and theorising, about
> how people with certain types of intelligence get
> 'smarter' as they get older. I understand from this that they
> would be 'late bloomers', not really demonstrating their full
> potential in childhood. I would come under this definition,
> going back to university at 38 after dropping out at 18.
This is one of the ideas I was trying to get at with the ideas about
synergy. As we get older, our developing capacity for abstract thought
enables us to more effectively use metacognitive strategies to apply our
intelligence better to a broader set of problems. And sometimes things
seem to just need to "cook" for a while -- many, many adults (myself
included) have found that greater maturity has enabled them to succeed
at things that had previously seemed very difficult. But I'm not so
sure that this counts as getting more "intelligent," only in gaining
more skills over time. Again, it comes down to mainly a semantic
distinction as to whether this is a change in achievement, a change in
underlying intelligence, or merely a continuation of a normal
developmental process that is not fundamentally different from the way
in which children develop the capacity for abstract thought. After all,
no newborns, however gifted, demonstrate a capacity for abstract
thought, but we don't consider the development of abstract thought and
an increase in its proficiency as a sign that the child's intelligence
is increasing, only that it is developing along a normal trajectory
(however accelerated).
> I don't discount the 'trained seals' intelligence that simply
> because it takes a certain type of intelligence (crystallised)
> which is of value in many situations.
Having a great fund of factual knowledge is certainly of tremendous use
(I'm in favor of CHC theory too), particularly in the content-based
curriculum areas (usually literature, social studies, and science), but
I wouldn't consider it crystallized intelligence if the kids don't have
any idea of what they're saying. In other words, I'm *not* equating
having a high Gc with being a trained seal -- far from it (I'm actually
in awe of anyone who can memorize lots of facts, because this is one of
my personal weak areas). I was using the term to refer to the kids
we've all seen who are the source of the popular misconception that,
"Gifted kids aren't any different from anyone else, they just have pushy
parents." If you can recite, "A squared plus b squared equals c
squared," and know that this statement is called the Pythagorean
theorem, but you aren't able to successfully label a, b, and c on a
right triangle, much less know anything about what this might be used
for, or how to square a number, you're not really doing a whole heck of
a lot better than a kid who can't recite it. I've seen both kinds of
"overachieving" kids -- both the trained seals and the truly gifted
kids
(including those whose gifts appear more in the realm of crystallized
intelligence) who are not having their intelligence measured accurately.
> What I am finally arguing is that to complete a whole picture, data
> available from the child's achievement, whether school
> acquired or self aquired, should enable an experienced clinician,
> parent or teacher to understand more fully whether a test score is
> accurate, needs teasing out, or has totally missed the mark, and to
> use this data to more appropriately provide opportunities for the
child.
Well, of course, and I completely agree with you. But if the popular
conception amongst people who test gifted kids is that the tests are
frequently severe underestimates of IQ, then we have a problem. We need
to either re-examine our own belief, to convince the administrative
gatekeepers who deny kids access to gifted services that the tests are
wrong (which is what you're talking about), or to convince the test
developers to change their theories about the nature and potentially
also the distribution of intelligence (which is what I'm talking about,
but it's also what you started off complaining about on your soapbox).
To do the latter, we need to bring actual rigorous data to the table
instead of just lots of nice little anecdotes about an underscored
brilliant kid here and another one there. We need to show evidence of
*systematic* flaws in the test design.
> Our domain is at the extremes. It is about time that those who now
> construct testing instruments acknlowledge our existence respectfully
>(as was formerly the case), rather than universalising results that
> have little or no relevance to our population, but which have a
> substantial impact on our ability to access opportunities and to
> develop our potential in such a way as might benefit the mainstream.
Then do what I'm going to do. Go get a PhD in psychology, if you
haven't already, go into the lab yourself, and turn your research
towards developing new tests and refining old ones such that they *do*
acknowledge our existence but are also convincing to skeptics. I'll be
thrilled to have sympathetic colleagues, because it's gonna be a long
road...
-- Aimee Yermish
da Vinci Learning Center
aimee@davincilearning.org
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 15:15:24 -0500 (EST)
From: Lawver@aol.com
Subject: Re: Are SB5 scores lower? No.
To: OURGIFTED-L@neiu.edu
Message-id: <dc.66398cd.2d90a35c@aol.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: multipart/alternative;
boundary=-----------------------------1079986524
-------------------------------1079986524
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In a message dated 3/22/2004 1:58:32 PM Central Standard Time,
Andrew_Carson@hmco.com writes:
Anytime you test a student on one test and get a gifted level score, and
then you retest them on another, you're (all things being equal) going to
get a lower score. So if the kids were previously identified as gifted with
another test, and then you give the SB5, you (all things being equal) will
get a lower score on the SB5.
Okay, maybe I'm just really confused and haven't had enough coffee today or
something, but what?
You are saying that if a child takes, say 5 IQ tests in a row (though heaven
knows why you would do that), that you should expect that each time the child
is tested, the score would get lower?
Why?
Joni (mailto:lawver@aol.com)
-------------------------------1079986524
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<HTML><HEAD>
<META charset=3DUS-ASCII http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html;
cha=
rset=3DUS-ASCII">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2800.1170" name=3DGENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; BACKGROUND-COLOR:
#fffff=
f">
<DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>In a message dated 3/22/2004 1:58:32 PM Central Standard Time, Andrew_C=
arson@hmco.com writes:</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE style=3D"PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT:
blue=20=
2px solid"><FONT face=3DArial>Anytime you test a student on one
test and get=
a gifted level score, and<BR>then you retest them on another, you're (all
t=
hings being equal) going to<BR>get a lower score. So if the kids were
previo=
usly identified as gifted with<BR>another test, and then you give the
SB5, y=
ou (all things being equal) will<BR>get a lower score on the SB5.</FONT></BL=
OCKQUOTE></DIV>
<DIV>Okay, maybe I'm just really confused and haven't had enough coffee
toda=
y or something, but what?</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>You are saying that if a child takes, say 5 IQ tests in a row (though
h=
eaven knows why you would do that), that you should expect that each time th=
e child is tested, the score would get lower? </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Why?</DIV></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT lang=3D0 face=3DArial size=3D2 FAMILY=3D"SANSSERIF"
PTSIZE=3D"10"=
>Joni (mailto:lawver@aol.com)</FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>
-------------------------------1079986524--
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 12:37:49 -0800 (PST)
From: Julie Knapp <littleredhenschool@yahoo.com>
Subject: RE: ASAT -- how are the tests changing
To: OURGIFTED-L@neiu.edu
Message-id: <20040322203749.64128.qmail@web80502.mail.yahoo.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-998980746-1079987869=:63442"
--0-998980746-1079987869=:63442
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Aimee Yermish <ayermish@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>>...if the popular conception amongst people who test gifted kids is
that the
tests are
frequently severe underestimates of IQ, then we have a problem. We
need to...convince the test developers to change their theories about the nature
and potentially also the distribution of intelligence (which is what I'm talking
about,
but it's also what you started off complaining about on your soapbox).
To do the latter, we need to bring actual rigorous data to the table
instead of just lots of nice little anecdotes about an underscored
brilliant kid here and another one there. We need to show evidence of
*systematic* flaws in the test design....<<
Is there anyone doing this kind of reaearch now? I'm sure that many of the
parents here would be willing to let their children participate in generating
some rigorous data. :-)
Unfortunately, I think that the cost of testing might be the biggest deterrent
to generating this kind of data. A single session of testing/report generation
can be prohibitively expensive for many families... let alone having several
tests done in a single year - just for comparison's sake. Some funded research
where the testing was free to participants would be a wonderful opportunity
for
many families...
-julie
Is th
--0-998980746-1079987869=:63442
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
<DIV><BR><BR><B><I>Aimee Yermish <ayermish@alum.mit.edu></I></B>
wrote:</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>>>...if the popular conception amongst people who test
gifted kids is
that the tests are<BR>frequently severe underestimates of IQ, then we
have a
problem. We <BR>need to...convince the test developers to change
their
theories about the nature and potentially also the distribution of intelligence
(which is what I'm talking about,<BR>but it's also what you started off
complaining about on your soapbox).<BR>To do the latter, we need to bring
actual
rigorous data to the table<BR>instead of just lots of nice little anecdotes
about an underscored<BR>brilliant kid here and another one there.
We need
to show evidence of<BR>*systematic* flaws in the test
design....<<<BR></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Is there anyone doing this kind of reaearch now? I'm sure
that many of the parents here would be willing to let their children
participate in generating some rigorous data. :-)
</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Unfortunately, I think that the cost of testing might be the biggest
deterrent to generating this kind of data. A single session of
testing/report generation can be prohibitively expensive for many
families... let alone having several tests done in a single year - just for
comparison's sake. Some funded research where the
testing was
free to participants would be a wonderful opportunity for many families...</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>-julie </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Is th</DIV>
--0-998980746-1079987869=:63442--
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 15:51:09 -0500
From: Meredith Warshaw <mwarshaw@uniquelygifted.org>
Subject: Re: Are SB5 scores lower? No.
To: OURGIFTED-L@neiu.edu
Message-id: <215c01c4104f$6b373ee0$6400a8c0@MEREDITH>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
From: <Lawver@aol.com>
> In a message dated 3/22/2004 1:58:32 PM Central Standard Time,
> Andrew_Carson@hmco.com writes:
> Anytime you test a student on one test and get a gifted level score, and
> then you retest them on another, you're (all things being equal) going
to
> get a lower score. So if the kids were previously identified as gifted
with
> another test, and then you give the SB5, you (all things being equal) will
> get a lower score on the SB5.
> Okay, maybe I'm just really confused and haven't had enough coffee today
or
> something, but what?
>
> You are saying that if a child takes, say 5 IQ tests in a row (though heaven
> knows why you would do that), that you should expect that each time the
child
> is tested, the score would get lower?
>
> Why?
Drew is assuming that this will happen due to a statistical phenomenon called
"regression toward the mean" that occurs when you retest a groups
of subjects
who were chosen due to having a characteristic that deviated from the norm
(i.e., testing a group of kids whose scores are higher than average). There
is
a good discussion of this at http://trochim.human.cornell.edu/kb/regrmean.htm.
The site notes that regression toward the mean is a statistical phenomenon.
They write:
"... it results because you asymmetrically sampled from the population.
If you
randomly sample from the population, you would observe (subject to random error)
that the population and your sample have the same pretest average. Because the
sample is already at the population mean on the pretest, it is impossible for
them to regress towards the mean of the population any more!"
One important point to note in the discussion at that website is:
"It is a group phenomenon:
You cannot tell which way an individual's score will move based on the
regression to the mean phenomenon. Even though the group's average will move
toward the population's, some individuals in the group are likely to move in
the
other direction."
So, if regression to the mean were the only factor at play in this situation,
you would expect there to be a distribution of changes in scores, where some
kids scored higher when retested on the SB V, but the trend on average being
for
scores to go down on the second testing - if this groups of students were chosen
for retesting solely on the basis of being gifted.
M
--
Meredith Warshaw, M.S.S., M.A., mailto:mwarshaw@uniquelygifted.org
Special Needs Educational Advisor, http://uniquelygifted.org
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I've learned that people will forget what you said, people will forget what
you
did, but people will never forget how you made them feel. ~ Maya Angelou
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 14:53:04 -0600
From: Jo Oehrlein <joehrlein@upc.com>
Subject: RE: ASAT: OT - A bit off topic - An article on one school's use o
f GT
funding
To: "'OURGIFTED-L@neiu.edu'" <OURGIFTED-L@neiu.edu>
Message-id: <04Mar22.145120cst.111149@inet.upc.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
This looks like a great program, but unless I'm missing something, it's not
really a gifted program.
I think it's programs like this that have people calling gifted programs
"elitist". Most kids benefit from exposure to a second language. These
kinds
of programs need to be funded as part of the standard budget, not from GT
funds.
As far as educational options, though, I have heard of people putting their
kids into a language immersion school to provide some sort of challenge when
grade acceleration wasn't a viable option.
jo in okc
joehrlein@upc.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Sally_L@comcast.net [mailto:Sally_L@comcast.net]
Sent: Monday, March 22, 2004 2:01 PM
To: OURGIFTED-L@neiu.edu
Subject: ASAT: OT - A bit off topic - An article on one school's use of
GT funding
Hi List Members,
Since we are just chatting among ourselves until Bobbie and Kathi are able
to come back to post their Closing Statement. Please humor me with posting a
link to an article depicting one school's program in using gifted and
talented funds.
IF the link doesn't work, just visit www.desnews.com - the article is
current and is in today's online newspaper which is located in Salt Lake
City, UT. there is no requirement to register.
http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/1%2C1249%2C595050711%2C00.html
Sally_L - I think I am recovering from the weekend. LOL
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 22:00:22 +0100
From: Luc Kumps <luc.kumps@pandora.be>
Subject: RE: ASAT -- how are the tests changing
To: OURGIFTED-L@neiu.edu
Message-id: <003301c41050$b1010a40$8a7ba8c0@spc2>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0034_01C41059.12C57240"
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_0034_01C41059.12C57240
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MessageFrom: owner-OURGIFTED-L@neiu.edu
[mailto:owner-OURGIFTED-L@neiu.edu]On Behalf Of Aimee Yermish
Brenda <Cyberbren@aol.com > writes:
> I LIKE the idea of Susan Winebrenner's.
So do I, in theory, but I also feel that once you've found the kids by
whatever means, you're not going to be able to effectively serve the high=
ly
gifted kids in heterogeneous classrooms.
Perhaps this is a good time and place to quote Susan Winebrenner hersel=
f.
Here's what she said in the Winter 2003 issue ("Dumbing down of giftednes=
s")
of "Understanding Our Gifted" (I must be breaking some copyright laws
by
posting this here, but I'll try to restore the balance by pointing out th=
at
the price/value ratio of this journal, to which you can subscribe
electronically, is absolutely fabulous: see
http://www.our-gifted.com/subscribe.htm for details, group subscriptions =
are
available).
I especially like her pragmatic approach, which always starts in The Re=
al
World instead of in some gaussian-shaped ivory tower ;-)
To prepare for writing this column, I asked the editor for some
guidelines. As I studied the list she sent, it occurred to me that the wo=
rk
I do might actually be construed as contributing to the entire problem of
=93dumbing down=94 of giftedness. Let me explain.
Since I have not, in more than 25 years in this field, been able to fin=
d a
perfect identification method, I have concluded that identification is le=
ss
important than serving the learning needs of gifted kids. One of the
greatest barriers teachers face when
deciding whether or not to provide for gifted students is the fear that
other students will perceive that the teachers are setting up =93unfair=94
conditions. The simplest solution to this complex dilemma is to make
compacting and differentiation opportunities available to anyone who migh=
t
benefit from them, whether or not that person has been identified as gift=
ed.
Conversely, I believe gifted students should not automatically be eligibl=
e
for compacting and differentiation unless they demonstrate they have alre=
ady
mastered what will be taught or could master the new material in a shorte=
r
time period than that needed by their age peers.
When teachers are shown how to use an eligibility method, rather than a=
n
entitlement method in their classes, they are greatly relieved and become
much more open to doing what is necessary for students. The burden of
identification and the fear of making mistakes in this area are then lift=
ed.
When I do workshops on teaching students with learning difficulties, I us=
e
the same approach. Why limit the number of students who can use tape
recorders to listen to stories or to answer comprehension questions? It=92=
s
much simpler to allow any student who so chooses to participate in this t=
ype
of learning. Incredibly, some parents of gifted students express
dissatisfaction with these practices. They express concern that =93gifted
opportunities=94 should be confined to only those students who have been
deemed gifted by some formal identification process. In some way, they ma=
y
perceive that their child=92s giftedness would be diminished if too many
students participated in extension activities and projects. Opening up
compacting and differentiation options to other students is much more lik=
ely
to lead to consistently better challenges for all students who need them.
Finally, I have observed that teachers who use compacting and
differentiation as described above actually free themselves up to spend
more time with struggling students. Make no mistake=85.all the political
pressure in schools now is to bring up
the scores of low-scoring students. In the real world, if teachers can
learn how to fairly provide appropriate learning tasks that challenge the=
ir
gifted students, they feel less guilty about spending an enormous amount =
of
time with low achieving students.
Happily, their gifted students are actually much better off than when t=
hey
are with teachers who know no alternative to whole class instruction.
So, in this political climate, if we want ANYTHING beneficial for gifte=
d
students to happen daily in their classes, we must support this more
ecumenical approach. Without it, we will watch helplessly as the needs of
our gifted kids take a back seat to the needs of low achieving students.
We must do what we CAN do, and not worry so much about what we might do=
.
In her book "Teaching gifted kids in the regular classroom" Winebrenne=
r
writes (did I mention this is a great book ;-)):
During the 1990s, pull-out programs for gifted students came under atta=
ck.
Most school districts in the U.S. either scaled back or totally eliminat=
ed
pull-out programs and attempted to replace them with plans to educate gif=
ted
kids only in regular, mixed-abilities classrooms. I fear that the title o=
f
this book, first published in 1992, lent credibility to the notion that
in-class differentiation was all that was needed. However, anyone who
actually read the book understood that my philosophy is not to elim=ADina=
te
programs or services but to find an effective combination of services. Th=
e
research actually favors full-time, self-contained classes for gifted
students in districts that have the political climate to support them. So
far, only districts with large populations seem able to arrange for
self-contained classes. Other districts must design less comprehensive
pro=ADgrams. For more on grouping gifted students, see Chapter 8.
The first eight chapters of this book describe how to accommodate gifte=
d
students in mixed=ADabilities classrooms. This section explains how to
successfully design and maintain pull-out programs for gifted kids that c=
an
supplement and complement the program in the regular classroom. Please do=
n't
form an opinion about whether pull-out programs for gifted kids should
continue until you have taught or observed in one. There's no easy way to
describe how different gifted kids are when they are surrounded by
like-minded peers and can be their wonderfully competitive and
love-of-learning selves without fear of censure.
Luc K (Felix jun98)
------=_NextPart_000_0034_01C41059.12C57240
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Message</TITLE>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3DUS-ASCII">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2800.1400" name=3DGENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY dir=3Dltr>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Times New Roman" size=3D2><B>From:</B>
=
owner-OURGIFTED-L@neiu.edu=20
[mailto:owner-OURGIFTED-L@neiu.edu]<B>On Behalf Of</B> Aimee=20
Yermish<BR></FONT><SPAN class=3D179451716-22032004><FONT
face=3DTahoma =
size=3D2>Brenda=20
<</FONT></SPAN><FONT face=3DTahoma><A =
href=3D"mailto:Cyberbren@aol.com"><FONT=20
size=3D2>Cyberbren@aol.com</FONT></A><FONT size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D179451716-22032004><FONT face=3DArial =
color=3D#0000ff> <FONT face=3DTahoma=20
color=3D#000000>> =
writes:</FONT> </FONT></SPAN><BR></FONT></FONT><FONT=20
lang=3D0 PTSIZE=3D"10" FAMILY=3D"SANSSERIF"><BR><FONT
face=3DArial><FONT =
size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D179451716-22032004><FONT color=3D#0000ff> >
=
</FONT></SPAN>I=20
LIKE the idea of Susan Winebrenner's. <SPAN=20
class=3D179451716-22032004><FONT=20
color=3D#0000ff> </FONT></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=3Dltr=20
style=3D"PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px
=
solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV><FONT lang=3D0 PTSIZE=3D"10" FAMILY=3D"SANSSERIF"><FONT
=
face=3DArial><FONT=20
size=3D2><SPAN class=3D179451716-22032004>So do I, in theory, but I
=
also feel that=20
once you've found the kids by whatever means, you're not going to be =
able to=20
effectively serve the highly gifted kids in heterogeneous=20
classrooms.</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT lang=3D0 PTSIZE=3D"10" FAMILY=3D"SANSSERIF"><FONT
=
face=3DArial><FONT=20
size=3D2><SPAN =
class=3D179451716-22032004></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D179451716-22032004><FONT face=3DArial =
color=3D#0000ff=20
size=3D2><SPAN class=3D431163820-22032004>Perhaps this is a good
time =
and place to=20
quote Susan Winebrenner herself. Here's what she said in the Winter =
2003 issue=20
("Dumbing down of giftedness") of "Understanding Our Gifted"
(I must =
be=20
breaking some copyright laws by posting this here, but I'll try to =
restore the=20
balance by pointing out that the price/value ratio of this journal, to =
which=20
you can subscribe electronically, is absolutely fabulous: see <A=20
=
href=3D"http://www.our-gifted.com/subscribe.htm">http://www.our-gifted.co=
m/subscribe.htm</A> for=20
details, group subscriptions are =
available).</SPAN></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D179451716-22032004><FONT face=3DArial =
color=3D#0000ff=20
size=3D2><SPAN class=3D431163820-22032004>I especially like her =
pragmatic=20
approach, which always starts in The Real World instead of =
in some=20
gaussian-shaped ivory tower ;-)</SPAN></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D179451716-22032004><FONT face=3DArial =
color=3D#0000ff=20
size=3D2><SPAN =
class=3D431163820-22032004></SPAN></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D179451716-22032004><FONT face=3DArial =
color=3D#0000ff=20
size=3D2><SPAN class=3D431163820-22032004><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 11pt; FONT-FAMILY: Palatino-Roman"><FONT
=
color=3D#000000><FONT=20
face=3D"Times New Roman"><STRONG><FONT size=3D3>To
prepare for writing =
this=20
column, I asked the editor for some guidelines. As I studied the list =
she=20
sent, it occurred to me that the work I do might actually be construed =
as=20
contributing to the entire problem of “dumbing down” of
=
giftedness. Let me=20
explain.<?xml:namespace prefix =3D o ns =3D=20
"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office"=20
/><o:p></o:p></FONT></STRONG></FONT></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<P class=3DMsoNormal=20
style=3D"MARGIN: 0mm 0mm 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none"><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 11pt; FONT-FAMILY: Palatino-Roman"><FONT
=
color=3D#000000><FONT=20
face=3D"Times New Roman"><STRONG><FONT size=3D3>Since
I have not, in =
more than 25=20
years in this field, been able to find a perfect identification =
method, I have=20
concluded that identification is less important than serving the =
learning=20
needs of gifted kids. One of the greatest barriers teachers face when=20
<o:p></o:p></FONT></STRONG></FONT></FONT></SPAN></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal=20
style=3D"MARGIN: 0mm 0mm 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none"><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 11pt; FONT-FAMILY: Palatino-Roman"><FONT
=
color=3D#000000><FONT=20
face=3D"Times New Roman"><STRONG><FONT size=3D3>deciding
whether or =
not to provide=20
for gifted students is the fear that other students will perceive that =
the=20
teachers are setting up “unfair” conditions. The simplest
=
solution to this=20
complex dilemma is to make compacting and differentiation =
opportunities=20
available to anyone who might benefit from them, whether or not that =
person=20
has been identified as gifted. Conversely, I believe gifted students =
should=20
not automatically be eligible for compacting and differentiation =
unless they=20
demonstrate they have already mastered what will be taught or could =
master the=20
new material in a shorter time period than that needed by their age=20
peers.<o:p></o:p></FONT></STRONG></FONT></FONT></SPAN></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal=20
style=3D"MARGIN: 0mm 0mm 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none"><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 11pt; FONT-FAMILY: Palatino-Roman"><FONT
=
color=3D#000000><FONT=20
face=3D"Times New Roman"><STRONG><FONT size=3D3>When
teachers are =
shown how to use=20
an eligibility method, rather than an entitlement method in their =
classes,=20
they are greatly relieved and become much more open to doing what is =
necessary=20
for students. The burden of identification and the fear of making =
mistakes in=20
this area are then lifted. When I do workshops on teaching students =
with=20
learning difficulties, I use the same approach. Why limit the number =
of=20
students who can use tape recorders to listen to stories or to answer=20
comprehension questions? It’s much simpler to allow any student =
who so chooses=20
to participate in this type of learning. Incredibly, some parents of =
gifted=20
students express dissatisfaction with these practices. They express =
concern=20
that “gifted opportunities” should be confined to only =
those students who have=20
been deemed gifted by some formal identification process. In some way, =
they=20
may perceive that their child’s giftedness would be diminished =
if too many=20
students participated in extension activities and projects. Opening up =
compacting and differentiation options to other students is much more =
likely=20
to lead to consistently better challenges for all students who need=20
them.<o:p></o:p></FONT></STRONG></FONT></FONT></SPAN></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal=20
style=3D"MARGIN: 0mm 0mm 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none"><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 11pt; FONT-FAMILY: Palatino-Roman"><FONT
=
color=3D#000000><FONT=20
face=3D"Times New Roman"><STRONG><FONT size=3D3>Finally,
I have =
observed that=20
teachers who use compacting and differentiation as <SPAN=20
style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>described above
actually free =
themselves up to spend more time with struggling students. Make no=20
mistake….all the political pressure in schools now is to bring=20
up<o:p></o:p></FONT></STRONG></FONT></FONT></SPAN></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal=20
style=3D"MARGIN: 0mm 0mm 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none"><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 11pt; FONT-FAMILY: Palatino-Roman"><FONT
=
color=3D#000000><FONT=20
face=3D"Times New Roman"><STRONG><FONT size=3D3>the
scores of =
low-scoring=20
students. In the real world, if teachers can learn how to fairly =
provide=20
appropriate learning tasks that challenge their gifted students, they =
feel=20
less guilty about spending an enormous amount of time with low =
achieving=20
students.<o:p></o:p></FONT></STRONG></FONT></FONT></SPAN></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal=20
style=3D"MARGIN: 0mm 0mm 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none"><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 11pt; FONT-FAMILY: Palatino-Roman"><FONT
=
color=3D#000000><FONT=20
face=3D"Times New Roman"><STRONG><FONT size=3D3>Happily,
their gifted =
students are=20
actually much better off than when they are with teachers who know no=20
alternative to whole class=20
instruction.<o:p></o:p></FONT></STRONG></FONT></FONT></SPAN></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal=20
style=3D"MARGIN: 0mm 0mm 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none"><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 11pt; FONT-FAMILY: Palatino-Roman"><FONT
=
color=3D#000000><FONT=20
face=3D"Times New Roman"><STRONG><FONT size=3D3>So,
in this political =
climate, if=20
we want ANYTHING beneficial for gifted students to happen daily in =
their=20
classes, we must support this more ecumenical approach. Without it, we =
will=20
watch helplessly as the needs of our gifted kids take a back seat to =
the needs=20
of low achieving =
students.<o:p></o:p></FONT></STRONG></FONT></FONT></SPAN></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal=20
style=3D"MARGIN: 0mm 0mm 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none"><FONT=20
color=3D#000000><FONT face=3D"Times New Roman"><STRONG><FONT
=
size=3D3><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 11pt; FONT-FAMILY: Palatino-Roman">We must
do what =
we CAN=20
do, and not worry so much about what we might do.</SPAN><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: =
Palatino-Roman"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></STRONG></FONT></FONT></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal=20
style=3D"MARGIN: 0mm 0mm 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none"><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Palatino-Roman"><FONT
=
color=3D#000000><FONT=20
face=3D"Times New Roman"> <o:p></o:p></FONT></FONT></SPAN></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0mm 0mm 0pt"><FONT=20
face=3D"Times New Roman"><FONT color=3D#000000><FONT =
size=3D3> </FONT><SPAN=20
class=3D431163820-22032004><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =
size=3D2>In her book=20
"Teaching gifted kids in the regular classroom" Winebrenner writes
=
(did I=20
mention this is a great book ;-)):</FONT></SPAN></FONT></FONT></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0mm 0mm 0pt"><FONT=20
face=3D"Times New Roman"><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff><SPAN=20
class=3D431163820-22032004></SPAN></FONT></FONT> </P><FONT=20
face=3D"Times New Roman"><FONT color=3D#000000><SPAN =
class=3D431163820-22032004>
<P class=3DMsoNormal=20
style=3D"MARGIN: 0mm 0mm 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 18.2pt; LINE-HEIGHT: =
12.95pt; TEXT-ALIGN: justify; mso-layout-grid-align: none; =
mso-pagination: none"><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt"><FONT size=3D3><STRONG>During
the 1990s, =
pull-out=20
programs for gifted students came under attack. Most school districts =
in=20
the </STRONG><SPAN class=3D431163820-22032004><FONT
face=3DArial=20
color=3D#0000ff size=3D2> <STRONG><FONT face=3D"Times
New Roman" =
color=3D#000000=20
size=3D3>U</FONT></STRONG></FONT></SPAN><STRONG>.S.
either scaled back =
or=20
totally eliminated pull-out programs and attempted to replace them =
with plans=20
to educate gifted kids only in regular, mixed-abilities classrooms. I =
fear=20
that the title of this book, first published in 1992, lent credibility =
to the=20
notion that in-class differentiation was all that was needed. However, =
anyone=20
who actually read the book understood that my philosophy is not to=20
elim­inate programs or services but to find an effective =
combination of=20
services. The research actually favors full-time, self-contained =
classes for=20
gifted students in districts that have the political climate to =
support them.=20
So far, only districts with large populations seem able to arrange for =
self-contained classes. Other districts must design less comprehensive =
pro­grams. For more on grouping gifted students, see Chapter=20
8.<o:p></o:p></STRONG></FONT></SPAN></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal=20
style=3D"MARGIN: 0mm 0mm 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 19.2pt; LINE-HEIGHT: =
12.95pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none"><B><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt"><FONT size=3D3>The first eight
chapters of =
this book=20
describe how to accommodate gifted students in mixed­abilities =
classrooms.=20
This section explains how to successfully design and maintain pull-out =
programs for gifted kids that can supplement and complement the =
program in the=20
regular classroom. Please don't form an opinion about whether pull-out =
programs for gifted kids should continue until you have taught or =
observed in=20
one. There's no easy way to describe how different gifted kids are =
when they=20
are surrounded by like-minded peers and can be their wonderfully =
competitive=20
and love-of-learning selves without fear of =
censure.</FONT></SPAN></B><B><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt"><FONT=20
size=3D3> <o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></B></P><FONT
face=3DArial=20
color=3D#0000ff><SPAN class=3D431163820-22032004>
<P><FONT size=3D2>Luc K (Felix=20
=
jun98)<BR></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN>=
</P></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>
------=_NextPart_000_0034_01C41059.12C57240--
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 15:10:00 -0600
From: Andrew_Carson@hmco.com
Subject: RE: ASAT -- how are the tests changing
To: OURGIFTED-L@neiu.edu
Cc: littleredhenschool@yahoo.com, Sally_L@comcast.net,
Bobbie@h2net.net (Barbara Gilman), kkearney@ttlc.net (Kathi Kearney)
Message-id: <OF6CB62A7C.AFD3A671-ON86256E5F.007421CB-86256E5F.00744671@hmco.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Sounds like a great idea. Perhaps Riverside Publishing could help with such
an effort, but no promises. More likely would be a nonprofit with an
interested in gifted assessment, and some interest in applied educational
research.
But seriously, and a point that no one has touched on, is that the SB5
theoretically allows extension of IQ scores to 225 through Extended Battery
IQ scores (see Ruf's bulletin for details). (Along the same lines, the WISC
theoretically supports scores up to 200). By our calculations, there will
only be 11-15 kids per grade level in the 161-225+ range in the USA at any
given time. So theoretically we could find them, and once we find them,
understand them better and help them more.
Regards,
Drew Carson
Andrew D. Carson, Ph.D.
Senior Project Director
The Riverside Publishing Company
425 Spring Lake Drive
Itasca, Illinois 60143-2079
phone (630) 467-6036 or 1-800-767-8420 (extension 6036)
fax (630) 467-6150
email Andrew_Carson@hmco.com
Julie Knapp
<littleredhenschool To: OURGIFTED-L@neiu.edu
@yahoo.com> cc:
Sent by: Subject: RE: ASAT -- how are
the tests changing
owner-OURGIFTED-L@n
eiu.edu
03/22/2004 02:37 PM
Please respond to
OURGIFTED-L
Aimee Yermish <ayermish@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>>...if the popular conception amongst people who test gifted kids is
that
the tests are
frequently severe underestimates of IQ, then we have a problem. We
need to...convince the test developers to change their theories about the
nature and potentially also the distribution of intelligence (which is what
I'm talking about,
but it's also what you started off complaining about on your soapbox).
To do the latter, we need to bring actual rigorous data to the table
instead of just lots of nice little anecdotes about an underscored
brilliant kid here and another one there. We need to show evidence of
*systematic* flaws in the test design....<<
Is there anyone doing this kind of reaearch now? I'm sure that many of the
parents here would be willing to let their children participate in
generating some rigorous data. :-)
Unfortunately, I think that the cost of testing might be the biggest
deterrent to generating this kind of data. A single session of
testing/report generation can be prohibitively expensive for many
families... let alone having several tests done in a single year - just for
comparison's sake. Some funded research where the testing was free to
participants would be a wonderful opportunity for many families...
-julie
Is th
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 15:11:23 -0600
From: Andrew_Carson@hmco.com
Subject: Re: Are SB5 scores lower? No.
To: OURGIFTED-L@neiu.edu
Message-id: <OF68F69443.FD9E3C78-ON86256E5F.00745F79-86256E5F.007466DE@hmco.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Well put, Merideth. Thanks.
Drew
Meredith Warshaw
<mwarshaw@uniquely To: OURGIFTED-L@neiu.edu
gifted.org> cc:
Sent by: Subject: Re: Are SB5 scores
lower? No.
owner-OURGIFTED-L@
neiu.edu
03/22/2004 02:51
PM
Please respond to
OURGIFTED-L
From: <Lawver@aol.com>
> In a message dated 3/22/2004 1:58:32 PM Central Standard Time,
> Andrew_Carson@hmco.com writes:
> Anytime you test a student on one test and get a gifted level score, and
> then you retest them on another, you're (all things being equal) going
to
> get a lower score. So if the kids were previously identified as gifted
with
> another test, and then you give the SB5, you (all things being equal)
will
> get a lower score on the SB5.
> Okay, maybe I'm just really confused and haven't had enough coffee today
or
> something, but what?
>
> You are saying that if a child takes, say 5 IQ tests in a row (though
heaven
> knows why you would do that), that you should expect that each time the
child
> is tested, the score would get lower?
>
> Why?
Drew is assuming that this will happen due to a statistical phenomenon
called
"regression toward the mean" that occurs when you retest a groups
of
subjects
who were chosen due to having a characteristic that deviated from the norm
(i.e., testing a group of kids whose scores are higher than average).
There is
a good discussion of this at
http://trochim.human.cornell.edu/kb/regrmean.htm.
The site notes that regression toward the mean is a statistical phenomenon.
They write:
"... it results because you asymmetrically sampled from the population.
If
you
randomly sample from the population, you would observe (subject to random
error)
that the population and your sample have the same pretest average. Because
the
sample is already at the population mean on the pretest, it is impossible
for
them to regress towards the mean of the population any more!"
One important point to note in the discussion at that website is:
"It is a group phenomenon:
You cannot tell which way an individual's score will move based on the
regression to the mean phenomenon. Even though the group's average will
move
toward the population's, some individuals in the group are likely to move
in the
other direction."
So, if regression to the mean were the only factor at play in this
situation,
you would expect there to be a distribution of changes in scores, where
some
kids scored higher when retested on the SB V, but the trend on average
being for
scores to go down on the second testing - if this groups of students were
chosen
for retesting solely on the basis of being gifted.
M
--
Meredith Warshaw, M.S.S., M.A., mailto:mwarshaw@uniquelygifted.org
Special Needs Educational Advisor, http://uniquelygifted.org
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I've learned that people will forget what you said, people will forget what
you
did, but people will never forget how you made them feel. ~ Maya Angelou
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 14:59:36 -0600
From: Andrew_Carson@hmco.com
Subject: Re: Are SB5 scores lower? No.
To: OURGIFTED-L@neiu.edu
Cc: lawver@aol.com, Sally_L@comcast.net, Bobbie@h2net.net (Barbara Gilman),
kkearney@ttlc.net (Kathi Kearney)
Message-id: <OF2EE275D4.A1A85EA5-ON86256E5F.00719767-86256E5F.007352CF@hmco.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Joni, I wasn't saying that the child takes 5 IQ tests in a row. I was
saying that if you administer an IQ test and obtain a score that classifies
that student as gifted, and THEN you administer another IQ test, the score
will on average (that is, testing across multiple exainees), all things
being equal, be lower. This is due to regression to the mean. (see:
http://trochim.human.cornell.edu/kb/regrmean.htm). Now, for individual
examinees this will not always hold true, but on average it will hold true.
The key point here is that you start with an already highly sampled group,
children already identified as gifted through prior testing. Not only that:
the higher the original IQ score on which you sample the original group,
the greater you would tend to expect regression to the mean to be. One
other thing: you have to assume that the IQ tests you're comparing are
imperfectly correlated, which is easy enough to assume because evidence
suggests that they're not perfectly correlated.
Regards,
Drew
Andrew D. Carson, Ph.D.
Senior Project Director
The Riverside Publishing Company
425 Spring Lake Drive
Itasca, Illinois 60143-2079
phone (630) 467-6036 or 1-800-767-8420 (extension 6036)
fax (630) 467-6150
email Andrew_Carson@hmco.com
Lawver@aol.com
Sent by: To: OURGIFTED-L@neiu.edu
owner-OURGIFTED-L cc:
@neiu.edu Subject: Re: Are SB5 scores
lower? No. / regression to mean
03/22/2004 02:15
PM
Please respond to
OURGIFTED-L
In a message dated 3/22/2004 1:58:32 PM Central Standard Time,
Andrew_Carson@hmco.com writes:
Anytime you test a student on one test and get a gifted level score, and
then you retest them on another, you're (all things being equal) going to
get a lower score. So if the kids were previously identified as gifted
with
another test, and then you give the SB5, you (all things being equal) will
get a lower score on the SB5.
Okay, maybe I'm just really confused and haven't had enough coffee today or
something, but what?
You are saying that if a child takes, say 5 IQ tests in a row (though
heaven knows why you would do that), that you should expect that each time
the child is tested, the score would get lower?
Why?
Joni (mailto:lawver@aol.com)
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 16:20:08 -0500 (EST)
From: Cyberbren@aol.com
Subject: Re: ASAT -- how are the tests changing
To: OURGIFTED-L@neiu.edu
Message-id: <88.674dea5.2d90b288@aol.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary=part1_88.674dea5.2d90b288_boundary
--part1_88.674dea5.2d90b288_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In a message dated 3/22/2004 3:06:23 PM Eastern Standard Time,
ayermish@alum.mit.edu writes:
> When the parents of the MG kids insisted upon the class being open to any
> kid who was interested, no matter how I tried to keep the level where it
had
> been, no matter how I differentiated, it wasn't possible to keep the
> experience for the PG kids from being dragged down by the MG kids (the
key to
> classroom management is making sure everyone is learning).
This is exactly the reason I suggest to parents of gifted kids with
disabilities that they investigate special educators' claims that their child's
needs
will be met in a special education classroom very carefully...in my experience,
the level of the classroom drops down to the lowest common denominator. Even
if there are only eight students in a special education class, there are NOT
eight different instructional levels going on.
My problem is that I feel that many students are inappropriately kept OUT of
exclusionary gifted programs, because of the flawed testing. As several have
mentioned here, schools don't necessarily understand gifted testing and when
they set certain arbirtrary score limits on certain tests, there are bound to
be students who are inappropriately excluded.
~Brenda
So, until this whole testing/admittance conundrum is solved (will it ever
be?), I think that we should err on the side of assuming more students are
capable of material than narrow-minded testing might necessarily show....
--part1_88.674dea5.2d90b288_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<HTML><FONT FACE=3Darial,helvetica><HTML><FONT SIZE=3D2
PTSIZE=3D10>In a me=
ssage dated 3/22/2004 3:06:23 PM Eastern Standard Time, ayermish@alum.mit.ed=
u writes:<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
</FONT><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" BACK=3D"#ffffff"
style=3D"BACKGROUND-COLOR:=20=
#ffffff" SIZE=3D2 PTSIZE=3D10 FAMILY=3D"SANSSERIF" FACE=3D"Arial"
LANG=3D"0"=
><BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=3DCITE style=3D"BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid;
MARGIN-LEF=
T: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">When the parents of the
MG kid=
s insisted upon the class being open to any kid who was interested, no matte=
r how I tried to keep the level where it had been, no matter how I different=
iated, it wasn't possible to keep the experience for the PG kids from being=20=
dragged down by the MG kids (the key to classroom management is making sure=20=
everyone is learning).</FONT><FONT COLOR=3D"#000000" BACK=3D"#ffffff"
style=
=3D"BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" SIZE=3D3 PTSIZE=3D12 FAMILY=3D"SANSSERIF"
FAC=
E=3D"Arial" LANG=3D"0"></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>
</FONT><FONT COLOR=3D"#000000" BACK=3D"#ffffff"
style=3D"BACKGROUND-COLOR:=20=
#ffffff" SIZE=3D2 PTSIZE=3D10 FAMILY=3D"SANSSERIF" FACE=3D"Arial"
LANG=3D"0"=
><BR>
This is exactly the reason I suggest to parents of gifted kids with disabili=
ties that they investigate special educators' claims that their child's need=
s will be met in a special education classroom very carefully...in my experi=
ence, the level of the classroom drops down to the lowest common denominator=
. Even if there are only eight students in a special education class,=20=
there are NOT eight different instructional levels going on. <BR>
<BR>
My problem is that I feel that many students are inappropriately kept OUT of=
exclusionary gifted programs, because of the flawed testing. As sever=
al have mentioned here, schools don't necessarily understand gifted testing=20=
and when they set certain arbirtrary score limits on certain tests, there ar=
e bound to be students who are inappropriately excluded. <BR>
<BR>
~Brenda<BR>
<BR>
So, until this whole testing/admittance conundrum is solved (will it ever be=
?), I think that we should err on the side of assuming more students are cap=
able of material than narrow-minded testing might necessarily show....</FONT=
></HTML>
--part1_88.674dea5.2d90b288_boundary--
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 14:32:58 -0800 (PST)
From: Julie Knapp <littleredhenschool@yahoo.com>
Subject: RE: ASAT -- how are the tests changing
To: OURGIFTED-L@neiu.edu
Message-id: <20040322223258.52582.qmail@web80501.mail.yahoo.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-14701388-1079994778=:50126"
--0-14701388-1079994778=:50126
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Andrew_Carson@hmco.com wrote:
>>... By our calculations, there will only be 11-15 kids per grade level
in the
161-225+ range in the USA at any given time. So theoretically we could find
them, and once we find them, understand them better and help them more...<<
This is interesting, Drew - are these figures from a published source? Is there
an estimate for how many per grade level in the 140 - 160 range?
-julie
--0-14701388-1079994778=:50126
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
<DIV><BR><BR><B><I>Andrew_Carson@hmco.com</I></B>
wrote:<BR>>>... By
our calculations, there will only be 11-15 kids per grade level in the 161-225+
range in the USA at any given time. So theoretically we could find them, and
once we find them, understand them better and help them more...<<</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>This is interesting, Drew - are these figures from a published
source? Is there an estimate for how many per grade level in the 140
- 160
range?</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>-julie<BR><BR></DIV>
--0-14701388-1079994778=:50126--
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 17:44:56 -0500 (EST)
From: RDlouruf@cs.com
Subject: Re: ASAT -- how are the tests changing
To: OURGIFTED-L@neiu.edu
Message-id: <12f.3d6f6e1b.2d90c668@cs.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: multipart/alternative;
boundary=part1_12f.3d6f6e1b.2d90c668_boundary
--part1_12f.3d6f6e1b.2d90c668_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In a message dated 3/22/04 3:17:51 PM Central Standard Time,
Andrew_Carson@hmco.com writes:
> But seriously, and a point that no one has touched on, is that the SB5
> theoretically allows extension of IQ scores to 225 through Extended Battery
> IQ scores (see Ruf's bulletin for details). (Along the same lines, the
WISC
> theoretically supports scores up to 200). By our calculations, there will
> only be 11-15 kids per grade level in the 161-225+ range in the USA at
any
> given time. So theoretically we could find them, and once we find them,
> understand them better and help them more.
Actually, as Kathi and I already know and feel strongly about, we are already
finding the kids who would have scored over 200 on the SBLM and if we found
anyone who scored that high on the SB5 we'd be shocked. This is okay, though.
The point is that we need to find these kids and we are. The scores look
different. WISCs have been "underestimating" for a long time. But
the new WISC
and the new SB5 both have higher ceilings and experienced practitioners should
be able to combine what they learn from the assessment and other supporting
material to make a determination and a recommendation. We do have the tools
now. My fear is that if we try once again to work out some elevated numerical
score to show "how gifted" all the kids who didn't have access to
that would
still go unidentified - just as kids who weren't assessed on the SBLM in the
past
went unidentified because people were just looking for those old
Stanford-Binet high scores. Am I making any sense?
Deborah
--part1_12f.3d6f6e1b.2d90c668_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<HTML><FONT FACE=3Darial,helvetica><HTML><FONT COLOR=3D"#008080"
SIZE=3D2 P=
TSIZE=3D10 FAMILY=3D"SANSSERIF" FACE=3D"Tahoma" LANG=3D"0">In
a message date=
d 3/22/04 3:17:51 PM Central Standard Time, Andrew_Carson@hmco.com writes: <=
/FONT><FONT COLOR=3D"#000000" BACK=3D"#ffffff" style=3D"BACKGROUND-COLOR:
#=
ffffff" SIZE=3D2 PTSIZE=3D10 FAMILY=3D"SANSSERIF" FACE=3D"Arial"
LANG=3D"0">=
<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=3DCITE style=3D"BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT=
: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">But seriously, and a point
that=
no one has touched on, is that the SB5<BR>
theoretically allows extension of IQ scores to 225 through Extended Battery<=
BR>
IQ scores (see Ruf's bulletin for details). (Along the same lines, the WISC<=
BR>
theoretically supports scores up to 200). By our calculations, there will<BR=
>
only be 11-15 kids per grade level in the 161-225+ range in the USA at any<B=
R>
given time. So theoretically we could find them, and once we find them,<BR>
understand them better and help them more.</BLOCKQUOTE><BR>
</FONT><FONT COLOR=3D"#008080" BACK=3D"#ffffff"
style=3D"BACKGROUND-COLOR:=20=
#ffffff" SIZE=3D2 PTSIZE=3D10 FAMILY=3D"SANSSERIF" FACE=3D"Tahoma"
LANG=3D"0=
"><BR>
Actually, as Kathi and I already know and feel strongly about, we are alread=
y finding the kids who would have scored over 200 on the SBLM and if we foun=
d anyone who scored that high on the SB5 we'd be shocked. This is
okay=
, though. The point is that we need to find these kids and we are.&nbs=
p; The scores look different. WISCs have been "underestimating"
for a=20=
long time. But the new WISC and the new SB5 both have higher ceilings and ex=
perienced practitioners should be able to combine what they learn from the a=
ssessment and other supporting material to make a determination and a recomm=
endation. We do have the tools now. My fear is that if
we try on=
ce again to work out some elevated numerical score to show "how gifted"
all=20=
the kids who didn't have access to that would still go unidentified - just a=
s kids who weren't assessed on the SBLM in the past went unidentified becaus=
e people were just looking for those old Stanford-Binet high scores.
A=
m I making any sense?<BR>
Deborah</FONT></HTML>
--part1_12f.3d6f6e1b.2d90c668_boundary--
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 17:39:34 -0500 (EST)
From: RDlouruf@cs.com
Subject: Re: regression toward the mean
To: OURGIFTED-L@neiu.edu
Message-id: <9d.45fe3dad.2d90c526@cs.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: multipart/alternative;
boundary=part1_9d.45fe3dad.2d90c526_boundary
--part1_9d.45fe3dad.2d90c526_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
I have always taken this statistical phenomenon - regression toward the mean
- to mean that the group's scores regress toward the mean on retesting, but
that if one individual takes the same or comparable tests more than once, you
will eventually discover their "true score," or the mean around which
all their
scores eventually regress. So, I agree with M that a retest can go either way
the second time. The main reason to retest is to make sure the first
performance was not during a less than ideal or cooperative situation. For
example,
many children do better when they are a little older (like kids who first got
tested at 3 or 4). My own experience with testing kids is that most of them
do
approximately the same and some do better or worse. But then, I also know
what the scores mean and don't have trouble understanding which scores mean
moderately gifted, highly gifted, exceptionally or profoundly gifted on the
SB5:-).
The fact that an SB5 score is different from an SBLM score is because they
use different metrics. Just because it is hard to get everyone up to speed or
educate the educators and people who want cutoff scores doesn't mean that
something is wrong. I am not "missing these kids" with the SB5, and
my reports
are
very persuasive. I always report the ratio IQs that can be calculated with
the Age Equivalencies so that people can make all the necessary translations
and know what the scores mean. I just wrote a letter for one family that
recommends what their daughter needs and I leave the actual SB5 FSIQ for near
the
end. I use percentiles and ratio estimates first. Maybe this will help.
Deborah
--part1_9d.45fe3dad.2d90c526_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<HTML><FONT FACE=3Darial,helvetica><HTML><FONT COLOR=3D"#008080"
SIZE=3D2 P=
TSIZE=3D10 FAMILY=3D"SANSSERIF" FACE=3D"Tahoma" LANG=3D"0">I
have always tak=
en this statistical phenomenon - regression toward the mean - to mean that t=
he group's scores regress toward the mean on retesting, but that if one indi=
vidual takes the same or comparable tests more than once, you will eventuall=
y discover their "true score," or the mean around which all their
scores eve=
ntually regress. So, I agree with M that a retest can go either way
th=
e second time. The main reason to retest is to make sure the first performan=
ce was not during a less than ideal or cooperative situation. For example, m=
any children do better when they are a little older (like kids who first got=
tested at 3 or 4). My own experience with testing kids is that most
o=
f them do approximately the same and some do better or worse. But
then=
, I also know what the scores mean and don't have trouble understanding whic=
h scores mean moderately gifted, highly gifted, exceptionally or profoundly=20=
gifted on the SB5:-). The fact that an SB5 score is different from
an=20=
SBLM score is because they use different metrics. Just because it is hard to=
get everyone up to speed or educate the educators and people who want cutof=
f scores doesn't mean that something is wrong. I am not "missing
these=
kids" with the SB5, and my reports are very persuasive. I always
repo=
rt the ratio IQs that can be calculated with the Age Equivalencies so that p=
eople can make all the necessary translations and know what the scores mean.=
I just wrote a letter for one family that recommends what their
daugh=
ter needs and I leave the actual SB5 FSIQ for near the end. I use
perc=
entiles and ratio estimates first. Maybe this will help.<BR>
Deborah</FONT></HTML>
--part1_9d.45fe3dad.2d90c526_boundary--
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 06:43:14 +0800
From: gurgle <gurgle2@bigpond.com.au>
Subject: RE:ASAT:Thanks
To: OURGIFTED-L@neiu.edu
Message-id: <001401c4105f$10ae1c40$d25dfea9@m2k7o6>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0011_01C410A2.1E21E260"
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_0011_01C410A2.1E21E260
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Thanks so much for this exceptionally unique opportunity to learn so =
much in such a short period of time. I am very grateful for all your =
efforts.
Jeanie
------=_NextPart_000_0011_01C410A2.1E21E260
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2800.1400" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Thanks so much for this exceptionally
=
unique=20
opportunity to learn so much in such a short period of time. I am very =
grateful=20
for all your efforts.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial =
size=3D2>Jeanie</FONT></DIV></FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>
------=_NextPart_000_0011_01C410A2.1E21E260--
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 14:48:29 -0800 (PST)
From: Gillian Overholser <overalls02421@yahoo.com>
Subject: RE: ASAT -- 11-15 kids per grade level above 161? (was how are the
tests changing)
To: OURGIFTED-L@neiu.edu
Message-id: <20040322224829.29444.qmail@web21322.mail.yahoo.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Hi!
I'm confused. You estimate that only 15 kids per grade
level could have scores over 161 -- but based on my
personal friend's kids alone, that is simply not
possible.
There seem to be many more!
I was wondering if your estimates are based on the
concept of intelligence being a perfect bell curve and
whetehr anyone at Riverside has started to consider
that it may not be a bell curve after all ... Maybe
it's a trapezoid or a triangle or .... a wave form or
something ...
Doesn't it seem a little weird to base the test
numbbers on a model that was *made up* and has not
been verified?
Sorry if I'm being dense ... I really am curious about
this.
best,
Gillian
--- Andrew_Carson@hmco.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Sounds like a great idea. Perhaps Riverside
> Publishing could help with such
> an effort, but no promises. More likely would be a
> nonprofit with an
> interested in gifted assessment, and some interest
> in applied educational
> research.
>
> But seriously, and a point that no one has touched
> on, is that the SB5
> theoretically allows extension of IQ scores to 225
> through Extended Battery
> IQ scores (see Ruf's bulletin for details). (Along
> the same lines, the WISC
> theoretically supports scores up to 200). By our
> calculations, there will
> only be 11-15 kids per grade level in the 161-225+
> range in the USA at any
> given time. So theoretically we could find them, and
> once we find them,
> understand them better and help them more.
>
> Regards,
> Drew Carson
>
> Andrew D. Carson, Ph.D.
> Senior Project Director
> The Riverside Publishing Company
> 425 Spring Lake Drive
> Itasca, Illinois 60143-2079
> phone (630) 467-6036 or 1-800-767-8420 (extension
> 6036)
> fax (630) 467-6150
> email Andrew_Carson@hmco.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Julie Knapp
>
>
> <littleredhenschool To:
> OURGIFTED-L@neiu.edu
>
> @yahoo.com> cc:
>
>
> Sent by:
> Subject: RE: ASAT -- how are the tests changing
>
> owner-OURGIFTED-L@n
>
>
> eiu.edu
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 03/22/2004 02:37 PM
>
>
> Please respond to
>
>
> OURGIFTED-L
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Aimee Yermish <ayermish@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>
> >>...if the popular conception amongst people who
> test gifted kids is that
> the tests are
> frequently severe underestimates of IQ, then we have
> a problem. We
> need to...convince the test developers to change
> their theories about the
> nature and potentially also the distribution of
> intelligence (which is what
> I'm talking about,
> but it's also what you started off complaining about
> on your soapbox).
> To do the latter, we need to bring actual rigorous
> data to the table
> instead of just lots of nice little anecdotes about
> an underscored
> brilliant kid here and another one there. We need
> to show evidence of
> *systematic* flaws in the test design....<<
>
> Is there anyone doing this kind of reaearch now?
> I'm sure that many of the
> parents here would be willing to let their children
> participate in
> generating some rigorous data. :-)
>
> Unfortunately, I think that the cost of testing
> might be the biggest
> deterrent to generating this kind of data. A single
> session of
> testing/report generation can be prohibitively
> expensive for many
> families... let alone having several tests done in a
> single year - just for
> comparison's sake. Some funded research where the
> testing was free to
> participants would be a wonderful opportunity for
> many families...
>
> -julie
>
>
>
> Is th
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time.
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 18:09:57 -0500
From: "Carolyn & Mark K." <carolyn@thehoagies.com>
Subject: RE: ASAT -- how are the tests changing
To: OURGIFTED-L@neiu.edu
Message-id: <009b01c41062$cbaa6dc0$6400a8c0@coatsv01.pa.comcast.net>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
>>But seriously, and a point that no one has touched on, is that the
SB5
theoretically allows extension of IQ scores to 225 through Extended Battery
IQ scores (see Ruf's bulletin for details). <<
Perhaps the reason that no one has asked, is that the SB-5 has been reported
as scoring extraordinarily lower than previous IQ tests on the kids
previously identified as exceptionally or profoundly gifted, finding none of
them to be any more than ever-so-slightly highly gifted (scores, according
to Ruf and others, of 148 or 147 and under) even though their previous
scores on the L-M were 180-225+, and on the SB-IV were up to 164.
Which brings up another question: what would the explanation be for a score
of 147 or below, for example, on the SB-5, when the same students previous
obtained scores of 160-164 on the SB-IV - isn't this too large a drop from
one version to another of a standardized intelligence test?
Carolyn K. carolyn{at}thehoagies.com
Hoagies' Kids and Teens Page http://www.hoagieskids.org
Hoagies' Gifted Education Page http://www.hoagiesgifted.org
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 18:18:11 -0500
From: "R.J. Herbison" <wubison@optonline.net>
Subject: Re: ASAT -- how are the tests changing
To: OURGIFTED-L@neiu.edu
Message-id: <405F7433.2000404@optonline.net>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="Boundary_(ID_QaPl1aAXmMSfdcGm0+l6wQ)"
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--Boundary_(ID_QaPl1aAXmMSfdcGm0+l6wQ)
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Andrew_Carson@hmco.com wrote:
> >>... By our calculations, there will only be 11-15 kids per grade
> level in the 161-225+ range in the USA at any given time. So
> theoretically we could find them, and once we find them, understand
> them better and help them more...<<
>
> This is interesting, Drew - are these figures from a published
> source? Is there an estimate for how many per grade level in the 140
> - 160 range?
per grade level? (I won't even ask what that actually means in this
context) wouldn't by age make as much or more sense statistically?
r.j.
--Boundary_(ID_QaPl1aAXmMSfdcGm0+l6wQ)
Content-type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1">
<title></title>
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#ffffff">
<br>
<b><i><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:Andrew_Carson@hmco.com">Andrew_Carson@hmco.com</a></i></b>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid20040322223258.52582.qmail@web80501.mail.yahoo.com">
<div>>>... By our calculations, there will only
be 11-15 kids
per grade level in the 161-225+ range in the USA at any given time. So
theoretically we could find them, and once we find them, understand
them better and help them more...<<</div>
<div> </div>
<div>This is interesting, Drew - are these figures from a published
source? Is there an estimate for how many per grade level in the 140
-
160 range?</div>
</blockquote>
per grade level? (I won't even ask what that actually means in this
context) wouldn't by age make as much or more sense statistically?
<br>
<br>
r.j.<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>
--Boundary_(ID_QaPl1aAXmMSfdcGm0+l6wQ)--
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 17:34:36 -0500 (EST)
From: SMB6448@aol.com
Subject: Re: ASAT: OT - A bit off topic - An article on one school's use of
GT
funding
To: OURGIFTED-L@neiu.edu
Message-id: <191.26b76c1f.2d90c3fc@aol.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: multipart/alternative;
boundary=-----------------------------1079994876
-------------------------------1079994876
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In a message dated 3/22/2004 1:09:43 PM Mountain Standard Time,
Sally_L@comcast.net writes:
http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/1%2C1249%2C595050711%2C00.html
What does this have to do with GT funds???
-------------------------------1079994876
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<HTML><HEAD>
<META charset=3DUS-ASCII http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html;
cha=
rset=3DUS-ASCII">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2800.1106" name=3DGENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; BACKGROUND-COLOR:
#fffff=
f">
<DIV>
<DIV>In a message dated 3/22/2004 1:09:43 PM Mountain Standard Time, Sally_L=
@comcast.net writes:</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE style=3D"PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT:
blue=20=
2px solid"><FONT face=3DArial>http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/1%2C1249%2C5950=
50711%2C00.html</FONT></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT face=3D"Comic Sans MS">What does
this have to do with GT=20=
funds???</FONT></STRONG></DIV></BODY></HTML>
-------------------------------1079994876--
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 23:55:50 +0000
From: Sally_L@comcast.net
Subject: Re: ASAT: OT - A bit off topic - An article on one school's use of
GT
funding
To: OURGIFTED-L@neiu.edu
Message-id: <032220042355.28346.779d@comcast.net>
SMB6448@aol.com wrote
http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/1%2C1249%2C595050711%2C00.html
What does this have to do with GT funds???
Then
jo in okc
joehrlein@upc.com wrote:
This looks like a great program, but unless I'm missing something, it's not
really a gifted program.
I think it's programs like this that have people calling gifted programs
"elitist". Most kids benefit from exposure to a second language. These
kinds
of programs need to be funded as part of the standard budget, not from GT
funds.
SNIP
My point is that many news media articles are printed which many people read
and
get impressions about "gifted and talented" and GT programming and
what that
means. The reporters compared this to a "rigorous enrichment program, funded
with gifted and talented money".
This is not funded with GT funds as SMB6448@aol.com noted. Although many may
misread this to be funded with GT funds and thereby be what is an enrichment
GT
program.
My final point is that there are many conceptions of Gifted programming - what
it is and what it looks like.
The people on this list know much about giftedness. I feel one way to advocate
for gifted individuals is to have additional media coverage so the conceptions
are not "mis"conceptions.
It was just an article that I wanted to share and create some discussion while
we waited for Bobbie and Kathi - From the looks of things - there is plenty
of
discussion happening.
Maybe I have not recovered from fried brains? LOL and it was a poor choice
to
post a bit of an OT article.
Off to pick up child - will see everyone later tonight so we can wrap up:)
Just me,
Sally_L
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 15:41:57 -0800 (PST)
From: Sarah Garrison <msgarrison@sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Re: ASAT -- how are the tests changing
To: OURGIFTED-L@neiu.edu
Message-id: <20040322234157.18649.qmail@web80513.mail.yahoo.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-295970293-1079998917=:18234"
--0-295970293-1079998917=:18234
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
I am busy putting out other fires on the home front today, and I am late for
T-ball, so I have not been able to stay current on all of the posts. I don't
know if I can even contribute anything of value to the conversation at this
point. This is what is rattling around in my mind, though.
For the last few months, I have been trying to find a local tester for my youger
ds, the one I am not usually discussing on-line. One professional I spoke with
explained to me the advantages of the SB-5 over the SB-LM in this way: the test
makes all the kids fit the curve (the normal distribution). She also explained
to me that my elder son's scores were, naturally, inflated, and I should
disregard them.
Well. I am just someone's "mom", but my experiences thus far, with
my own two
children, tell me this: to date, I have not found a curve or profile of any
sort to which elder ds conforms. Well, to be honest, he is nearly exactly at
the 50th percentile for height and weight, but beyond that I have learned to
ignore the checklists, normal distributions, etc., because they are simply
irrelevant for us.
When I look at the "quick and dirty" SAT-score to IQ conversion charts
(and
similar charts for standardized tests), I see that I myself am well into the
pg
range. I do not attach much value to these charts, as everyone in my family
knows that I merely test well, and my actual intelligence ranks somewhere below
ds's stuffed panda. Nevertheless...
Today, my 7.5 yo decided he needs to find a cure for cancer. I had the same
bright idea -- when I was 10yo. Unlike ds, I did not immediately set about
doing research. He has spent the day weighing the pros and cons of gene therapy
(which he understands *just fine*, thank you!). I cannot teach him the
analytical skills he was born with -- I did not acquire them myself until about
the junior year of college.
How is someone going to make this child fit some point on a bell curve? How
will it help him -- or me, his overwhelmed mother -- if they succeed? It seems
to me that the goal should be to appropriately evaluate a child's strengths
and
weaknesses -- evaluate the needs of the test subjects and develop an appropriate
instrument. I know this is messy....
SarahG, harried homeschooler
msgarrison@sbcglobal.net
"It really is difficult to imagine how people who have entirely given
up
managing their own affairs could make a wise choice of those who are to do that
for them. One should never expect a liberal, energetic and wise government to
originate in the votes of a people of servants." -- Alexis de Tocqueville
--0-295970293-1079998917=:18234
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
<DIV>I am busy putting out other fires on the home front today, and I
am late
for T-ball, so I have not been able to stay current on all of the posts.
I
don't know if I can even contribute anything of value to the conversation at
this point. This is what is rattling around in my mind, though.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>For the last few months, I have been trying to find a local tester
for my
youger ds, the one I am not usually discussing on-line. One
professional I spoke with explained to me the advantages of the SB-5 over the
SB-LM in this way: the test makes all the kids fit the curve (the
normal
distribution). She also explained to me that my elder son's scores
were,
naturally, inflated, and I should disregard them.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Well. I am just someone's "mom", but my experiences
thus far, with my
own two children, tell me this: to date, I have not found a curve
or
profile of any sort to which elder ds conforms. Well, to be honest,
he is
nearly exactly at the 50th percentile for height and weight, but beyond that
I
have learned to ignore the checklists, normal distributions, etc., because they
are simply irrelevant for us.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>When I look at the "quick and dirty" SAT-score to IQ conversion
charts (and
similar charts for standardized tests), I see that I myself am well into the
pg
range. I do not attach much value to these charts, as everyone in
my
family knows that I merely test well, and my actual intelligence ranks
somewhere below ds's stuffed panda. Nevertheless...</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Today, my 7.5 yo decided he needs to find a cure for cancer.
I had
the same bright idea -- when I was 10yo. Unlike ds, I did not immediately
set about doing research. He has spent the day weighing the pros and
cons
of gene therapy (which he understands *just fine*, thank you!). I
cannot
teach him the analytical skills he was born with -- I did not acquire them
myself until about the junior year of college.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>How is someone going to make this child fit some point on
a bell
curve? How will it help him -- or me, his overwhelmed mother -- if
they
succeed? It seems to me that the goal should be to appropriately evaluate
a child's strengths and weaknesses -- evaluate the needs of the test subjects
and develop an appropriate instrument. I know this is messy....</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>SarahG, harried
homeschooler</DIV><BR><BR>msgarrison@sbcglobal.net<br><br>"It
really is
difficult to imagine how people who have entirely given up managing their own
affairs could make a wise choice of those who are to do that for them. One
should never expect a liberal, energetic and wise government to originate in
the
votes of a people of servants." -- Alexis de Tocqueville
--0-295970293-1079998917=:18234--
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 15:53:21 -0800 (PST)
From: Laurie Jensen <lauriej49@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: our lessons from testing
To: OURGIFTED-L@neiu.edu
Message-id: <20040322235321.7369.qmail@web20212.mail.yahoo.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-1874871346-1079999601=:7207"
--0-1874871346-1079999601=:7207
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
I'm chiming in here late, and still have 25 posts to go so this might have
been
answered, but here's my take at the moment.
A child whose fluency rates are out of sync with application scores are going
to
be mighty frustrated, in part because the skills haven't become automatic. If
Reading Fluency is low, the child is apt to be stuck at the decoding
word-by-word (or even sound-by-sound) stage, and can't get the meaning quickly.
It will also take him much longer to complete reading assignments than it does
his peers. If Math Fluency is weak, the facts aren't automatic, and he will
have to spend time on math computation (if not using a calculator), rather than
on math reasoning. If writing fluency is weak, he either has difficulty with
sentence construction (grammar and syntax) or his handwriting skills aren't
automatic, and therefore are labored. Fluency weaknesses do indeed cause
insanity in school!
Those are quick thoughts. - Laurie
KF <kfpang@isop.ucla.edu> wrote:
Hello,
Since we were dealing with the school district for many years --- countless
unsuccessful IEPs, two mediations with two lawyers (we prevailed!) and now
into our final one --- between ages of 9 and 14, during which we
essentially homeschooled for over three years and we basically still are in
conjunction with community college, we have had to do educational testing
several times ... sometimes the same instruments twice! I think we are
finally done with testing ... and we still have questions but we haven't
found all the answers despite the best of experts. He is happiest now, so
we will just sit back and enjoy the rest of the ride into the future ...
Question for anyone who has kids scoring in WCJ-Achievement in "over 31"
years ... is that the ceiling? What does that really mean in terms of
equivalency in real life as far as the construction of WCJ goes?
And on fluency scores .. I think that says something about either
processing speed. Can it indicate anything else but slower processing speed?
KF
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
--0-1874871346-1079999601=:7207
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
<DIV>I'm chiming in here late, and still have 25 posts to go so this
might have
been answered, but here's my take at the moment.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>A child whose fluency rates are out of sync with application scores
are
going to be mighty frustrated, in part because the skills haven't become
automatic. If Reading Fluency is low, the child is apt to be stuck
at the
decoding word-by-word (or even sound-by-sound) stage, and can't get the meaning
quickly. It will also take him much longer to complete reading assignments
than it does his peers. If Math Fluency is weak, the facts aren't
automatic, and he will have to spend time on math computation (if not using
a
calculator), rather than on math reasoning. If writing fluency is
weak, he
either has difficulty with sentence construction (grammar and syntax) or his
handwriting skills aren't automatic, and therefore are labored. Fluency
weaknesses do indeed cause insanity in school!</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Those are quick thoughts. - Laurie<BR><BR><B><I>KF
<kfpang@isop.ucla.edu></I></B> wrote:</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=replbq style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px;
BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid">Hello,<BR><BR>Since we were
dealing with the
school district for many years --- countless <BR>unsuccessful IEPs, two
mediations with two lawyers (we prevailed!) and now <BR>into our final
one ---
between ages of 9 and 14, during which we <BR>essentially homeschooled
for over
three years and we basically still are in <BR>conjunction with community
college, we have had to do educational testing <BR>several times ... sometimes
the same instruments twice! I think we are <BR>finally done with testing
... and
we still have questions but we haven't <BR>found all the answers despite
the
best of experts. He is happiest now, so <BR>we will just sit back and
enjoy the
rest of the ride into the future ...<BR><BR><BR>Question for
anyone who has kids
scoring in WCJ-Achievement in "over 31" <BR>years ... is that
the ceiling? What
does that really mean in terms of <BR>equivalency in real life
as far
as the construction of WCJ goes?<BR><BR>And on fluency scores ..
I think that
says something about either <BR>processing speed. Can it indicate anything
else
but slower processing speed?<BR><BR><BR>KF<BR></BLOCKQUOTE><p><hr
SIZE=1>
Do you Yahoo!?<br>
<a href="http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree">Protect your
identity with
Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard</a>
--0-1874871346-1079999601=:7207--
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 00:01:18 +0000
From: Sally_L@comcast.net
Subject: ASAT: ADMIN - schedule
To: OURGIFTED-L@neiu.edu
Message-id: <032320040001.2853.7f78@comcast.net>
Hi List Members,
I will be away from my PC until about 8 tonight - my time LOL MST time.
I will be posting Bobbie's and Kathi's Closing Statements.
Again feel free to post among yourselves, but do not direct any further
questions to either guest expert:)
I hope not to have another late night, so I am hoping we can wrap this most
interesting conference up tonight:)
Thanks,
Sally_L
Conference Coordinator
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 18:51:45 -0500
From: "Kathryn M. Finn" <kitfinn@cox.net>
Subject: Re: regression toward the mean
To: OURGIFTED-L@neiu.edu
Message-id: <405F35C1.9779.155556D7@localhost>
I am not a test expert, but rather a student who has muddled
through more than one of these explanations on regression.
My understanding uses a term taken from my husband's field of
physics - "error bars". When he graphs his data he will have the
actual data points inside a colored field extending on either side of
the actual points. The term that is used in psychological testing
seems to be "standard error of measurement".
The idea is that any measurement is plus or minus a certain
amount of error. You can really only say that the measurement
falls within those boundaries. Psychological testing has what my
husband considers "really huge" error bars.
Starting from the child - there is a theoretical real IQ and the score
from testing will fall somewhere near - but likely not directly on -
that IQ. Another testing will also fall somewhere near - but likely
not directly on - that real IQ. This seems to mean that scores that
are close are not really different. (Example: my daughter and I took
GREs the same year. She got a perfect analytical score. I had a
790 on mine. She crowed. I was informed that the two scores were
not meaningfully different - we both topped the section. She
doesn't, of course, admit to this.)
It is also my understanding that the test makers work hard to avoid
false highs - so that the error bar tends to fall more toward low than
high.
Kit
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 17:06:42 -0700
From: "Barbara J. Gilman" <bobbie@h2net.net>
Subject: Re: ASAT -- how are the tests changing
To: OURGIFTED-L@neiu.edu
Message-id: <405F7F92.10601@h2net.net>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=us-ascii
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Sarah, I couldn't agree more.
Bobbie Gilman
Sarah Garrison wrote:
> One professional I spoke with explained to me the advantages of the
> SB-5 over the SB-LM in this way: the test makes all the kids fit the
> curve (the normal distribution). She also explained to me that my
> elder son's scores were, naturally, inflated, and I should disregard them.
>
>
>
> How is someone going to make this child fit some point on a bell
> curve? How will it help him -- or me, his overwhelmed mother -- if
> they succeed? It seems to me that the goal should be to appropriately
> evaluate a child's strengths and weaknesses -- evaluate the needs of
> the test subjects and develop an appropriate instrument. I know this
> is messy....
>
>
>
> SarahG, harried homeschooler
>
>
>
> msgarrison@sbcglobal.net
>
> "It really is difficult to imagine how people who have entirely given
> up managing their own affairs could make a wise choice of those who
> are to do that for them. One should never expect a liberal, energetic
> and wise government to originate in the votes of a people of
> servants." -- Alexis de Tocqueville
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 18:09:27 -0600
From: Andrew_Carson@hmco.com
Subject: RE: ASAT -- how are the tests changing
To: OURGIFTED-L@neiu.edu
Message-id: <OF23E371C4.209B3A57-ON86256E60.0000954B-86256E60.0000DE89@hmco.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Hi Julie: yes, see p. 23 of the SB5 Interpretive Manual. May also be cited
in Ruf's bulletin. We estimated 923 individuals in the US population above
160 IQ at any given time. 923/80(years) = 11+ individuals. I rounded up to
15 because I knew that the population drops off as you age.
You should be able to calculate the number between 140 and 160, given an
overall population of 288,368,698 (Census Bureau, 2002).
Drew
Andrew D. Carson, Ph.D.
Senior Project Director
The Riverside Publishing Company
425 Spring Lake Drive
Itasca, Illinois 60143-2079
phone (630) 467-6036 or 1-800-767-8420 (extension 6036)
fax (630) 467-6150
email Andrew_Carson@hmco.com
Julie Knapp
<littleredhenschool To: OURGIFTED-L@neiu.edu
@yahoo.com> cc:
Sent by: Subject: RE: ASAT -- how are
the tests changing
owner-OURGIFTED-L@n
eiu.edu
03/22/2004 04:32 PM
Please respond to
OURGIFTED-L
Andrew_Carson@hmco.com wrote:
>>... By our calculations, there will only be 11-15 kids per grade level
in
the 161-225+ range in the USA at any given time. So theoretically we could
find them, and once we find them, understand them better and help them
more...<<
This is interesting, Drew - are these figures from a published source? Is
there an estimate for how many per grade level in the 140 - 160 range?
-julie
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 18:16:00 -0600
From: Andrew_Carson@hmco.com
Subject: RE: ASAT -- 11-15 kids per grade level above 161? (was how are the
tests changing)
To: OURGIFTED-L@neiu.edu
Message-id: <OF9142C8E9.1D69D46D-ON86256E60.0000FE77-86256E60.000177F3@hmco.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Hi Gillian,
I find it interesting too. One of the earlier posters noted that whether
one chooses the ratio score approach or the standard score approach, it's
still to some degree just a model. The standard score approach has some
advantages, though, but that's not to say it's perfect. But the ratio and
standard score approaches to some degree also look at different constructs.
The earlier poster essentially asked: from what vantage point would one
decide which is in fact the "true" distribution, and the correct way
to
represent the distribution of abilities?
Assuming that you adopt the standard score approach, I believe the numbers
follow. If you don't, they don't, especially if you want to use the ratio
score approach.
Riverside Publishing's tests tend to make use of standard scores, except
for the Form L-M.
Regards,
Drew
Andrew D. Carson, Ph.D.
Senior Project Director
The Riverside Publishing Company
425 Spring Lake Drive
Itasca, Illinois 60143-2079
phone (630) 467-6036 or 1-800-767-8420 (extension 6036)
fax (630) 467-6150
email Andrew_Carson@hmco.com
Gillian
Overholser To: OURGIFTED-L@neiu.edu
<overalls02421@ya cc:
hoo.com> Subject: RE: ASAT -- 11-15 kids
per grade level above 161?
Sent by: (was how are the tests changing)
owner-OURGIFTED-L
@neiu.edu
03/22/2004 04:48
PM
Please respond to
OURGIFTED-L
Hi!
I'm confused. You estimate that only 15 kids per grade
level could have scores over 161 -- but based on my
personal friend's kids alone, that is simply not
possible.
There seem to be many more!
I was wondering if your estimates are based on the
concept of intelligence being a perfect bell curve and
whetehr anyone at Riverside has started to consider
that it may not be a bell curve after all ... Maybe
it's a trapezoid or a triangle or .... a wave form or
something ...
Doesn't it seem a little weird to base the test
numbbers on a model that was *made up* and has not
been verified?
Sorry if I'm being dense ... I really am curious about
this.
best,
Gillian
--- Andrew_Carson@hmco.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Sounds like a great idea. Perhaps Riverside
> Publishing could help with such
> an effort, but no promises. More likely would be a
> nonprofit with an
> interested in gifted assessment, and some interest
> in applied educational
> research.
>
> But seriously, and a point that no one has touched
> on, is that the SB5
> theoretically allows extension of IQ scores to 225
> through Extended Battery
> IQ scores (see Ruf's bulletin for details). (Along
> the same lines, the WISC
> theoretically supports scores up to 200). By our
> calculations, there will
> only be 11-15 kids per grade level in the 161-225+
> range in the USA at any
> given time. So theoretically we could find them, and
> once we find them,
> understand them better and help them more.
>
> Regards,
> Drew Carson
>
> Andrew D. Carson, Ph.D.
> Senior Project Director
> The Riverside Publishing Company
> 425 Spring Lake Drive
> Itasca, Illinois 60143-2079
> phone (630) 467-6036 or 1-800-767-8420 (extension
> 6036)
> fax (630) 467-6150
> email Andrew_Carson@hmco.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Julie Knapp
>
>
> <littleredhenschool To:
> OURGIFTED-L@neiu.edu
>
> @yahoo.com> cc:
>
>
> Sent by:
> Subject: RE: ASAT -- how are the tests changing
>
> owner-OURGIFTED-L@n
>
>
> eiu.edu
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 03/22/2004 02:37 PM
>
>
> Please respond to
>
>
> OURGIFTED-L
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Aimee Yermish <ayermish@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>
> >>...if the popular conception amongst people who
> test gifted kids is that
> the tests are
> frequently severe underestimates of IQ, then we have
> a problem. We
> need to...convince the test developers to change
> their theories about the
> nature and potentially also the distribution of
> intelligence (which is what
> I'm talking about,
> but it's also what you started off complaining about
> on your soapbox).
> To do the latter, we need to bring actual rigorous
> data to the table
> instead of just lots of nice little anecdotes about
> an underscored
> brilliant kid here and another one there. We need
> to show evidence of
> *systematic* flaws in the test design....<<
>
> Is there anyone doing this kind of reaearch now?
> I'm sure that many of the
> parents here would be willing to let their children
> participate in
> generating some rigorous data. :-)
>
> Unfortunately, I think that the cost of testing
> might be the biggest
> deterrent to generating this kind of data. A single
> session of
> testing/report generation can be prohibitively
> expensive for many
> families... let alone having several tests done in a
> single year - just for
> comparison's sake. Some funded research where the
> testing was free to
> participants would be a wonderful opportunity for
> many families...
>
> -julie
>
>
>
> Is th
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time.
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 16:03:00 -0800 (PST)
From: Jerry And Ranae Monsen <jrmonsen@yahoo.com>
Subject: RE: ASAT: SB 4 sub-test question on mathematical ability
To: OURGIFTED-L@neiu.edu
Message-id: <20040323000300.20459.qmail@web21007.mail.yahoo.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Laurie,
please explain your meaning . . .
Thanks,
Ranae
--- Laurie Jensen <lauriej49@yahoo.com> wrote:
This is one of my
> favorite tests! And I like the Absurdities when I suspect an Asperger-like
> child. I also like the other math tests, but they are often for older
> chidren. - Laurie
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time.
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 19:21:50 -0500
From: "Carolyn & Mark K." <carolyn@thehoagies.com>
Subject: ASAT: regression toward the mean
To: OURGIFTED-L@neiu.edu
Message-id: <001301c4106c$d63ab2e0$6400a8c0@coatsv01.pa.comcast.net>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
OK, I think I understand what you've said and the website you referenced,
but that confuses me further when taken with what I've been told in the
past, with reference to twice exceptional (that is gifted *and* LD) kids...
I was told that, due to regression to the mean, any gifted child's
achievement scores are expected to be less than might be expected from
his/her IQ scores. And this phenomenon, time and again, is called
regression to the mean, and is used to explain why a gifted child's LD is
not nearly as significant as it appears, when comparing his/her achievement
to expected achievement from an IQ test.
I couldn't find the Internet discussion I read in the past, but here's an
interesting discussion from the other end of the spectrum, describing the
same phenomenon, and the same "regression to the mean."
http://www.iapsych.com/Forrest_files/frame.htm
My question is, does "regression to the mean" explain why a gifted
child's
achievement scores are lower than their IQ scores, or explain away some
level of "variation" in theses scores?
Carolyn K. carolyn{at}thehoagies.com
Hoagies' Kids and Teens Page http://www.hoagieskids.org
Hoagies' Gifted Education Page http://www.hoagiesgifted.org
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 19:24:43 -0500
From: "Carolyn & Mark K." <carolyn@thehoagies.com>
Subject: RE: ASAT: Developing Your Child For Success
To: OURGIFTED-L@neiu.edu
Message-id: <001401c4106d$3d5b74a0$6400a8c0@coatsv01.pa.comcast.net>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
On the slightly off-topic subject of vision therapy, does anyone have any
experience with using similar exercises for improving adult declining
vision? I just received "The See Clearly Method" for review, and was
shocked to find it's just a book describing many of the same vision
exercises that my child did in her vision therapy with her COVD some years
ago.
Please contact me off-list, as I suspect this is taking testing a bit too
far field. Thanks.
Carolyn K. carolyn{at}thehoagies.com
Hoagies' Kids and Teens Page http://www.hoagieskids.org
Hoagies' Gifted Education Page http://www.hoagiesgifted.org
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 19:58:43 -0500
From: Rebecca Cunningham <slypigs@tampabay.rr.com>
Subject: Re: regression toward the mean
To: OURGIFTED-L@neiu.edu
Message-id: <007301c41071$fd3d2c10$4f02a8c0@Cunningham>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0070_01C41048.14161DE0"
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_0070_01C41048.14161DE0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
"But then, I also know what the scores mean and don't have trouble =
understanding which scores mean moderately gifted, highly gifted, =
exceptionally or profoundly gifted on the SB5:-)."=20
Do you mind sharing that?
------=_NextPart_000_0070_01C41048.14161DE0
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2800.1400" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=3DTahoma color=3D#008080 size=3D2>"But then,
I also know =
what the=20
scores mean and don't have trouble understanding which scores mean =
moderately=20
gifted, highly gifted, exceptionally or profoundly gifted on the=20
SB5:-)." </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DTahoma color=3D#008080 size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DTahoma color=3D#008080 size=3D2><FONT =
color=3D#000000>Do you mind=20
sharing that?</FONT> </FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>
------=_NextPart_000_0070_01C41048.14161DE0--
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 18:25:36 -0800 (PST)
From: Laurie Jensen <lauriej49@yahoo.com>
Subject: RE: ASAT: SB 4 sub-test question on mathematical ability
To: OURGIFTED-L@neiu.edu
Message-id: <20040323022536.15365.qmail@web20211.mail.yahoo.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-709608576-1080008736=:14687"
--0-709608576-1080008736=:14687
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
If you mean, why do I like these tests? Here are some reasons.
Bead Memory - based on building block stacks (on a spindle - the kids love it)
from memory. The designs include four hard-to-name shapes (to minimize verbal
mediation), three colors, and the correct sequence of beads. Many kids with
verbal memory issues do well on this task, and vice versa (and lots of
in-between, of course), but it helps understand which aspect of visual
sequential memory either works or doesn't work for them.
Absurdities requires kids to see what is "silly or impossible" about
pictures.
It requires some social logic, or understanding of cause and effect.
The higher level math subtests, usually for older children, measure ability
to
see sequential and also more holistically-presented patterns, and to my mind
involve fluid reasoning skills.
- Laurie
Jerry And Ranae Monsen <jrmonsen@yahoo.com> wrote:
Laurie,
please explain your meaning . . .
Thanks,
Ranae
--- Laurie Jensen wrote:
This is one of my
> favorite tests! And I like the Absurdities when I suspect an Asperger-like
> child. I also like the other math tests, but they are often for older
> chidren. - Laurie
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
--0-709608576-1080008736=:14687
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
<DIV>If you mean, why do I like these tests? Here are some
reasons.</DIV>
<DIV>Bead Memory - based on building block stacks (on a spindle - the
kids love
it) from memory. The designs include four hard-to-name shapes (to
minimize
verbal mediation), three colors, and the correct sequence of beads.
Many
kids with verbal memory issues do well on this task, and vice versa (and lots
of
in-between, of course), but it helps understand which aspect of visual
sequential memory either works or doesn't work for them.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Absurdities requires kids to see what is "silly or impossible"
about
pictures. It requires some social logic, or understanding of cause
and
effect.<BR></DIV>
<DIV>The higher level math subtests, usually for older children, measure
ability
to see sequential and also more holistically-presented patterns, and to my mind
involve fluid reasoning skills.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>- Laurie<BR><B><I>Jerry And Ranae Monsen <jrmonsen@yahoo.com></I></B>
wrote:</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=replbq style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px;
BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid">Laurie, <BR>please explain your
meaning . .
.<BR>Thanks,<BR>Ranae<BR><BR><BR>--- Laurie Jensen
<LAURIEJ49@YAHOO.COM>wrote:<BR>This is one of my<BR>>
favorite tests! And I
like the Absurdities when I suspect an Asperger-like<BR>> child.
I also like
the other math tests, but they are often for older<BR>> chidren.
-
Laurie<BR><BR><BR><BR><BR></BLOCKQUOTE><p><hr
SIZE=1>
Do you Yahoo!?<br>
<a href="http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree">Protect your
identity with
Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard</a>
--0-709608576-1080008736=:14687--
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 21:28:03 -0500
From: Meredith Warshaw <mwarshaw@uniquelygifted.org>
Subject: Re: ASAT -- 11-15 kids per grade level above 161? (was how are the
tests changing)
To: OURGIFTED-L@neiu.edu
Message-id: <22da01c4107e$796fa4a0$6400a8c0@MEREDITH>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
From: <Andrew_Carson@hmco.com>
> Assuming that you adopt the standard score approach, I believe the numbers
> follow. If you don't, they don't, especially if you want to use the ratio
> score approach.
As a statistician, I think it is very important to let the data show us what
the
distribution is, rather than trying to force a distribution on the data. I
don't believe that enough research has been done to justify forcing IQ scores
to
fit a normal distribution.
M
--
Meredith Warshaw, M.S.S., M.A., mailto:mwarshaw@uniquelygifted.org
Special Needs Educational Advisor, http://uniquelygifted.org
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I've learned that people will forget what you said, people will forget what
you
did, but people will never forget how you made them feel. ~ Maya Angelou
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 21:40:15 -0700
From: Kathi Kearney <kkearney@ttlc.net>
Subject: Re: ASAT: Does the V/P gap have a meaning?
To: OURGIFTED-L@neiu.edu
Message-id: <BC84FC46.C5E8%kkearney@ttlc.net>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
I wrote:
>> Luc, I'm going to ask you a question, too. Is your child's first language
>> English at the time she took the WPPSI-R, and was the test given
>> in English?
And Luc answered:
>
> Our first language is Dutch, and the Dutch translation of the test was
> given.
> Now I'm *very* curious to know if this can have an influence on the V/P
gap!>>>>>
Ok, *now* I'd like to know if the Dutch translation of the WPPSI-R was done
by the publisher, and if the norms used were Dutch norms or American norms.
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 19:35:08 -0700
From: "Barbara J. Gilman" <bobbie@h2net.net>
Subject: Re: ASAT: Developing Your Child For Success
To: OURGIFTED-L@neiu.edu
Message-id: <405FA25C.8000908@h2net.net>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=us-ascii
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Yes, Carolyn, we've noted with our clients that when a parent practices
vision exercises with a child, the parent's vision often improves. If
one parent says, "I think I have similar difficulties" to those we
see
in testing, we designate *that* parent as the one to participate!
Bobbie Gilman
Carolyn & Mark K. wrote:
> On the slightly off-topic subject of vision therapy, does anyone have
any
> experience with using similar exercises for improving adult declining
> vision? I just received "The See Clearly Method" for review,
and was
> shocked to find it's just a book describing many of the same vision
> exercises that my child did in her vision therapy with her COVD some years
> ago.
>
> Please contact me off-list, as I suspect this is taking testing a bit too
> far field. Thanks.
>
> Carolyn K. carolyn{at}thehoagies.com
> Hoagies' Kids and Teens Page http://www.hoagieskids.org
> Hoagies' Gifted Education Page http://www.hoagiesgifted.org
>
>
>
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 21:40:16 -0700
From: Kathi Kearney <kkearney@ttlc.net>
Subject: Re: notes on tests
To: OURGIFTED-L@neiu.edu
Message-id: <BC85020E.C613%kkearney@ttlc.net>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Margaret asked:
> Our state law (as it has been interpreted) appears to require the use
of a
> full test--not subtests in qualifying a student as gifted. Does that mean
> that the SB-V is a poor choice?>>>>
It is my understanding (Drew, please correct me if I am wrong!) that the
Nonverbal IQ and Verbal IQ on the SB5 can be used as "stand-alone"
tests, as
well as being used to obtain a full scale score.
The SB5 actually has a number of *very* flexible options -- Full Scale IQ,
Nonverbal IQ, Verbal IQ, separate factor scores (and the visual-spatial
factor score may be particularly useful in identifying gifted visual spatial
learners), Gifted Composite Score, Nonverbal Gifted Composite score, and
even an Extended IQ score which is available if an individual scores higher
than 150 on the full scale score. As Drew Carson and Deborah Ruf mentioned,
there is also the experimental Rasch-ratio score, which seems to compare
fairly well with SBLM IQ's, at least in the age 4 to 10 range.
Margaret continued:
> Finally, I am wondering whether placing a greater weight on verbal
> comprehension might not create a bias against students who do not hear
> Standard English spoken constantly in their homes? If that is the case,
is
> there a way to compensate for it? ELL students are one obvious issue, but
> I am also wondering about, for example, children with hearing impaired
> parents, or rural children from areas where the English dialect is
> significantly different from Standard English.>>>>
Yes. That's one reason why the Nonverbal IQ can be used on the SB5, and also
the reason why there has been a lot of focus lately in the testing industry
in developing nonverbal measures of intelligence. The UNIT test has no
verbal directions, even. The Naglieri is also widely used in these
situations. The Ravens is also used in many school districts, including some
extremely large districts (like San Diego).
Just a side note -- years ago, when working in very isolated rural schools
in New England, I noticed that the K-ABC (Kaufman Assessment Battery for
Children) was very useful in identifying gifted rurally isolated children
(better than the WISC and some of the other tests). Donna Ford (now at Ohio
State) also found the K-ABC very useful in identifying gifted
African-American children.
The new, revised K-ABC is hot off the press (yes, yet ANOTHER new major
children's intelligence test has just been revised and published!!!) I have
not yet seen it, but the publisher's website indicates that it has been
extended upward and downward in age (age 12 used to be the oldest children
it could be administered to). It now can be used through age 17, I believe.
It also offers two ways to interpret the results (using two different
theories). CHC (Cattell-Horn-Cattell) or Luria's. (This is way too complex
to go into at the end of this conference, but interested individuals are
invited to explore both theories further -- it's very, very fascinating!)
I always liked the K-ABC. But I used to say it was more a test for the
teacher than the child -- we'd get the results back (it had measures of
sequential and simultaneous processing), I'd look at the results and if one
area was vastly stronger than the other, I would suggest some very specific
educational strategies for the teacher to try in the classroom based on the
child's area of processing strength. Almost every time, if the teacher tried
those strategies, the teacher would come back to me in a month or so, and
say in a very surprised voice, "Johnny has improved SO much in his
schoolwork and in class, you would not believe it!" and be so pleased
with
little Johnny, when really, it was the TEACHER who had changed her teaching
approach to match the child's processing strengths!! :-)
I'm anxious to see the new K-ABC in its latest incarnation.
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 21:40:16 -0700
From: Kathi Kearney <kkearney@ttlc.net>
Subject: Re: ASAT -- how are the tests changing
To: OURGIFTED-L@neiu.edu
Message-id: <BC84FDD8.C612%kkearney@ttlc.net>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Aimee wrote:
> Furthermore, I've seen kids with very similar levels of (out-of-level)
> achievement demonstrate very different levels of underlying
> intelligence. Sometimes the kids really *are* highly gifted, and
> sometimes they're more like trained seals, where they're bright and
> their parents have taught them things that they really weren't ready to
> learn (they aren't able to recognize the same information when it's
> presented differently, nor are they able to use what they know in novel
> contexts). They tend to be quite proud of their recitations, but not to
> have any real idea what they're talking about.>>>>>
When the talent searches were fairly new in the 1970s, and before Kaplan and
Princeton Review started running test prep courses all over the place in
urban and suburban areas, kids often took the SAT-I as an out of level test
with little or no prep other than perhaps trying the sample test that came
with the registration materials.
Then the test prep industry ballooned. By ten years ago, wealthy mildly and
moderately gifted students in 6th and 7th grades in urban and suburban
areas, where test prep businesses were available, started taking these test
prep courses in preparation for taking the *talent search* tests. Since we
know that specific test prep can increase scores somewhat, it's worth taking
this into account when looking at the SAT-I results of a child who has been
through these sorts of test prep courses (vs. most of the middle and low
income kids in rural areas, who have neither the money for the test prep
courses, nor the geographic access to any such coaching and prepping
businesses).
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 21:40:17 -0700
From: Kathi Kearney <kkearney@ttlc.net>
Subject: Re: ASAT: SBLM
To: OURGIFTED-L@neiu.edu
Message-id: <BC8507D4.C617%kkearney@ttlc.net>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Cheryl asked:
> Is there an optimal age at which a child should take the SBLM?>>>>
For a gifted child, between the ages of 4 and 10.
Cheryl continued:
<<<<I have heard
> that age 11-12 might be too "late" to get an accurate score.
What does this
> mean? >>>>>
This means that it is highly probable that gifted children will still be
getting items right at the last adult level (Superior Adult III) at that
age, on the SBLM. You are not supposed to stop testing on the SBLM if a
child is still answering one or more items correct at the various age levels
of the test (at the adult levels, the levels are Average Adult, Superior
Adult I, Superior Adult II, and Superior Adult III). You stop only when the
child misses all the items in any one age group on the test. So
theoretically, if a child is still getting items correct at the Superior
Adult III level, if there were more test, you should keep going til they
miss all the item in any one age group. But, there *isn't* any more test! (I
have seen a number of 11 and 12 year old highly gifted children answer
almost all the items correctly at the Superior Adult III level)
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 21:40:17 -0700
From: Kathi Kearney <kkearney@ttlc.net>
Subject: Re: ASAT -- how are the tests changing
To: OURGIFTED-L@neiu.edu
Message-id: <BC85085C.C618%kkearney@ttlc.net>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: multipart/alternative;
boundary=MS_Mac_OE_3162836445_305277_MIME_Part
> This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.
--MS_Mac_OE_3162836445_305277_MIME_Part
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Laurie wrote:
<<<<The WJ-III tests have weighted scores. All subtests are not
counted
equally! Some tests weigh more heavily at certain ages, and some develop
more quickly at different ages. Unfortunately, it's all hidden in the
scoring software. The Willis/Dumont website addresses this - somewhere!
>>>>
Thanks Laurie! yes, this info is on a table on the Willis-Dumont website,
but I've misplaced the address. . . can anyone find that please, and send it
to Sally, and she will get it posted along with all the other articles and
resources that have come up during this conference?
--MS_Mac_OE_3162836445_305277_MIME_Part
Content-type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE>Re: ASAT -- how are the tests changing</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
Laurie wrote:<BR>
<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE><<<<The WJ-III tests have weighted
scores. Al=
l subtests are not counted equally! Some tests weigh more heavily
at c=
ertain ages, and some develop more quickly at different ages. Unfortun=
ately, it's all hidden in the scoring software. The Willis/Dumont
webs=
ite addresses this - somewhere! >>>><BR>
<BR>
Thanks Laurie! yes, this info is on a table on the Willis-Dumont website, b=
ut I've misplaced the address. . . can anyone find that please, and send it
=
to Sally, and she will get it posted along with all the other articles and
r=
esources that have come up during this conference?</BLOCKQUOTE>
</BODY>
</HTML>
--MS_Mac_OE_3162836445_305277_MIME_Part--
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 21:40:17 -0700
From: Kathi Kearney <kkearney@ttlc.net>
Subject: Re: ASAT School GT gate tests
To: OURGIFTED-L@neiu.edu
Message-id: <BC850DA1.C619%kkearney@ttlc.net>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Theodosia wrote:
> Kathi wrote:
> (But be aware of two things: group
> tests such as these tend to miss about 25% of highly gifted students, and
> both of these tests have ceilings of 150)
>
> Kathi, Could you qualify your statement about missing 25% of gifted kids.
Our
> district uses the Otis-Lennon (for screening purposes), and I'd like to
> understand your point of view bette. Thanks for responding--on or
off-list.>>>>>
That statement comes from often-cited research on gifted children and group
tests. I believe that the citations for these studies are quoted in most
introductory gifted education texts (but my texts are in storage so I will
have to look elsewhere to find the quotes). I will try to find the exact
quote, or at least the citations, and send them on, later this week, if I
can.
What probably happens with highly gifted children is that they read way too
much into easy questions, think it could not possibly be that simple, and
overthink the answers.
By the way, while conducting a very interesting historical research study
about early studies of gifted African American students from 1924 to 1944
(we researched the original research AND the researchers!) we came upon a
very interesting piece of information. Our article was published as
"Forgotten Pioneers in the Study of Gifted African-Americans" (1993,
Kearney
& LeBlanc, Roeper Review, 15 (4), 192-199). One major study we reviewed
studied gifted African-American children on the South Side of Chicago, and
was conducted by a doctoral student named Martin David Jenkins, who went on
to become a leader in higher education of African-Americans. This study was
supervised by Paul Witty (a very important individual in gifted education in
the 1920s to the 1950s). This study was based both on Witty's study of
gifted white children in Kansas, and Terman's study, and was as strong as
anything other research being done in the field of gifted education at that
time. Jenkins tested gifted African-American children with the
Stanford-Binet and identified the required number for his study (100
children, I think). All of the children were in elementary school at the
time.
These children were then followed up by another doctoral student, Viola
Theman, as they neared the end of high school. Instead of an individual
test, she administered a group IQ test (an early version of what became our
current Otis-Lennon). An unacceptably large number of these students (61 out
of 83) -- including several highly gifted students -- would not have been
identified as gifted AT ALL if the only test given had been a group IQ test.
The Stanford-Binet given in childhood (admittedly probably a biased
instrument for this group) was a far better identifier of giftedness than
the group test.
Link to the article "Forgotten Pioneers":
http://www.ditd.org/Cybersource/record.aspx?sid=11373&scat=902&stype=110
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 18:39:07 -0800 (PST)
From: Laurie Jensen <lauriej49@yahoo.com>
Subject: RE: ASAT: Vision Therapy
To: OURGIFTED-L@neiu.edu
Message-id: <20040323023907.87440.qmail@web20206.mail.yahoo.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-1972132070-1080009547=:84835"
--0-1972132070-1080009547=:84835
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
I'm interested, too! I picked up at a yardsale a kit called "The Program
for
Better Vision: How to See Better in Minues a Day wihtout glasses or contacts!"
by Martin Sussman.
It includes a piece of string...
Anything to postpone those glasses! - Laurie
"Carolyn & Mark K." <carolyn@thehoagies.com> wrote:
On the slightly off-topic subject of vision therapy, does anyone have any
experience with using similar exercises for improving adult declining
vision? I just received "The See Clearly Method" for review, and was
shocked to find it's just a book describing many of the same vision
exercises that my child did in her vision therapy with her COVD some years
ago.
Please contact me off-list, as I suspect this is taking testing a bit too
far field. Thanks.
Carolyn K. carolyn{at}thehoagies.com
Hoagies' Kids and Teens Page http://www.hoagieskids.org
Hoagies' Gifted Education Page http://www.hoagiesgifted.org
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time.
--0-1972132070-1080009547=:84835
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
<DIV>I'm interested, too! I picked up at a yardsale a kit called
"The
Program for Better Vision: How to See Better in Minues a Day wihtout glasses
or
contacts!" by Martin Sussman.<BR>It includes a piece of
string... </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Anything to postpone those glasses! - Laurie</DIV>
<DIV><BR><B><I>"Carolyn & Mark K."
<carolyn@thehoagies.com></I></B>
wrote:</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=replbq style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px;
BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid">On the slightly off-topic subject of
vision
therapy, does anyone have any<BR>experience with using similar exercises
for
improving adult declining<BR>vision? I just received "The See Clearly
Method"
for review, and was<BR>shocked to find it's just a book describing many
of the
same vision<BR>exercises that my child did in her vision therapy with
her COVD
some years<BR>ago.<BR><BR>Please contact me off-list, as I
suspect this is
taking testing a bit too<BR>far field. Thanks.<BR><BR>Carolyn
K.
carolyn{at}thehoagies.com<BR>Hoagies' Kids and Teens Page
http://www.hoagieskids.org<BR>Hoagies' Gifted Education Page
http://www.hoagiesgifted.org<BR></BLOCKQUOTE><p><font face=arial
size=-1>Do you
Yahoo!?<br>
<a href="http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html"><b>Yahoo!
Finance Tax
Center</a></b> - File online. File on time.
--0-1972132070-1080009547=:84835--
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 10:40:31 +0800
From: Tracy Chaloner <tracy@cycloneco.com.au>
Subject: Re: ASAT -- how are the tests changing
To: OURGIFTED-L@neiu.edu
Message-id: <BC85C49E.1A959%tracy@cycloneco.com.au>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
on 23/3/04 3:37 AM, Aimee Yermish at ayermish@alum.mit.edu wrote:
> Tracy Chaloner writes:
>> I feel somewhat taken out of context by Aimee's comments so I
>> will seek to clarify.
>
> Oh, I'm sorry -- I didn't mean to make you feel that I completely
> disagreed with you, because actually I mostly agree with what you've
> said.
Many thanks for taking the time to clarify, Aimee. I agree mostly with what
you wrote as well!
There are only a couple of points that I will pick up on, more to discuss
further on points of agreement than any challenge :-). Warning, this is
long!
> and so much diversity amongst the gifted population that, however
> achievement is measured, it is not going to provide any rigorous
> estimates of what percentage of the population actually exists at any
> given IQ level.
The following is not a disagreement, but rather a discussion on the above
point.
I am at a loss as to understand why "rigorous estimates of what percentage
of the population actually exists at any given IQ level" is so important,
except to categorise us all into boxes that have some sort of agreed
meaning.
What does it mean to be 'four standard deviations above the mean' in
comparison to having a ratio IQ which clearly shows how advanced one is
compared to a same aged person. (In fact I would challenge how we construct
ability in terms of age criteria but that is another discussion.)
IMO IQs have become numbers, rather than a qualitative and quantitative
assessment of ability which will predict academic success (given optimum
educational opportunity). An IQ score is no longer a predictor of that, but
rather a measure of how many others out there are as intelligent as person
x, based on a theory of how many others out there are as intelligent as
person x. This is very close to a circular argument!
What does it matter if person x is one in 1000 or one in 10 000? What
matters is what person x is capable of doing, and finding the opportunity to
do it.
I think this is one of the reasons why educators are still missing the boat
in gifted education. The IQ tool is no longer very useful, when it is used
simply as a number, as is too often the case in entrance criteria for gifted
programs. How many kids miss the cutoff by only one IQ point (even though
the margin of error may be three points)? How many kids have their areas of
high ability averaged out with their areas of weakness because of the equal
weighting of subtests which make up a FSIQ? How many kids get into gifted
programs though rote learning prep tests and keep out those who are truly
gifted, thus the gifted programs become diminished as they try to cater for
what are essential non-gifted, bright kids (this hearkens back to your point
Aimee of the 'trained seal')? This has been happening in Australia, in the
few areas that there are full time gifted classes.
When we see the reality of many more people out there with similar abilities
as person x, test constructors still cling to the theory of normal
distribution and seek to diminish how many people out there can legitimately
say that they are as intelligent as person x, even though they (or their
parents) know that they are based on observation, achievement and
experience.
IMO the whole regime has become fundamentally flawed. It no longer measures
what it first set out to measure, yet is still called by the same name,
creating chaos and confusion which is having a significant impact on our
children. And this is the bottom line for me. I am not concerned with
theoreticians or test constructors trying to validate their (IMO) flawed
reasoning and retain relevancy and professional status, I am concerned with
the outcomes for the children, and to date after nearly 100 years of testing
and advocacy, it is not getting any better, and in many ways is getting
worse.
> And sometimes things
> seem to just need to "cook" for a while -- many, many adults
(myself
> included) have found that greater maturity has enabled them to succeed
> at things that had previously seemed very difficult. But I'm not so
> sure that this counts as getting more "intelligent," only in
gaining
> more skills over time.
Well... I did say 'smarter' rather than more intelligent :-). 'Smarter' to
me means using the innate intelligence in a more productive way, rather than
suggesting there is more innate intelligence available. Pretty much what I
think you mean here as well.
> Again, it comes down to mainly a semantic
> distinction as to whether this is a change in achievement, a change in
> underlying intelligence, or merely a continuation of a normal
> developmental process that is not fundamentally different from the way
> in which children develop the capacity for abstract thought.
It would be interesting to see some qualitative or quantitative research on
this along the lines of John Geake's research on 'the gifted brain'. The
theory of fluid intelligence suggests that it diminishes over time. I
personally haven't found this to be the case at all, and not anecdotally
with many similarly 'high intelligence' people. Once again I am left
wondering whether the 'rules' just have to thrown out the window when it
comes to extremes.
>
> Well, of course, and I completely agree with you. But if the popular
> conception amongst people who test gifted kids is that the tests are
> frequently severe underestimates of IQ, then we have a problem.
I think even more fundamentally we need to revise the current notions of
what IQ constitutes and reframe (and rename) the new assessments to more
accurately reflect what they are measuring. Then we may start to see some
clarity emerging from the murky depths that we are currently plunged into.
> We need
> to either re-examine our own belief, to convince the administrative
> gatekeepers who deny kids access to gifted services that the tests are
> wrong (which is what you're talking about), or to convince the test
> developers to change their theories about the nature and potentially
> also the distribution of intelligence (which is what I'm talking about,
> but it's also what you started off complaining about on your soapbox).
Yes to both. The issue is that the tests may not be so wrong for the 68%
majority, but the further from the mean, the more the real (as opposed to
statistical) margin of error. In our current modern world, where we are
overwhelmed by sheer mass of population, it is a struggle to deal with the
68% let alone the extremes. Hence pragmatically the extremes become
neglected, but these extremes represent real people with real lives who are
suffering on so many levels, and our society is the poorer for it.
Another problem appears to be a homogenisation factor, also all too
prevalent in modern society. Test publishers are now in competition in a
market place. They want to be in direct competition and so want to find a
homogenous construct to base their models of intelligence and distribution
of intelligence. The normal distrubtion does this rather nicely for them, as
does the market need for specific forms of ability (such as processing
speed) which are being reframed as generalised facets of intelligence. Hence
the 'new gifted' will be successful in a modern globalised market and the
'old gifted', who are the thinkers and creaters of knowledge, are put out
onto the scrap heap.
The kind of intelligence that appears to me to underpin pgness is not valued
by the market. It is often complex, slow to emerge, challenging and
accompanied by an array of affective disorders and disabilities (which are
often only 'disabilities' at present because they disable the person from
functioning in the current market paradigm). In the market these are
detriments, not attributes. So of course new testing regimes will penalise
certain abilities (such as in timed subtests) since they aren't of any
market value.
Gone are the days where humans had intrinsic value. Everything has become
commodified (human capital, social capital), and the new testing regime
simply reflects this change. The challenge now is to work toward undoing
much of the damage to society and individuals which has been wreaked by
market fundamentalism, and the commodification of all things. One aspect of
that is to challenge new construction of intelligence which pushes pgs to
the periphery of society, rather than being inclusive of them.
> To do the latter, we need to bring actual rigorous data to the table
> instead of just lots of nice little anecdotes about an underscored
> brilliant kid here and another one there. We need to show evidence of
> *systematic* flaws in the test design.
I am an advocate of experiential knowledges ('anecdotes'). I think that
reductionist Western science has blinkered us to such an extent that we no
longer accept what we see or experience as evidential of something
occurring. Rather than believing what we are seeing, we wait for some
researcher or another to tell us it is okay (or not) to think this way now
as it has been validated (or not).
Theory is replacing reality. Small samples are being universalised with
devastating consequences, and it is accepted by scientists as good
methodology. Perhaps this might be okay for the mainstream, but time and
again the extremes are simply cut out, since they are too often considered
'outliers', or so small a sample as to not be statistically significant.
When you are the outlier, this can have quite a substantial personal impact.
Thousands of years of Chinese medical history had been dismissed by the
medical fraternity as untested in spite of a huge body of anecdotal evidence
of the efficacy of these treatments. As the treatments are being trialled
and shown to be effective they are being absorbed into mainstream
pharmacology, but it is taking much time, huge amounts of money and
ownership of what was previously public commons (gene patenting etc). Same
with Indigenous medicines and tribal lore. Only now are some of us removing
our blinkers and starting to see a more holistic, and not reductionist, view
of reality.
For the record, I took place in a double blind clinical trial for a new
medication. I received great benefit from the new medication
(experientially, I guessed which one it was almost immediately because of
the significant benefit), yet the trial allegedly showed that there was no
significant improvement in using this medication. The trial consisted of 110
people which was considered to be a good sized sample.
How many people are now not going to get the benefit of this medication
since practitioners will be taking on board the results of this trial in
their treatment decision making? I am able to continue to use the medication
but it is on a authority prescription that has to be authorised by the
government. My blood tests now confirm my experiential knowledge, but it is
my experiential knowledge with informed me that I should continue to take
the medication.
I could go on about this for a while longer too, but will refrain at this
time :-).
>
>> Our domain is at the extremes. It is about time that those who now
>> construct testing instruments acknlowledge our existence respectfully
>> (as was formerly the case), rather than universalising results that
>> have little or no relevance to our population, but which have a
>> substantial impact on our ability to access opportunities and to
>> develop our potential in such a way as might benefit the mainstream.
>
> Then do what I'm going to do. Go get a PhD in psychology, if you
> haven't already, go into the lab yourself, and turn your research
> towards developing new tests and refining old ones such that they *do*
> acknowledge our existence but are also convincing to skeptics. I'll be
> thrilled to have sympathetic colleagues, because it's gonna be a long
> road...
LOL! I am a lowly university undergraduate (in Australia) doing a double
major in Women's Studies (yes I am a radical feminist too!) and Politics and
International Studies. I will finish this in 2006 and then will be doing my
honours year researching 'The Changing Political Economy of Intelligence',
which is where I think many of the fundamental questions about why people of
high intelligence have so much trouble being understood and accepted in
modern society may be answered. After that I hope to do a PhD but it won't
be in psychology! I am sure that my research topic will emerge over the next
few years, as my honours topic has done. I have a wide range of interests
(global politics, women's issues, extreme giftedness, organic farming,
sustainability etc etc etc...) so it will be interesting to see where it
takes me.
I did try to get into politics to make change but chose the wrong place and
the very wrong time <sigh>. I still bear the emotional scars of that
experience, so I not sure where my study will take me yet on a 'productive'
basis (it was supposed to support my political career when I started). I am
writing a few books, one on extreme giftedness, one on the impact of
neoliberal market fundamentalism on women, so writing may end up being my
'calling'. Who knows.
I am glad that you will be working towards the goal gaining a better
understanding and recognition of pgs. I may not be a colleague per se, but
will always be there as support for anyone who seeks better outcomes for our
pg children, and the pg adults they become.
all the best
Tracy
Pemberton, Western Australia
tracy@cycloneco.com.au
----------------------
"The future belongs to those who believe in the beauty of their dreams."
‹Eleanor Roosevelt, American First Lady, Civil Rights Activist
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 21:47:08 -0500
From: Meredith Warshaw <mwarshaw@uniquelygifted.org>
Subject: Re: regression toward the mean
To: OURGIFTED-L@neiu.edu
Message-id: <22f601c41081$2699b650$6400a8c0@MEREDITH>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
From: "Carolyn & Mark K." <carolyn@thehoagies.com>
> OK, I think I understand what you've said and the website you referenced,
> but that confuses me further when taken with what I've been told in the
> past, with reference to twice exceptional (that is gifted *and* LD) kids...
I'm afraid I'm too exhausted to come up with my own cogent explanation, but
here
are a couple more websites with good explanations of the phenomenon:
http://davidmlane.com/hyperstat/B153351.html (I think this is a particularly
clear explanation - read all the pages)
http://trochim.human.cornell.edu/tutorial/cheng/lcheng.htm
M
--
Meredith Warshaw, M.S.S., M.A., mailto:mwarshaw@uniquelygifted.org
Special Needs Educational Advisor, http://uniquelygifted.org
Contributing editor, 2e: Twice-Exceptional Newsletter (http://2enewsletter.com)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I've learned that people will forget what you said, people will forget what
you
did, but people will never forget how you made them feel. ~ Maya Angelou
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 13:39:59 +1030
From: Sue McA <watsmac@ozemail.com.au>
Subject: request to contact Tracy offline
To: OURGIFTED-L@neiu.edu
Message-id: <004e01c41084$540a38a0$8a053dcb@desk>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Hi Tracey
Could I contact you offline for your experience with testers in Aust.?
Thanks
Sue
(Adelaide, Aust.)
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 22:07:43 -0500
From: TODD CLENNY <TCLENNY@msn.com>
Subject: Re: ASAT:vision therapy
To: OURGIFTED-L@neiu.edu
Message-id: <BAY4-DAV125UV0hCLwH0001f0be@hotmail.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="----=_NextPart_001_0000_01C4105A.1971B580"
------=_NextPart_001_0000_01C4105A.1971B580
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Would it be possible to keep this on-list? I'm at the beginning of learn=
ing =20
about vision therapy and would very much appreciate any input. Thanks
Molly C.
tclenny@msn.com----- Original Message -----
From: Carolyn & Mark K.
Sent: Monday, March 22, 2004 9:27 PM
To: OURGIFTED-L@neiu.edu
Subject: RE: ASAT: Developing Your Child For Success
On the slightly off-topic subject of vision therapy, does anyone have any
experience with using similar exercises for improving adult declining
vision? I just received "The See Clearly Method" for review, and was
shocked to find it's just a book describing many of the same vision
exercises that my child did in her vision therapy with her COVD some year=
s
ago.
Please contact me off-list, as I suspect this is taking testing a bit too
far field. Thanks.
Carolyn K. carolyn{at}thehoagies.com
Hoagies' Kids and Teens Page http://www.hoagieskids.org
Hoagies' Gifted Education Page http://www.hoagiesgifted.org
------=_NextPart_001_0000_01C4105A.1971B580
Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<HTML><BODY STYLE=3D"font:10pt verdana; border:none;"><DIV>Would
it be po=
ssible to keep this on-list? I'm at the beginning of learning </DIV=
> <DIV>about vision therapy and would very much appreciate any input.&nbs=
p; Thanks</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Molly C.</DIV>
<DIV>tclenny@msn.co=
m----- Original Message -----</DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT:
0=
px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; =
MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> <DIV style=3D"BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT:
10pt Arial; =
COLOR: black"><B>From:</B> Carolyn & Mark K.</DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT=
: 10pt Arial"><B>Sent:</B> Monday, March 22, 2004 9:27 PM</DIV>
<DIV styl=
e=3D"FONT: 10pt Arial"><B>To:</B> OURGIFTED-L@neiu.edu</DIV>
<DIV style=3D=
"FONT: 10pt Arial"><B>Subject:</B> RE: ASAT: Developing
Your Child For Su=
ccess</DIV> <DIV> </DIV>On the slightly off-topic
subject of vision =
therapy, does anyone have any<BR>experience with using similar exercises
=
for improving adult declining<BR>vision? I just received "The
See C=
learly Method" for review, and was<BR>shocked to find it's just a
book de=
scribing many of the same vision<BR>exercises that my child did in her
vi=
sion therapy with her COVD some years<BR>ago.<BR><BR>Please
contact me of=
f-list, as I suspect this is taking testing a bit too<BR>far field. =
Thanks.<BR><BR>Carolyn K.
carolyn{at}theho=
agies.com<BR>Hoagies' Kids and Teens Page
http://=
www.hoagieskids.org<BR>Hoagies' Gifted Education Page
http://=
www.hoagiesgifted.org<BR><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>
------=_NextPart_001_0000_01C4105A.1971B580--
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 22:28:01 -0700
From: Kathi Kearney <kkearney@ttlc.net>
Subject: Re: Testing in New York City (was: ASAT: What's the 'best' age for
testing?)
To: OURGIFTED-L@neiu.edu
Message-id: <BC8518F0.C636%kkearney@ttlc.net>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: multipart/alternative;
boundary=MS_Mac_OE_3162839282_475862_MIME_Part
> This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.
--MS_Mac_OE_3162839282_475862_MIME_Part
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Angela wrote:
<<<<My daughter was tested at the suggestion of her teacher in
first grade
in the state of Mississippi where I believe that the standards are different
from here in New York where we have relocated due to my husbands job. I
attempted to use the scores that she received here in the NYC public school
system and was informed that they couldn't use the score which were well
above the average 7 year old. Can anyone give me an idea as to where to go
retest my daughter in the NYC area?>>>>
Testing for gifted programs in New York City (as well as for private schools
in the city) is a whole other kettle of fish. It's different from anywhere
else in the country.
You need to ask the school for a list of approved testers and agencies (if
they have left it to you to get private testing, rather than having the
school do it, which is what often happens there -- definitely unfair to
low-income children). Only testers approved by the school may provide usable
results to the school, in most cases.
For instance, if you wanted your child to apply to Hunter College Elementary
School, a public school for gifted children in New York City, then you would
have to take your child for testing by an "approved" Hunter tester.
Even if
the child was tested by another licensed psychologist in New York City, the
scores could not be used for admissions purposes at all, unless that tester
is on the "approved" list. And each school program (public and private)
has
its own separate "approved tester" list (with some overlaps, of course).
An organization called the ERB also conducts much of the testing for private
school entrance and for admittance to special programs.
--MS_Mac_OE_3162839282_475862_MIME_Part
Content-type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE>Re: Testing in New York City (was: ASAT: What's the 'best' age
for t=
esting?)</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
Angela wrote:<BR>
<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE><<<<My daughter was tested at
the suggestion of her=
teacher in first grade in the state of Mississippi where I believe that the=
standards are different from here in New York where we have relocated due t=
o my husbands job. I attempted to use the scores that she received here in t=
he NYC public school system and was informed that they couldn't use the scor=
e which were well above the average 7 year old. Can anyone give me an idea a=
s to where to go retest my daughter in the NYC area?>>>><BR>
<BR>
Testing for gifted programs in New York City (as well as for private school=
s in the city) is a whole other kettle of fish. It's different from anywhere=
else in the country.<BR>
<BR>
You need to ask the school for a list of approved testers and agencies (if =
they have left it to you to get private testing, rather than having the scho=
ol do it, which is what often happens there -- definitely unfair to low-inco=
me children). Only testers approved by the school may provide usable results=
to the school, in most cases. <BR>
<BR>
For instance, if you wanted your child to apply to Hunter College Elementar=
y School, a public school for gifted children in New York City, then you wou=
ld have to take your child for testing by an "approved" Hunter
tes=
ter. Even if the child was tested by another licensed psychologist in New Yo=
rk City, the scores could not be used for admissions purposes at all, unless=
that tester is on the "approved" list. And each school program
(p=
ublic and private) has its own separate "approved tester"
list (wi=
th some overlaps, of course). <BR>
<BR>
An organization called the ERB also conducts much of the testing for privat=
e school entrance and for admittance to special programs.</BLOCKQUOTE>
</BODY>
</HTML>
--MS_Mac_OE_3162839282_475862_MIME_Part--
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 22:28:38 -0700
From: Kathi Kearney <kkearney@ttlc.net>
Subject: Re: Freedom from Distractibility Index
To: OURGIFTED-L@neiu.edu
Message-id: <BC85166A.C635%kkearney@ttlc.net>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Julie wrote:
>
> Also, I was wondering which subtests on the WISC111 were the ones where
> ceilings indicated further testing on the SBLM might be useful.>>>>
Good question, Julie.
Tracking all the way back to research published in an article by Gallagher
in the early 1960s (then he was a young whipper-snapper, now he's an elder
statesman in gifted education and a former NAGC president!) and all the way
up to the present day, the subtests on the WISC that are repeatedly reported
to be most often at the ceiling level in gifted children seem to be:
Vocabulary
Information
Similarities
Comprehension
Block Design
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 21:33:26 -0600
From: Karen Boutilier <karenboutilier@mchsi.com>
Subject: Re: ASAT -- how are the tests changing
To: OURGIFTED-L@neiu.edu
Message-id: <D8472595-7C7A-11D8-8CEA-000A95BC39F6@mchsi.com>
MIME-version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v612)
Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
On Mar 22, 2004, at 10:41 AM, Aimee Yermish wrote:
>
>
> Trust me, if you let the teacher keep the class focused around the
> highly gifted, the average kids wouldn't get anything out of their
> participation anyhow. I had a group of PG 1st and 2nd graders once,
> back when I was a classroom teacher. We were doing analytic geometry
> and calculus. None of their classmates would have gained anything by
> participating in that class. When the parents of the MG kids insisted
> upon the class being open to any kid who was interested, no matter how
> I tried to keep the level where it had been, no matter how I
> differentiated, it wasn't possible to keep the experience for the PG
> kids from being dragged down by the MG kids (the key to classroom
> management is making sure everyone is learning). Eventually, the PG
> kids who the class had originally been designed for chose to *leave*
> the class, because it no longer met their needs, and I was stuck
> babysitting a bunch of nice MG kids whose needs could have quite
> adequately been met in their existing classrooms.
>
I can imagine a teacher's frustration in such a situation. However,
selection based on a numerical score alone for these kinds of programs
presents a huge problem for children who are 2E or difficult to test
for some other reason. My 8 year old son may appear to be "just MG"
due to his 47 point VIQ > PIQ, or even worse on the SB 5, having lost
10 points off his VIQ. Certainly that's how his school district sees
it. What I see as his mother (and as someone who took the SB L-M back
when and also hit hard, hard, hard ceilings) is a kid who could read
fluently and do upper elementary math before he asked his first
question and who pulled himself back from the brink of a diagnosis of
moderate-to-severe autism (39 on the CARS) by sheer will. Tonight, in
under 10 minutes, he derived a perfectly workable solution to Leibnitz'
silver mine water pump problem, with no help from me. Since it's
spring break, he also wrote a beautiful fable and translated 10 lines
of Beowulf today. The last thing he needs is to be "babysat", and
no,
his needs are NOT met in his existing classroom. Look at his scores,
though, and he is MG at best. He is actually an ideal candidate for
getting one of those heart-stopping scores on the SB L-M, but I have a
real problem with that test. When I hear someone described as PG, all
that tells me is what test they took. It doesn't tell me who is going
to "drag them down", based on the scores from some other test. So
I
guess I don't have a problem with exclusionary gifted programs (given
the premise that all children's needs are met somewhere), just who is
excluded and based on what. If it's all about the amazing SB L-M, I
will admit to being mildly disgusted. I know I'm not alone on this.
Karen
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 19:51:45 -0800 (PST)
From: Laurie Jensen <lauriej49@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: ASAT -- WJ-III
To: OURGIFTED-L@neiu.edu
Cc: Sally_L@comcast.net
Message-id: <20040323035145.36223.qmail@web20212.mail.yahoo.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-473711565-1080013905=:35941"
--0-473711565-1080013905=:35941
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Try this page - http://alpha.fdu.edu/psychology/woodcock_index.htm
Kathi Kearney <kkearney@ttlc.net> wrote:Laurie wrote:
<<<<The WJ-III tests have weighted scores. All subtests are not
counted
equally! Some tests weigh more heavily at certain ages, and some develop more
quickly at different ages. Unfortunately, it's all hidden in the scoring
software. The Willis/Dumont website addresses this - somewhere! >>>>
Thanks Laurie! yes, this info is on a table on the Willis-Dumont website, but
I've misplaced the address. . . can anyone find that please, and send it to
Sally, and she will get it posted along with all the other articles and
resources that have come up during this conference?
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
--0-473711565-1080013905=:35941
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
<DIV>Try this page - <A
href="http://alpha.fdu.edu/psychology/woodcock_index.htm">http://alpha.fdu.edu/p
sychology/woodcock_index.htm</A><BR><BR><B><I>Kathi
Kearney
<kkearney@ttlc.net></I></B> wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE class=replbq style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px;
BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid">Laurie wrote:<BR><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE><<<<The WJ-III tests have weighted
scores. All
subtests are not counted equally! Some tests weigh more heavily at
certain
ages, and some develop more quickly at different ages. Unfortunately,
it's
all hidden in the scoring software. The Willis/Dumont website addresses
this - somewhere! >>>><BR><BR>Thanks
Laurie! yes, this info is
on a table on the Willis-Dumont website, but I've misplaced the address. . .
can
anyone find that please, and send it to Sally, and she will get it posted along
with all the other articles and resources that have come up during this
conference?</BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV><p><hr
SIZE=1>
Do you Yahoo!?<br>
<a href="http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree">Protect your
identity with
Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard</a>
--0-473711565-1080013905=:35941--
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 23:00:39 -0500 (EST)
From: RDlouruf@cs.com
Subject: Re: knowing the Levels of Giftedness on the SB5
To: OURGIFTED-L@neiu.edu
Message-id: <128.3d697577.2d911067@cs.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: multipart/alternative;
boundary=part1_128.3d697577.2d911067_boundary
--part1_128.3d697577.2d911067_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In a message dated 3/22/04 8:29:22 PM Central Standard Time,
slypigs@tampabay.rr.com writes:
> "But then, I also know what the scores mean and don't have trouble
> understanding which scores mean moderately gifted, highly gifted,
exceptionally or
> profoundly gifted on the SB5:-)."
>
> Do you mind sharing that?
>
The scores must also be supported by the onset of certain developmental
milestones and a number of other behaviors, but essentially, I'm starting to
use
a
"labeling system" that doesn't rely on scores due to the fact that
all the
tests give different score ranges. I have Five Levels of Giftedness and on the
SB5, it pretty much starts in the upper 1-teens, like a 118 or so and is
typified by someone who is clearly brighter and ahead of typical classmates
in a
mixed-ability classroom. I call the children who are pretty much reading and
know most 1st grade material before they start kindergarten as Level Two and
who
score above about 125 to 130. These all must overlap due to different subtest
scores, strengths and weaknesses, etc. Sometimes I just pay attention to
just the Verbal or Nonverbal IQ, for example - it is the way the child thinks,
what she thinks about or can do. Level Three starts in the lower 130s on the
SB5 and goes past 136 or so. These are the kids we used to call highly gifted.
They are the kids who start to push the limits of the gifted program and who
have a lot of trouble adapting to school without help and flexibility. Kids
who score at the top of the 130s and the low 140s are Level Four and need big
accommodations, especially in the early years. There starts to be a lot of
overlap between the scores and the behaviors of the higher Level Fours and
possible
Level Fives. Their scores are all in the low 140s to 148 or so range, and it
really depends a lot upon behaviors, interests, and early milestones as well
as the balance of the Verbal and nonverbal and subtest scores how I decide.
The main issue is that they will probably never find what they need in regular
schools even with multiple grade skips if they are the Level Fives. Level
Fours are usually not equally high in everything the way Level Fives are. I'm
thinking and hoping that this continuum of descriptions will be easier to
understand for people than figuring out the semantics of exceptionally,
profoundly,
highly and so on. It also makes it possible to incorporate many different
kinds of scores. You see the old SBLM did actually give a great many "too
high"
scores for kids who were in the 6-7 age range when they took it. Many of them
were great conceptual thinkers and due to the items on the test in the
earlier age levels, they didn't get adequately tested on their weaknesses -
like
quantitative reasoning. I've found most of the kids who were called PG and then
didn't seem to follow through with the same intensity and level of interest
in
everything were kids who were tested at that age. Not everyone's score was
artificially high, though, who was tested at that age.
That's enough for now.
Deborah
--part1_128.3d697577.2d911067_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<HTML><FONT FACE=3Darial,helvetica><HTML><FONT COLOR=3D"#008080"
SIZE=3D2 P=
TSIZE=3D10 FAMILY=3D"SANSSERIF" FACE=3D"Tahoma" LANG=3D"0">In
a message date=
d 3/22/04 8:29:22 PM Central Standard Time, slypigs@tampabay.rr.com writes:=20=
</FONT><FONT COLOR=3D"#000000" BACK=3D"#ffffff"
style=3D"BACKGROUND-COLOR:=20=
#ffffff" SIZE=3D2 PTSIZE=3D10 FAMILY=3D"SANSSERIF" FACE=3D"Arial"
LANG=3D"0"=
><BR>
</FONT><FONT COLOR=3D"#008080" BACK=3D"#ffffff"
style=3D"BACKGROUND-COLOR:=20=
#ffffff" SIZE=3D2 PTSIZE=3D10 FAMILY=3D"SANSSERIF" FACE=3D"Tahoma"
LANG=3D"0=
"><BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=3DCITE style=3D"BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px
solid; MARGIN-LE=
FT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">"But then, I also
know what t=
he scores mean and don't have trouble understanding which scores mean modera=
tely gifted, highly gifted, exceptionally or profoundly gifted on the SB5:-)=
." </FONT><FONT COLOR=3D"#000000" BACK=3D"#ffffff"
style=3D"BACKGROUND-COLO=
R: #ffffff" SIZE=3D3 PTSIZE=3D12 FAMILY=3D"SANSSERIF" FACE=3D"Tahoma"
LANG=
=3D"0"><BR>
<BR>
</FONT><FONT COLOR=3D"#000000" BACK=3D"#ffffff"
style=3D"BACKGROUND-COLOR:=
#ffffff" SIZE=3D2 PTSIZE=3D10 FAMILY=3D"SANSSERIF" FACE=3D"Tahoma"
LANG=3D"=
0">Do you mind sharing that?</FONT><FONT COLOR=3D"#008080"
BACK=3D"#ffffff"=
style=3D"BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" SIZE=3D2 PTSIZE=3D10 FAMILY=3D"SANSSERI=
F" FACE=3D"Tahoma" LANG=3D"0"> <BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE><BR>
The scores must also be supported by the onset of certain developmental mile=
stones and a number of other behaviors, but essentially, I'm starting to use=
a "labeling system" that doesn't rely on scores due to the fact that
all th=
e tests give different score ranges. I have Five Levels of Giftedness=20=
and on the SB5, it pretty much starts in the upper 1-teens, like a 118 or so=
and is typified by someone who is clearly brighter and ahead of typical cla=
ssmates in a mixed-ability classroom. I call the children who are
pret=
ty much reading and know most 1st grade material before they start kindergar=
ten as Level Two and who score above about 125 to 130. These all must=20=
overlap due to different subtest scores, strengths and weaknesses, etc. =
; Sometimes I just pay attention to just the Verbal or Nonverbal IQ, for exa=
mple - it is the way the child thinks, what she thinks about or can do. =
; Level Three starts in the lower 130s on the SB5 and goes past 136 or so.&n=
bsp; These are the kids we used to call highly gifted. They are the
ki=
ds who start to push the limits of the gifted program and who have a lot of=20=
trouble adapting to school without help and flexibility. Kids who score at t=
he top of the 130s and the low 140s are Level Four and need big accommodatio=
ns, especially in the early years. There starts to be a lot of overlap betwe=
en the scores and the behaviors of the higher Level Fours and possible Level=
Fives. Their scores are all in the low 140s to 148 or so range, and
i=
t really depends a lot upon behaviors, interests, and early milestones as we=
ll as the balance of the Verbal and nonverbal and subtest scores how I decid=
e. The main issue is that they will probably never find what they
need=
in regular schools even with multiple grade skips if they are the Level Fiv=
es. Level Fours are usually not equally high in everything the way
Lev=
el Fives are. I'm thinking and hoping that this continuum of descripti=
ons will be easier to understand for people than figuring out the semantics=20=
of exceptionally, profoundly, highly and so on. It also makes it possi=
ble to incorporate many different kinds of scores. You see the old
SBL=
M did actually give a great many "too high" scores for kids who were
in the=20=
6-7 age range when they took it. Many of them were great conceptual
th=
inkers and due to the items on the test in the earlier age levels, they didn=
't get adequately tested on their weaknesses - like quantitative reasoning.&=
nbsp; I've found most of the kids who were called PG and then didn't seem to=
follow through with the same intensity and level of interest in everything=20=
were kids who were tested at that age. Not everyone's score was artifi=
cially high, though, who was tested at that age.<BR>
That's enough for
now.<BR>
Deborah</FONT></HTML>
--part1_128.3d697577.2d911067_boundary--
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 23:15:37 -0500
From: "Carolyn & Mark K." <carolyn@thehoagies.com>
Subject: RE: Freedom from Distractibility Index
To: OURGIFTED-L@neiu.edu
Message-id: <001a01c4108d$86971d20$6400a8c0@coatsv01.pa.comcast.net>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
And for a bit more current data, same results, almost the same order (I have
the last two reversed)...
http://www.hoagiesgifted.org/wisc_vs_sb_l-m.htm
Carolyn K. carolyn{at}thehoagies.com
Hoagies' Kids and Teens Page http://www.hoagieskids.org
Hoagies' Gifted Education Page http://www.hoagiesgifted.org
-----Original Message-----
Tracking all the way back to research published in an article by Gallagher
in the early 1960s (then he was a young whipper-snapper, now he's an elder
statesman in gifted education and a former NAGC president!) and all the way
up to the present day, the subtests on the WISC that are repeatedly reported
to be most often at the ceiling level in gifted children seem to be:
Vocabulary
Information
Similarities
Comprehension
Block Design
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 20:18:19 -0800 (PST)
From: Laurie Jensen <lauriej49@yahoo.com>
Subject: RE: ASAT -- CHC theory
To: OURGIFTED-L@neiu.edu
Message-id: <20040323041819.13744.qmail@web20204.mail.yahoo.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-1531077920-1080015499=:13259"
--0-1531077920-1080015499=:13259
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Do you know about the IAPCHC website and listserv? Here is a link to the
listserv:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/IAPCHC/
- Laurie
Aimee Yermish <ayermish@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
Having a great fund of factual knowledge is certainly of tremendous use
(I'm in favor of CHC theory too), particularly in the content-based
curriculum areas (usually literature, social studies, and science), but
I wouldn't consider it crystallized intelligence if the kids don't have
any idea of what they're saying. In other words, I'm *not* equating
having a high Gc with being a trained seal -- far from it (I'm actually
in awe of anyone who can memorize lots of facts, because this is one of
my personal weak areas). I was using the term to refer to the kids
we've all seen who are the source of the popular misconception that,
"Gifted kids aren't any different from anyone else, they just have pushy
parents." If you can recite, "A squared plus b squared equals c
squared," and know that this statement is called the Pythagorean
theorem, but you aren't able to successfully label a, b, and c on a
right triangle, much less know anything about what this might be used
for, or how to square a number, you're not really doing a whole heck of
a lot better than a kid who can't recite it. I've seen both kinds of
"overachieving" kids -- both the trained seals and the truly gifted
kids
(including those whose gifts appear more in the realm of crystallized
intelligence) who are not having their intelligence measured accurately.
-- Aimee Yermish
da Vinci Learning Center
aimee@davincilearning.org
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time.
--0-1531077920-1080015499=:13259
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
<DIV>Do you know about the IAPCHC website and listserv? Here
is a link to
the listserv:</DIV>
<DIV><A
href="http://groups.yahoo.com/group/IAPCHC/">http://groups.yahoo.com/group/IAPCH
C/</A></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>- Laurie<BR><BR><B><I>Aimee Yermish <ayermish@alum.mit.edu></I></B>
wrote:</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=replbq style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px;
BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid"><BR><BR><BR>Having
a great fund of factual
knowledge is certainly of tremendous use<BR>(I'm in favor of CHC theory
too),
particularly in the content-based<BR>curriculum areas (usually literature,
social studies, and science), but<BR>I wouldn't consider it crystallized
intelligence if the kids don't have<BR>any idea of what they're saying.
In other
words, I'm *not* equating<BR>having a high Gc with being a trained seal
-- far
from it (I'm actually<BR>in awe of anyone who can memorize lots of facts,
because this is one of<BR>my personal weak areas). I was using the term
to refer
to the kids<BR>we've all seen who are the source of the popular misconception
that,<BR>"Gifted kids aren't any different from anyone else, they
just have
pushy<BR>parents." If you can recite, "A squared plus b squared
equals
c<BR>squared," and know that this statement is called the Pythagorean<BR>theorem
, but
you aren't able to successfully label a, b, and c on a<BR>right triangle,
much
less know anything about what this might be used<BR>for, or how to square
a
number, you're not really doing a whole heck of<BR>a lot better than a
kid who
can't recite it. I've seen both kinds of<BR>"overachieving"
kids -- both the
trained seals and the truly gifted kids<BR>(including those whose gifts
appear
more in the realm of crystallized<BR>intelligence) who are not having
their
intelligence measured accurately.<BR><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR>--
Aimee Yermish<BR>da
Vinci Learning Center<BR>aimee@davincilearning.org<BR><BR></BLOCKQUOTE><p><font
face=arial size=-1>Do you Yahoo!?<br>
<a href="http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html"><b>Yahoo!
Finance Tax
Center</a></b> - File online. File on time.
--0-1531077920-1080015499=:13259--
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 23:21:53 -0500
From: "Carolyn & Mark K." <carolyn@thehoagies.com>
Subject: RE: knowing the Levels of Giftedness on the SB5
To: OURGIFTED-L@neiu.edu
Message-id: <001f01c4108e$5f1f3e20$6400a8c0@coatsv01.pa.comcast.net>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0020_01C41064.76493620"
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_0020_01C41064.76493620
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Please add yourself, Deborah, to my earlier list of folks that I sincerely
thank for the information added to this conference!
Carolyn K. carolyn{at}thehoagies.com
Hoagies' Kids and Teens Page http://www.hoagieskids.org
Hoagies' Gifted Education Page http://www.hoagiesgifted.org
------=_NextPart_000_0020_01C41064.76493620
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV=3D"Content-Type" CONTENT=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Dus-ascii">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2800.1400" name=3DGENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D420072104-23032004><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff
=
size=3D2>Please=20
add yourself, Deborah, to my earlier list of folks that I sincerely =
thank for=20
the information added to this conference!</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<P><FONT size=3D2>Carolyn K. =20
carolyn{at}thehoagies.com<BR>Hoagies' Kids and Teens=20
Page <A href=3D"http://www.hoagieskids.org/"=20
target=3D_blank>http://www.hoagieskids.org</A><BR>Hoagies' Gifted
=
Education=20
Page <A href=3D"http://www.hoagiesgifted.org/"=20
target=3D_blank>http://www.hoagiesgifted.org</A><BR></FONT></P></BODY></H=
TML>
------=_NextPart_000_0020_01C41064.76493620--
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 23:35:34 -0700
From: Kathi Kearney <kkearney@ttlc.net>
Subject: Re: WJ-III fluency subtests (was: our lessons from testing)
To: OURGIFTED-L@neiu.edu
Message-id: <BC8528C6.C659%kkearney@ttlc.net>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: multipart/alternative;
boundary=MS_Mac_OE_3162843334_719612_MIME_Part
> This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.
--MS_Mac_OE_3162843334_719612_MIME_Part
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Laurie wrote:
<<<A child whose fluency rates are out of sync with application scores
are
going to be mighty frustrated, in part because the skills haven't become
automatic. If Reading Fluency is low, the child is apt to be stuck at the
decoding word-by-word (or even sound-by-sound) stage, and can't get the
meaning quickly. It will also take him much longer to complete reading
assignments than it does his peers. If Math Fluency is weak, the facts
aren't automatic, and he will have to spend time on math computation (if not
using a calculator), rather than on math reasoning. If writing fluency is
weak, he either has difficulty with sentence construction (grammar and
syntax) or his handwriting skills aren't automatic, and therefore are
labored. Fluency weaknesses do indeed cause insanity in school!>>>>
With gifted kids, Laurie, there may be some other explanations for this.
The fine motor skills of gifted children, required for all three fluency
subtests on the WJ-III, are likely to be much closer to their chronological
age, while their actual reading and math abilities may be much higher.
Both the reading fluency and math fluency subtests also seem to require good
visual tracking . If there's any kind of a subtle vision tracking problem
going on, it may possibly be a problem here.
Finally, the penchant of gifted children for complex thinking may work
against them on the fluency subtests.
--MS_Mac_OE_3162843334_719612_MIME_Part
Content-type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE>Re: WJ-III fluency subtests (was: our lessons from testing)</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<BLOCKQUOTE>Laurie wrote:<BR>
<BR>
<<<A child whose fluency rates are out of sync with application
sc=
ores are going to be mighty frustrated, in part because the skills haven't b=
ecome automatic. If Reading Fluency is low, the child is apt to be
stu=
ck at the decoding word-by-word (or even sound-by-sound) stage, and can't ge=
t the meaning quickly. It will also take him much longer to complete
r=
eading assignments than it does his peers. If Math Fluency is weak,
th=
e facts aren't automatic, and he will have to spend time on math computation=
(if not using a calculator), rather than on math reasoning. If writin=
g fluency is weak, he either has difficulty with sentence construction (gram=
mar and syntax) or his handwriting skills aren't automatic, and therefore ar=
e labored. Fluency weaknesses do indeed cause insanity in school!>&=
gt;>><BR>
<BR>
With gifted kids, Laurie, there may be some other explanations for this. <B=
R>
<BR>
The fine motor skills of gifted children, required for all three fluency su=
btests on the WJ-III, are likely to be much closer to their chronological ag=
e, while their actual reading and math abilities may be much higher. <BR>
<BR>
Both the reading fluency and math fluency subtests also seem to require goo=
d visual tracking . If there's any kind of a subtle vision tracking problem
=
going on, it may possibly be a problem here.<BR>
<BR>
Finally, the penchant of gifted children for complex thinking may work agai=
nst them on the fluency subtests. </BLOCKQUOTE>
</BODY>
</HTML>
--MS_Mac_OE_3162843334_719612_MIME_Part--
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 05:04:25 +0000
From: Sally_L@comcast.net
Subject: ASAT: ADMIN - Schedule to finalize ASAT conference
To: OURGIFTED-L@neiu.edu
Message-id: <032320040504.20259.10f8@comcast.net>
Dear List Members,
The closing statements from Bobbie and Kathi will be posted tomorrow - Tuesday,
March 22nd.
While we were enjoying just chatting among ourselves emailing each other:)
Kathi
arrived home to a full inbox. I share with you Kathi's words:
Um. All the rest of the posts from last night from those of you who were
still awake, while the east coast of the U. S. is asleep, and all those
"just chatting among ourselves" e-mails mentioned by Sally above,
coupled
with the general daily influx of e-mails into my in-box, meant that I came
home from work at 7:30 tonight to 176 e-mails and still have 120 to go!
I do want to read most of what's been written on the conference in the last
24 hours before I post my closing statement. . .so. . .if you don't mind if
I read awhile longer, then get some sleep, you may receive my closing
statement tomorrow afternoon.
In addition, I would like to post the following words from Bobbie:
Thank you, Sally, for your endless efforts! As my eyelids are closing
and consultations with parents tomorrow await, I will be signing off.
To all my fellow participants, thank you for a fascinating conference
experience. I love working with your children, but it was great having
a weekend withthe parents. Best wishes in all of your efforts to
support your children. They need you.
Sincerely.
Bobbie Gilman
Therefore, here is the adjusted schedule and instructions to the list members
so
we can finalize this wonderful conference on Assessment and Testing
1. Please NO more questions to the guest experts or chatting among the list
members. I will only post any replies from Kathi and/or Bobbie tomorrow from
the
posts which currently exist and are received at this point in time;)
2. On March 22nd, Tuesday - USA time and approximately in the afternoon US
East
coast time I will post the Closing from our guest experts Bobbie Gilman and
Kathi Kearney.
3. Any online thanks received from list members for our guest experts and others
will also be posted tomorrow.
Three Simple instructions:)
As conference coordinator, I am signing off for the day.
Kindest regards,
Sally_L
Conference Coordinator
List Manager
www.neiu.edu/~ourgift
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 20:49:31 -0800 (PST)
From: Laurie Jensen <lauriej49@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: WJ-III fluency subtests (was: our lessons from testing)
To: OURGIFTED-L@neiu.edu
Message-id: <20040323044931.42317.qmail@web20202.mail.yahoo.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-98459521-1080017371=:39855"
--0-98459521-1080017371=:39855
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Thanks, Kathi, for the gifted side of this. Would you say that fluency is more
developmental in nature than other academic skills? I would expect handwriting
to be slow in the early grades, in line with that of peers. But reading
fluency? Since I'm not used to giving academic tests to gifted children, I
don't have a large repertoire of experience to draw from.
Actually, the whole area of vision therapy is new to me since meeting Linda
Silverman at the NE Gifted Conference last fall. I had mentioned to her that
many, many gifted kids I assess with the WISC-III (at the time) had
significantly lower scores on Picture Completion and Object Assembly. She then
sent me her article on vision difficulties. By the same token, however, I'd
found on my limited testing of retarded and slow learners that they obtained
relatively high scores on Object Assembly and Picture Completion.
I had a problem with the theory of vision difficulties because of that
observation. This is a whole new area for me, and I have to read up on COVD.
Thanks again - are we on Australian time, or what?
- Laurie
Kathi Kearney <kkearney@ttlc.net> wrote:
Laurie wrote:
<<<A child whose fluency rates are out of sync with application scores
are going
to be mighty frustrated, in part because the skills haven't become automatic.
If Reading Fluency is low, the child is apt to be stuck at the decoding
word-by-word (or even sound-by-sound) stage, and can't get the meaning quickly.
It will also take him much longer to complete reading assignments than it does
his peers. If Math Fluency is weak, the facts aren't automatic, and he will
have to spend time on math computation (if not using a calculator), rather than
on math reasoning. If writing fluency is weak, he either has difficulty with
sentence construction (grammar and syntax) or his handwriting skills aren't
automatic, and therefore are labored. Fluency weaknesses do indeed cause
insanity in school!>>>>
With gifted kids, Laurie, there may be some other explanations for this.
The fine motor skills of gifted children, required for all three fluency
subtests on the WJ-III, are likely to be much closer to their chronological
age,
while their actual reading and math abilities may be much higher.
Both the reading fluency and math fluency subtests also seem to require good
visual tracking . If there's any kind of a subtle vision tracking problem going
on, it may possibly be a problem here.
Finally, the penchant of gifted children for complex thinking may work against
them on the fluency subtests.
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time.
--0-98459521-1080017371=:39855
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
<DIV>Thanks, Kathi, for the gifted side of this. Would you
say that
fluency is more developmental in nature than other academic skills?
I
would expect handwriting to be slow in the early grades, in line with that of
peers. But reading fluency? Since I'm not used to giving
academic
tests to gifted children, I don't have a large repertoire of experience to draw
from. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Actually, the whole area of vision therapy is new to me since meeting
Linda
Silverman at the NE Gifted Conference last fall. I had mentioned to
her
that many, many gifted kids I assess with the WISC-III (at the time) had
significantly lower scores on Picture Completion and Object Assembly.
She
then sent me her article on vision difficulties. By the same token,
however, I'd found on my limited testing of retarded and slow learners that
they
obtained relatively high scores on Object Assembly and Picture Completion.
</DIV>
<DIV>I had a problem with the theory of vision difficulties because of
that
observation. This is a whole new area for me, and I have to read up
on
COVD.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Thanks again - are we on Australian time, or what?</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>- Laurie<BR><BR><B><I>Kathi Kearney <kkearney@ttlc.net></I></B>
wrote:</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=replbq style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px;
BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid">
<BLOCKQUOTE>Laurie wrote:<BR><BR><<<A
child whose fluency rates are out
of sync with application scores are going to be mighty frustrated, in part
because the skills haven't become automatic. If Reading Fluency is
low,
the child is apt to be stuck at the decoding word-by-word (or even
sound-by-sound) stage, and can't get the meaning quickly. It will
also
take him much longer to complete reading assignments than it does his peers.
If Math Fluency is weak, the facts aren't automatic, and he will have
to
spend time on math computation (if not using a calculator), rather than on math
reasoning. If writing fluency is weak, he either has difficulty with
sentence construction (grammar and syntax) or his handwriting skills aren't
automatic, and therefore are labored. Fluency weaknesses do indeed
cause
insanity in school!>>>><BR><BR>With
gifted kids, Laurie, there may
be some other explanations for this. <BR><BR>The fine motor skills
of
gifted children, required for all three fluency subtests on the WJ-III, are
likely to be much closer to their chronological age, while their actual reading
and math abilities may be much higher. <BR><BR>Both the reading
fluency and math
fluency subtests also seem to require good visual tracking . If there's any
kind
of a subtle vision tracking problem going on, it may possibly be a problem
here.<BR><BR>Finally, the penchant of gifted children for complex
thinking may
work against them on the fluency subtests.
</BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE><p><font face=arial
size=-1>Do you Yahoo!?<br>
<a href="http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html"><b>Yahoo!
Finance Tax
Center</a></b> - File online. File on time.
--0-98459521-1080017371=:39855--
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 00:12:52 -0700
From: Kathi Kearney <kkearney@ttlc.net>
Subject: Re: knowing the Levels of Giftedness on the SB5
To: OURGIFTED-L@neiu.edu
Message-id: <BC852FA2.C665%kkearney@ttlc.net>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: multipart/alternative;
boundary=MS_Mac_OE_3162845578_854568_MIME_Part
> This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.
--MS_Mac_OE_3162845578_854568_MIME_Part
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Deborah Ruf wrote:
<<<<<<The scores must also be supported by the onset of certain
developmental milestones and a number of other behaviors, but essentially,
I'm starting to use a "labeling system" that doesn't rely on scores
due to
the fact that all the tests give different score ranges. I have Five Levels
of Giftedness and on the SB5, it pretty much starts in the upper 1-teens,
like a 118 or so and is typified by someone who is clearly brighter and
ahead of typical classmates in a mixed-ability classroom. I call the
children who are pretty much reading and know most 1st grade material before
they start kindergarten as Level Two and who score above about 125 to 130.
These all must overlap due to different subtest scores, strengths and
weaknesses, etc. Sometimes I just pay attention to just the Verbal or
Nonverbal IQ, for example - it is the way the child thinks, what she thinks
about or can do. Level Three starts in the lower 130s on the SB5 and goes
past 136 or so. These are the kids we used to call highly gifted. They are
the kids who start to push the limits of the gifted program and who have a
lot of trouble adapting to school without help and flexibility. Kids who
score at the top of the 130s and the low 140s are Level Four and need big
accommodations, especially in the early years. There starts to be a lot of
overlap between the scores and the behaviors of the higher Level Fours and
possible Level Fives. Their scores are all in the low 140s to 148 or so
range, and it really depends a lot upon behaviors, interests, and early
milestones as well as the balance of the Verbal and nonverbal and subtest
scores how I decide. The main issue is that they will probably never find
what they need in regular schools even with multiple grade skips if they are
the Level Fives. Level Fours are usually not equally high in everything the
way Level Fives are. I'm thinking and hoping that this continuum of
descriptions will be easier to understand for people than figuring out the
semantics of exceptionally, profoundly, highly and so on.>>>>
Deborah and I have talked about a little of this before, but not in anywhere
near this much detail.
But Deborah, this is almost exactly what I am observing as well, when the
developmental and school data is factored in. VERY interesting.
--MS_Mac_OE_3162845578_854568_MIME_Part
Content-type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE>Re: knowing the Levels of Giftedness on the SB5</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
Deborah Ruf wrote:<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE><FONT COLOR=3D"#008080"><FONT SIZE=3D"2"><BR>
</FONT></FONT><BR>
<<<<<<The scores must also be supported
by the onset of c=
ertain developmental milestones and a number of other behaviors, but essenti=
ally, I'm starting to use a "labeling system" that doesn't
rely on=
scores due to the fact that all the tests give different score ranges. &nbs=
p;I have Five Levels of Giftedness and on the SB5, it pretty much starts in
=
the upper 1-teens, like a 118 or so and is typified by someone who is clearl=
y brighter and ahead of typical classmates in a mixed-ability classroom. &nb=
sp;I call the children who are pretty much reading and know most 1st grade m=
aterial before they start kindergarten as Level Two and who score above abou=
t 125 to 130. These all must overlap due to different subtest scores,
=
strengths and weaknesses, etc. Sometimes I just pay attention to just
=
the Verbal or Nonverbal IQ, for example - it is the way the child thinks, wh=
at she thinks about or can do. Level Three starts in the lower 130s
on=
the SB5 and goes past 136 or so. These are the kids we used to call
h=
ighly gifted. They are the kids who start to push the limits of the
gi=
fted program and who have a lot of trouble adapting to school without help a=
nd flexibility. Kids who score at the top of the 130s and the low 140s are L=
evel Four and need big accommodations, especially in the early years. There
=
starts to be a lot of overlap between the scores and the behaviors of the hi=
gher Level Fours and possible Level Fives. Their scores are all in
the=
low 140s to 148 or so range, and it really depends a lot upon behaviors, in=
terests, and early milestones as well as the balance of the Verbal and nonve=
rbal and subtest scores how I decide. The main issue is that they
will=
probably never find what they need in regular schools even with multiple gr=
ade skips if they are the Level Fives. Level Fours are usually not
equ=
ally high in everything the way Level Fives are. I'm thinking and
hopi=
ng that this continuum of descriptions will be easier to understand for peop=
le than figuring out the semantics of exceptionally, profoundly, highly and
=
so on.>>>><BR>
<BR>
Deborah and I have talked about a little of this before, but not in anywher=
e near this much detail.<BR>
<BR>
But Deborah, this is almost exactly what I am observing as well, when the d=
evelopmental and school data is factored in. VERY interesting. </BLOCKQUOTE>
</BODY>
</HTML>
--MS_Mac_OE_3162845578_854568_MIME_Part--
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 00:16:15 -0700
From: Kathi Kearney <kkearney@ttlc.net>
Subject: Re: WJ-III fluency subtests (was: our lessons from testing)
To: OURGIFTED-L@neiu.edu
Message-id: <BC85324E.C66F%kkearney@ttlc.net>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: multipart/alternative;
boundary=MS_Mac_OE_3162845775_866444_MIME_Part
> This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.
--MS_Mac_OE_3162845775_866444_MIME_Part
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Laurie wrote:
<<<Thanks, Kathi, for the gifted side of this. Would you say that
fluency
is more developmental in nature than other academic skills? I would expect
handwriting to be slow in the early grades, in line with that of peers. But
reading fluency? Since I'm not used to giving academic tests to gifted
children, I don't have a large repertoire of experience to draw from. >>>>
The reading fluency subtest requires some fine motor skills (uses a pencil,
speeded test). I've tested some really little gifted kids (K-1) who didn't
even have an age-appropriate pencil grip!
--MS_Mac_OE_3162845775_866444_MIME_Part
Content-type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE>Re: WJ-III fluency subtests (was: our lessons from testing)</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
Laurie wrote:<BR>
<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE><<<Thanks, Kathi, for the gifted side
of this. W=
ould you say that fluency is more developmental in nature than other academi=
c skills? I would expect handwriting to be slow in the early grades,
i=
n line with that of peers. But reading fluency? Since I'm
not us=
ed to giving academic tests to gifted children, I don't have a large reperto=
ire of experience to draw from. >>>><BR>
<BR>
The reading fluency subtest requires some fine motor skills (uses a pencil,=
speeded test). I've tested some really little gifted kids (K-1) who didn't
=
even have an age-appropriate pencil grip! </BLOCKQUOTE>
</BODY>
</HTML>
--MS_Mac_OE_3162845775_866444_MIME_Part--