Untitled Document

From: "Discuss the issues related to growth & development of gifted children" <OURGIFTED-L@neiu.edu> [ Save address ]
To: "Discuss the issues related to growth & development of gifted children" <OURGIFTED-L@neiu.edu>
Subject: OURGIFTED-L digest 119
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 00:01:13 CST
OURGIFTED-L Digest 119

Topics covered in this issue include:

1) RE: ASAT -- how are the tests changing
by Aimee Yermish <ayermish@alum.mit.edu>
2) Hope it's not too late
by =?iso-8859-1?q?Anthony=20Xavier?= <antshe2021@yahoo.co.uk>
3) RE: knowing the Levels of Giftedness on the SB5
by Cheryl Chaffee <cherylchaffee@comcast.net>
4) Re: knowing the Levels of Giftedness on the SB5
by Stephanie Bannon <Stephanie.Bannon@btopenworld.com>
5) Re: ASAT: regression toward the mean
by Andrew_Carson@hmco.com
6) Re: impact of SI, Vision on WISC
by Hilary Nigro <hnigro@mybluelight.com>
7) ASAT: Posted on behalf of Helen
by Sally_L@comcast.net
8) ASAT Thanks and disappointment
by Stephanie Bannon <Stephanie.Bannon@btopenworld.com>
9) ASAT Thanks very much!
by Elan Long <elong@springsmart.com>
10) Thanks to all
by Jenny <jheywood@heywoodengineering.com>
11) RE: ASAT -- how are the tests changing
by Aimee Yermish <ayermish@alum.mit.edu>
12) contact offline aimee
by "Logue, Theodosia Nowell (UMC-Student)" <tnltg2@mizzou.edu>
13) RE: ASAT: SB 4 sub-test question on mathematical ability
by Jerry And Ranae Monsen <jrmonsen@yahoo.com>
14) Re: Thanks to all
by Cheryl White <cherwhit@med.umich.edu>
15) RE: ASAT Thanks and disappointment
by "Carolyn & Mark K." <carolyn@thehoagies.com>
16) Re: ASAT Thanks and disappointment
by Andrew_Carson@hmco.com
17) Re: ASAT Thanks and disappointment
by HSchinske@aol.com
18) ASAT:ADMIN - Information
by Sally_L@comcast.net
19) Re: ASAT Thanks and disappointment
by JeeTed@aol.com
20) Re: ASAT -- how are the tests changing
by Meredith Warshaw <mwarshaw@uniquelygifted.org>
21) Re: ASAT Thanks
by L Dunbar <ldunbar@umich.edu>
22) ASAT: Kathi Kearney's Closing Statement
by Sally_L@comcast.net
23) Re: ASAT -- Tracy - Please Contact me, but offlist
by Sally_L@comcast.net
24) ASAT: Barbara J. Gilman's Closing Statement
by Sally_L@comcast.net
25) ASAT: ADMIN - Closing - Assessment and Testing: What about the SB5,
WISC-IV, and Other Tests?
by Sally_L@comcast.net
26) Re: ASAT Thanks and disappointment
by Meredith Warshaw <mwarshaw@uniquelygifted.org>
27) ADMIN: Notice - Conference is Closed and the list is no longer
moderated
by Sally_L@comcast.net
28) ADMIN: The Opening Statement, Closing Statements , Digests,
& Compiled Resource Lists,
by Sally_L@comcast.net
29) Re: ASAT Thanks
by Meredith Warshaw <mwarshaw@uniquelygifted.org>

Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 05:51:11 -0500
From: Aimee Yermish <ayermish@alum.mit.edu>
Subject: RE: ASAT -- how are the tests changing
To: OURGIFTED-L@neiu.edu
Message-id: <00e601c410c4$c4ab4690$6601a8c0@TESLA>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit

Brenda <Cyberbren@aol.com> writes:

> My problem is that I feel that many students are
> inappropriately kept OUT of exclusionary gifted
> programs, because of the flawed testing.

and Karen Boutilier [karenboutilier@mchsi.com] speaks eloquently about
the problems in identifying twice-exceptional kids.

mainly on observations by general teachers and subject specialists,
parent nomination, child interest, etc (in point of fact, what had
happened in this specific situation was that both of the lower school
math specialists admitted that they were unable to provide these
children with what they needed -- both were extremely good at enrichment
and acceleration in the realm of elementary mathematics, but neither had
the requisite background in higher mathematics to think the way these
kids thought). I taught in the private schools (the particular incident
I described occurred at Nueva, where most of the faculty are *very*
well-informed about twice-exceptional kids, by the way), so we had a lot
more options. And even there, at a school for the gifted, the PG kids
were persistently unable to get served because of the pressure to avoid
"exclusionary" practices *and* the pressure to avoid "making the other
kids feel bad" (which translates into "don't differentiate in the

regular classroom, either"). I fought to get the middle school program
to be heterogenously grouped one year (again, on the basis of a
broad-based consideration of the needs of individual students rather
than upon any one standardized measure), the grouping was successful
(the more highly mathematically gifted kids were getting the more
accelerated and rigorous version that fit their needs, while the kids
who were average (whose gifts were in other areas) were getting a
supportive and nonintimidating classroom -- everyone was learning
algebra earlier and in more depth than they would have in the public
schools), but the next year, when the student body had grown to the
point where I was teaching science only, the math differentiation was
eliminated (the cohort of kids who had been differentiated stayed that
way (with the exception of one twice-exceptional kid from the lower
group who had realized that she *wasn't* dumb at math and had gained

sufficient skills and confidence to move *up* and be successful in the
higher group (I would have been less able to provide the support *she*
needed in a nondifferentiated classroom, too, by the way, and she would
have continued to be intimidated by the mathematically gifted kids)),
but the younger kids coming up were not).

-- Aimee Yermish
da Vinci Learning Center
aimee@davincilearning.org

Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 13:48:40 +0000 (GMT)
From: =?iso-8859-1?q?Anthony=20Xavier?= <antshe2021@yahoo.co.uk>
Subject: Hope it's not too late
To: OURGIFTED-L@neiu.edu
Message-id: <20040323134840.28113.qmail@web25204.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-1614218252-1080049720=:27719"
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit

--0-1614218252-1080049720=:27719
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Hi,

I'm not sure if it's too late to post this question. My six year old daugher
score were : Raw Scored 62 and Scaled score were 17 for the subtest on coding.
According to the psychologist this to an ability of a 14 year old. I just can't
believe this. She just turned 7 how is it possible that she can be this
advanced in the subtest. He also said that she finished all the questions for
this within 2 minutes where most people would not be able to do so.

I'm confused, please could someone share your views on this.

Sheila
Malaysia

Sally_L@comcast.net wrote:
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

---------------------------------
Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping" your friends today! Download
Messenger Now
--0-1614218252-1080049720=:27719
Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

<DIV>Hi,</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I'm not sure if it's too late to post this question.  My six year old
daugher score were : Raw Scored 62 and Scaled score were 17 for the subtest on
coding.  According to the psychologist this to an ability of a 14 year
old.  I just can't believe this.  She just turned 7 how is it possible
that she can be this advanced in the subtest.  He also said that she
finished all the  questions for this within 2 minutes where most people
would not be able to do so.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I'm confused, please could someone share your views on this.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Sheila</DIV>
<DIV>Malaysia</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><BR><BR><B><I>Sally_L@comcast.net</I></B> wrote:</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=replbq style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px;
BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid">Hi List Members,<BR><BR>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:)<BR><BR>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.<BR><BR>Again thanks to all of
being patience with our fried brains and inability to process everything and
wrap up last night. LOL<BR><BR>Well, it didn't help to have an uncooperative
server being down at the beginning. LOL<BR><BR>Please feel free to continue to
post thanks and exchange emails among yourselves.<BR><BR>Again no further posts
directed to our guest experts:)<BR><BR>I will try to check the list on and off
through the day to send your posts through.<BR><BR>Kind
regards,<BR>Sally_L<BR></BLOCKQUOTE><p>
<hr size=1><font face="Arial" size="2"> <a
href="http://uk.rd.yahoo.com/mail/tagline_messenger/*http://uk.messenger.yahoo.c
om"><b>
Yahoo! Messenger</b></a> - Communicate instantly..."Ping" your friends
today! <a
href="http://uk.rd.yahoo.com/mail/tagline_messenger/*http://uk.messenger.yahoo.c
om/download/index.html"><strong>Download Messenger Now</strong></a></font>
--0-1614218252-1080049720=:27719--

Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 08:50:51 -0500
From: Cheryl Chaffee <cherylchaffee@comcast.net>
Subject: RE: knowing the Levels of Giftedness on the SB5
To: OURGIFTED-L@neiu.edu
Message-id: <KIEDKMEEJCGKJAJBJOBOCEOECKAA.cherylchaffee@comcast.net>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0031_01C410B3.F1E120F0"

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_0031_01C410B3.F1E120F0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Deborah,

I notice from your email address that you may be from FL. May I contact you
offline? I am in FL as well, and am looking for answers for my 10yo DS.

Thank you,
Cheryl in FL
cherylchaffee@comcast.net
-----Original Message-----

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:-)."

---
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

------=_NextPart_000_0031_01C410B3.F1E120F0
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="Windows-1252"
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=3Dwindows-1252">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2800.1226" name=3DGENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D778324813-23032004><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =

size=3D2>Deborah,</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D778324813-23032004><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =

size=3D2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D778324813-23032004><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =
size=3D2>I=20

notice from your email address that you may be from FL.  May I =
contact you=20
offline?  I am in FL as well, and am looking for answers for my =
10yo=20
DS.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D778324813-23032004><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =

size=3D2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D778324813-23032004><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =
size=3D2>Thank=20
you,</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D778324813-23032004><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =
size=3D2>Cheryl=20
in FL</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D778324813-23032004><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =
size=3D2><A=20
href=3D"mailto:cherylchaffee@comcast.net">cherylchaffee@comcast.net</A></=
FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE=20
style=3D"PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px =
solid">
<DIV class=3DOutlookMessageHeader dir=3Dltr align=3Dleft><FONT =
face=3DTahoma=20
size=3D2>-----Original Message-----<BR><BR></FONT></DIV><FONT=20

face=3Darial,helvetica><FONT lang=3D0 face=3DTahoma color=3D#008080 =
size=3D2=20
FAMILY=3D"SANSSERIF" PTSIZE=3D"10">In a message dated 3/22/04 8:29:22 =
PM Central=20
Standard Time, slypigs@tampabay.rr.com writes: </FONT><FONT lang=3D0=20
style=3D"BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" face=3DArial color=3D#000000 =
size=3D2=20
FAMILY=3D"SANSSERIF" PTSIZE=3D"10" BACK=3D"#ffffff"><BR></FONT><FONT =
lang=3D0=20
style=3D"BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" face=3DTahoma color=3D#008080 =
size=3D2=20
FAMILY=3D"SANSSERIF" PTSIZE=3D"10" BACK=3D"#ffffff">
<BLOCKQUOTE=20
style=3D"PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px =
solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"=20
TYPE=3D"CITE">"But then, I also know what the scores mean and don't =
have=20
trouble understanding which scores mean moderately gifted, highly =
gifted,=20
exceptionally or profoundly gifted on the SB5:-)." </FONT><FONT =
lang=3D0=20
style=3D"BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" face=3DTahoma color=3D#000000 =
size=3D3=20

FAMILY=3D"SANSSERIF" PTSIZE=3D"12"=20
BACK=3D"#ffffff"><BR></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTM=
L>

------=_NextPart_000_0031_01C410B3.F1E120F0--

Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 14:50:07 +0000
From: Stephanie Bannon <Stephanie.Bannon@btopenworld.com>
Subject: Re: knowing the Levels of Giftedness on the SB5
To: OURGIFTED-L@neiu.edu
Message-id: <034d01c410e6$22c3db40$0100a8c0@athlon>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="----=_NextPart_000_034A_01C410E6.221C0280"

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_034A_01C410E6.221C0280
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

So, anyone who has a child tested as PG by the GDC at age 6/7 should =
question the assessment results? And a 'great conceptual thinker' cannot =
be PG without quantitative reasoning to go with it?
What do you mean by "didn't seem to follow through with the same =
intensity and interest in everything"? How would you differentiate this =
from the effect on PG children of unremediated/undiagnosed LDs and/or =
inappropriate education?=20

For that matter, how do you disentangle 2E PG children from those with =
weaknesses which make them not PG in the SB5 assessment process you =
described?

Confused, and looking forward to clarification!

With thanks
Stephanie

Deborah Ruf wrote <snipped>
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.

------=_NextPart_000_034A_01C410E6.221C0280
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>So, anyone who has a child tested as PG =
by the GDC=20
at age 6/7 should question the assessment results? And a 'great =
conceptual=20
thinker' cannot be PG without quantitative reasoning to go with =
it?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>What do you mean by "didn't seem to =
follow through=20
with the same intensity and interest in everything"? How would you =
differentiate=20
this from the effect on PG children of unremediated/undiagnosed=20
LDs and/or inappropriate education? </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>For that matter, how do you disentangle =
2E PG=20
children from those with weaknesses which make them not PG in =
the SB5=20
assessment process you described?</FONT></DIV>

<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Confused, and looking forward to=20
clarification!</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>With thanks</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Stephanie</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Deborah Ruf wrote =
<snipped></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3Darial,helvetica><FONT lang=3D0 =
style=3D"BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff"=20
face=3DTahoma color=3D#008080 size=3D2 FAMILY=3D"SANSSERIF" =
PTSIZE=3D"10"=20
BACK=3D"#ffffff">  You see the old SBLM did actually give a great =
many "too=20
high" scores for kids who were in the 6-7 age range when they took =
it. =20
Many of them were great conceptual thinkers and due to the items on the =
test in=20

the earlier age levels, they didn't get adequately tested on their =
weaknesses -=20
like quantitative reasoning.  I've found most of the kids who were =
called=20
PG and then didn't seem to follow through with the same intensity and =
level of=20
interest in everything were kids who were tested at that=20
age.</FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#008080 =
size=3D2></FONT> </DIV></BODY></HTML>

------=_NextPart_000_034A_01C410E6.221C0280--

Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 10:22:21 -0600
From: Andrew_Carson@hmco.com
Subject: Re: ASAT: regression toward the mean
To: OURGIFTED-L@neiu.edu
Cc: carolyn@thehoagies.com
Message-id: <OFB928E5A5.2160A8AC-ON86256E60.0059AE93-86256E60.0059F16C@hmco.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII

Hi Carolyn,

My guess is that, applied to the achievement scores of gifted kids,
regression to the mean applies (to the group of students tested) in cases
in which the IQ test is administered first, then the students are selected
for a gifted program, and only then the decision to administer the
achievement test is made. Because the students as a group are already
selected on the basis of high scores on an IQ test, one might expect that
as a group those students' scores on the achievement test will regress
toward the mean.

However, if the students weren't preselected on the basis of high IQ
scores, there would be no basis for anticipating that the achievement test

scores would regress toward the mean.

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

"Carolyn & Mark
K." To: OURGIFTED-L@neiu.edu
<carolyn@thehoagi cc:
es.com> Subject: ASAT: regression toward
the mean
Sent by:
owner-OURGIFTED-L
@neiu.edu

03/22/2004 06:21
PM
Please respond to
OURGIFTED-L

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: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 17:08:41 +0000
From: Hilary Nigro <hnigro@mybluelight.com>
Subject: Re: impact of SI, Vision on WISC
To: OURGIFTED-L@neiu.edu
Message-id: <20040323170841.28984.qmail@machiavelli.synacor.com>
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

On Sun, 21 Mar 2004 23:07:00 -0600 Weber <weber81@ineffingham.com> wrote:
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Elan Long" <elong@springsmart.com>
>
> : Is there a way to assess these kids that more acccurately reflects both the
> : strengths and weaknesses? :
>
> FWIW:
> The NEPSY (Korkman, Kirk, and Kemp, 1998) is a neuropsychological instrument
used to assess children with developmental disabilities
> and to develop effective intervention strategies. It provides comprehensive
assessment over five functional domains:
> Attention/Executive Functions, Language, Sensorimotor Functions, Visuospatial
Processing, and Memory and Learning. It consists of
> 27 subtests designed specifically for children ages 3-12.
>
> Our son has visual issues and SID as well and the NEPSY provided useful data
beyond the WISC and WIAT scores.

But, my son, with significant ADHD, definite executive processing difficulties,
and SID did BEAUTIFULLY on the NEPSY at 10-2. Just goes to show that no test is
going to work for all kids. BTW, the tester, a very respected neuropsych in
this area, stated on his report that DS shows no evidence of EF dysfunction,
despite "marked" ADHD including significant hyperactivity and impulse control
deficits. He did mention that this was unusual, but had no explanation how a
child with ADHD and suspected AS (which he ruled out for very questionable
reasons) could have NO EF problems at all. Hmmm.

Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 21:23:30 +0000
From: Sally_L@comcast.net
Subject: ASAT: Posted on behalf of Helen
To: OURGIFTED-L@neiu.edu
Message-id: <032320042123.23118.4da0@comcast.net>

From: HSchinske@aol.com
Subject: Characteristics of good gifted program/testing?

Our district's gifted programs are currently very much in flux, which is both
bad and good. Bad for obvious reasons, and good because they need to change and
there is an opportunity to influence the way things get set up for the future.
Does anyone know of a good sound gifted program for moderately gifted kids that
WORKS REALLY WELL? I particularly want to hear of programs that are at least
somewhat successful in attracting lots of socioeconomic diversity. This is, at
least in part, a testing issue, though of course there are other things going
on. Currently
--too few minority/poorer kids apply
--too few of those who do apply qualify
--too few of those who do qualify accept a place in the programs.

The first and last are image problems, but the middle one does have to do with
testing.

--Helen S.

Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 19:01:03 +0000
From: Stephanie Bannon <Stephanie.Bannon@btopenworld.com>
Subject: ASAT Thanks and disappointment
To: OURGIFTED-L@neiu.edu
Message-id: <038701c41109$41d6f1c0$0100a8c0@athlon>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0384_01C41109.2FFE7680"

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_0384_01C41109.2FFE7680
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Just caught up with the mail after being away for the last week +, and =
would like to thank Kathi, Bobbie and Sally for this fascinating =
conference, as well as all who contributed, especially Tracy and Drew, =
and apologise to Sally for sending two previous posts against specific =
instructions. Can I claim extenuating circumstances, since I'm getting =
e-mails out of synch and didn't get Sally's until after posting mine?

Call me naive, but I am bitterly disappointed that the SB5 is not a =
straight forward updated and improved SBLM, which is what we parents of =
the HG+ were eagerly anticipating, especially in areas of the world that =
do not even have access to the SBLM. It would have been a wonderful =
service to desperate children to be able to get them assessed with a NEW =
test which gave scores for HG+ at the 'old' levels, instead of the new =
131.=20

I was hoping for a test which my local psychologist could administer, =
perhaps alongside other diagnostics, in the same way as she currently =
gives the WISC and WIPPSI tests. Instead we have something which may =
turn out OK if used in conjunction with the SBLM in the hands of very =
experienced gifted experts (read expensive and requiring a big travel =
budget to get to) who know how to apply the CSS, Rarsch ratios, =
developmental milestones and whatever else, to the IQ scores the SB5 =
gives.=20

I can't see psychologists around the world rushing to adopt this test =
when so much controversy surrounds it. What a wasted opportunity to help =
HG+ children, who have been struggling for years against assumptions by =
educators and others that "an IQ that high just cannot exist". Educators =
will look at the raw SB5 IQ and conclude they were right. What hope is =
there that they will be educated about the SB5 scoring complexities when =
every other IQ test we hear about gives an MG cutoff, 2 sds from the =
mean, of 130? We really do NOT NEED to have to educate educators about =
scoring when we're STILL trying to get them to accept the excellent =
research out there that uses the old definitions of MG/HG/EG/PG. And all =
in the name of a theory of gaussian distribution of intelligence which =
is neither proven nor universally accepted.

While I fully accept that giftedness is more than just an IQ score, I =
really, really hope that a year of research will yield a consensus =

opinion on a simple way to reach scores which will help the children. =
But from where I'm sitting here, having read Riverside bulletin number 3 =
and the debate so far, it doesn't seem likely.

Best wishes to all, and thanks again,

Stephanie
(in England)
------=_NextPart_000_0384_01C41109.2FFE7680
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>Just caught up with the mail after =
being away for=20
the last week +, and would like to thank Kathi, Bobbie and Sally for =
this=20
fascinating conference, as well as all who contributed, especially Tracy =
and=20
Drew, and apologise to Sally for sending two previous posts against =
specific=20

instructions. Can I claim extenuating circumstances, since I'm getting =
e-mails=20
out of synch and didn't get Sally's until after posting =
mine?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Call me naive, but I am bitterly =
disappointed that=20
the SB5 is not a straight forward updated and improved SBLM, which =
is what=20
we parents of the HG+ were eagerly anticipating, especially in areas of =
the=20
world that do not even have access to the SBLM. It would have =
been a=20
wonderful service to desperate children to be able to get them assessed =
with a=20
NEW test which gave scores for HG+ at the 'old' levels, instead =
of the=20
new 131. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>I was hoping for a test which my local =
psychologist=20
could administer, perhaps alongside other diagnostics, in the same way =
as she=20

currently gives the WISC and WIPPSI tests. Instead we have something =
which may=20
turn out OK if used in conjunction with the SBLM in the hands =
of very=20
experienced gifted experts (read expensive and requiring a big =
travel=20
budget to get to) who know how to apply the CSS, Rarsch =
ratios,=20
developmental milestones and whatever else, to the IQ scores the SB5 =
gives.=20
</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>I can't see psychologists around the =
world rushing=20
to adopt this test when so much controversy surrounds it. What a wasted=20
opportunity to help HG+ children, who have been struggling for years =
against=20
assumptions by educators and others that "an IQ that high just cannot=20
exist". Educators will look at the raw SB5 IQ and conclude they =
were right.=20
What hope is there that they will be educated about the SB5 scoring =
complexities=20

when every other IQ test we hear about gives an MG cutoff, 2 sds from =
the=20
mean, of 130? We really do NOT NEED to have to educate educators =
about=20
scoring when we're STILL trying to get them to accept the =

excellent research out there that uses the old definitions=20
of MG/HG/EG/PG. And all in the name of a theory of gaussian=20
distribution of intelligence which is neither proven nor universally=20
accepted.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>While I fully accept that giftedness is =
more than=20
just an IQ score, I really, really hope that a year of research will =
yield a=20
consensus opinion on a simple way to reach scores which will help the =
children.=20
But from where I'm sitting here, having read Riverside bulletin number 3 =
and the=20
debate so far, it doesn't seem likely.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>

<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Best wishes to all, and thanks =
again,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Stephanie</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>(in England)</FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>

------=_NextPart_000_0384_01C41109.2FFE7680--

Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 11:37:11 -0600
From: Elan Long <elong@springsmart.com>
Subject: ASAT Thanks very much!
To: "OURGIFTED-L (E-mail)" <OURGIFTED-L@neiu.edu>
Message-id: <001a01c410fd$79afef40$6500a8c0@elong>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit

My sincere thanks to Kathi, Bobbie, and Sallie for your incredible
dedication and hard work on this wonderful seminar--and for all that you do
for gifted kids and their families. This was an excellent opportunity to
understand some of the important issues in assessment and testing and how to
navigate the waters more successfully. Your perspectives and explanations
were clear and compelling and I appreciate them very much.

I'd also like to thank Deborah Ruff, Drew Carson, CarolynK, Meredith Warshaw
and all the other active and informed participants for your questions and
insights.

Best wishes,
Elan

Elan Long
elong@springsmart.com

Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 08:55:01 -0800
From: Jenny <jheywood@heywoodengineering.com>
Subject: Thanks to all
To: OURGIFTED-L@neiu.edu
Message-id: <00b601c410f7$958c8f80$c100a8c0@compaqlaptop>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit

I wish to extend my sincere gratitude to Kathi and Bobbie for their
sacrifice of time and energy for this very informative and educational
conference. I greatly appreciate the sharing of so much wisdom, knowledge
and experience from Kathi, Bobbie, the professionals stepping in and the
parents.

My wish would be for accepted wide-spread qualitative and quantitative
testing that would enable the brilliance and blessings of our 2e children to
be recognized and supported across the country and thoroughout the world.
That more qualified individuals with a heart for these children would learn
from the best among us. They would spread their abilities to make the issue

of finding an experienced tester that understands not only the ins and outs
of the new tests, but also the intricasies of testing exceptional children,
not so discouraging. That these children would obtain their rightful IQ
numbers, that are universally recognized, understood, and accepted, to gain
the accommodations they deserve and the programs that can benefit them the
most.

I recommend a standing ovation for Sally, who has, once again, brought us an
incredible conference. Thank you Sally, for your dedication, your
compassion, your endurance ;-) and your selfless sacrifice of time.

Jenny Heywood

----- Original Message -----
From: <Sally_L@comcast.net>
To: <OURGIFTED-L@neiu.edu>
Sent: Monday, March 22, 2004 9:04 PM
Subject: ASAT: ADMIN - Schedule to finalize ASAT conference

> 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: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 05:51:32 -0500
From: Aimee Yermish <ayermish@alum.mit.edu>
Subject: RE: ASAT -- how are the tests changing
To: OURGIFTED-L@neiu.edu
Message-id: <00e701c410c4$d09b7560$6601a8c0@TESLA>
MIME-version: 1.0
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! >>>>

It's here:
http://alpha.fdu.edu/psychology/changes_in_wj_tests.htm
Scroll down to Other Changes and Notes, second bullet.

I happen to *really* like the WJ (both cognitive and achievement) as a
diagnostic battery, but many of my random musings yesterday were based
upon the problem of having gifted kids get GIA scores (which the

publisher does claim represent IQ scores, because they are based very
heavily upon CHC theory -- it has been interesting to watch all three
tests (WJ, SB, WISC) change in this direction over their most recent
revisions) that are much lower than their IQ scores from the WISC and SB
(any version). (The implications for potential *overdiagnosis* of
twice-exceptional kids are also somewhat of concern.)

-- Aimee Yermish
da Vinci Learning Center
aimee@davincilearning.org

Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 15:39:24 -0600
From: "Logue, Theodosia Nowell (UMC-Student)" <tnltg2@mizzou.edu>
Subject: contact offline aimee
To: OURGIFTED-L@neiu.edu
Message-id: <E04CBC981EC8E6488947205B3698A9E6054FF0@UM-EMAIL05.um.umsystem.edu>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C4111F.6A79781B"
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------_=_NextPart_001_01C4111F.6A79781B
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Aimee, can I contact you offline about your admission procedures? I'd =
like to learn more about what you've said here.
Thanks for letting me know.

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-OURGIFTED-L@neiu.edu on behalf of Aimee Yermish
Sent: Tue 3/23/2004 4:51 AM
To: OURGIFTED-L@neiu.edu
Subject: RE: ASAT -- how are the tests changing
=20
Brenda <Cyberbren@aol.com> writes:

> My problem is that I feel that many students are=20

> inappropriately kept OUT of exclusionary gifted=20
> programs, because of the flawed testing.

and Karen Boutilier [karenboutilier@mchsi.com] speaks eloquently about
the problems in identifying twice-exceptional kids.

There we agree. But I will point out that access to the "exclusionary"
classes I was teaching was *not* based solely upon testing data (in
fact, although the testing data for these kids existed (the WPPSI had
been administered during the admissions process), it was not, to the
best of my knowledge, a major factor in the placement decision), but
mainly on observations by general teachers and subject specialists,
parent nomination, child interest, etc (in point of fact, what had
happened in this specific situation was that both of the lower school
math specialists admitted that they were unable to provide these
children with what they needed -- both were extremely good at enrichment
and acceleration in the realm of elementary mathematics, but neither had

the requisite background in higher mathematics to think the way these
kids thought). I taught in the private schools (the particular incident
I described occurred at Nueva, where most of the faculty are *very*
well-informed about twice-exceptional kids, by the way), so we had a lot
more options. And even there, at a school for the gifted, the PG kids
were persistently unable to get served because of the pressure to avoid
"exclusionary" practices *and* the pressure to avoid "making the other
kids feel bad" (which translates into "don't differentiate in the
regular classroom, either"). I fought to get the middle school program
to be heterogenously grouped one year (again, on the basis of a
broad-based consideration of the needs of individual students rather
than upon any one standardized measure), the grouping was successful
(the more highly mathematically gifted kids were getting the more
accelerated and rigorous version that fit their needs, while the kids

who were average (whose gifts were in other areas) were getting a
supportive and nonintimidating classroom -- everyone was learning
algebra earlier and in more depth than they would have in the public
schools), but the next year, when the student body had grown to the
point where I was teaching science only, the math differentiation was
eliminated (the cohort of kids who had been differentiated stayed that
way (with the exception of one twice-exceptional kid from the lower
group who had realized that she *wasn't* dumb at math and had gained
sufficient skills and confidence to move *up* and be successful in the
higher group (I would have been less able to provide the support *she*
needed in a nondifferentiated classroom, too, by the way, and she would
have continued to be intimidated by the mathematically gifted kids)),
but the younger kids coming up were not).

-- Aimee Yermish
da Vinci Learning Center
aimee@davincilearning.org

Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 13:58:38 -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: <20040323215838.51891.qmail@web21002.mail.yahoo.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

Laurie,
My question stems from our son 9, who the PS resource teacher is convinced he
has AS, we disagree, but that is another can of worms, the question is
wondering about your reference to Absudities linked with AS, are you saying
that the AS kids get it or don't get it? And why do you think that this is so?
Thanks,
Ranae
--- Laurie Jensen <lauriej49@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 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

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time.
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html

Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 17:13:08 -0500
From: Cheryl White <cherwhit@med.umich.edu>
Subject: Re: Thanks to all
To: OURGIFTED-L@neiu.edu
Message-id: <s0607029.026@med-gwia-01a.med.umich.edu>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Content-disposition: inline

I wish to echo Jenny's remarks. She has said it much better than I
could.

Thanks to all for a wonderful conference.

-Cheryl in MI

>>> jheywood@heywoodengineering.com 3/23/2004 11:55:01 AM >>>
I wish to extend my sincere gratitude to Kathi and Bobbie for their
sacrifice of time and energy for this very informative and educational
conference. I greatly appreciate the sharing of so much wisdom,
knowledge
and experience from Kathi, Bobbie, the professionals stepping in and
the
parents.

My wish would be for accepted wide-spread qualitative and
quantitative
testing that would enable the brilliance and blessings of our 2e
children to

be recognized and supported across the country and thoroughout the
world.
That more qualified individuals with a heart for these children would
learn
from the best among us. They would spread their abilities to make the
issue
of finding an experienced tester that understands not only the ins and
outs
of the new tests, but also the intricasies of testing exceptional
children,
not so discouraging. That these children would obtain their rightful
IQ
numbers, that are universally recognized, understood, and accepted, to
gain
the accommodations they deserve and the programs that can benefit them
the
most.

I recommend a standing ovation for Sally, who has, once again, brought
us an
incredible conference. Thank you Sally, for your dedication, your
compassion, your endurance ;-) and your selfless sacrifice of time.

Jenny Heywood

Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 17:34:27 -0500
From: "Carolyn & Mark K." <carolyn@thehoagies.com>
Subject: RE: ASAT Thanks and disappointment
To: OURGIFTED-L@neiu.edu
Message-id: <001101c41127$004c1780$6400a8c0@coatsv01.pa.comcast.net>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0012_01C410FD.17760F80"

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_0012_01C410FD.17760F80
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

>>Call me naive, but I am bitterly disappointed that the SB5 is not a
straight forward updated and improved SBLM, which is what we parents of the
HG+ were eagerly anticipating, especially in areas of the world that do not
even have access to the SBLM. It would have been a wonderful service to
desperate children to be able to get them assessed with a NEW test which
gave scores for HG+ at the 'old' levels, instead of the new 131. <<

I was OK with it, when Deborah explained her "classifications" but ... I'm
not so sure now.

Deborah, Drew and all, tell me if I've got this wrong: the SB-5 scores
moderately gifted kids at about 125 to 130, and highly gifted kids beginning
at about 131. OK, then we've got an image and identification problem,
because the various state laws and district policies require a 130 for
gifted (or that in combination with other criteria). So we can fix the
image problem.

But... if it's identifying gifted kids with scores of 125, then what about
those statistical goals - scores above 130 should be assigned to (very close
to) 2.5% of the population, I.e. what we call "gifted." But if the new
"gifted" begins at 125, then is it true that we're really identifying more
than 2.5% of the population as gifted, or is it true that the new SB-5 no
longer identifies an appropriate amount of the pupation as gifted? (Or some
third thing, that I'm not seeing?)

If the problem is that we're trying to identify more than 2.5% of the
population as gifted, then I see that education in general needs repaid (I
know, no kidding), but the image of "gifted" doesn't need reformed - gifted
still begins at 130, it's just that those may be more gifted children than
we were previously identifying, and therefore in need of more than the
moderate amount of educational variation than the kids previously identified
as gifted.

But if the problem is that the new test no longer identifies an appropriate
percentage (~2.5%) of children as gifted... shouldn't we fix the test,
rather than do all the research and publish the articles as Kathi and
Deborah are working so hard on?

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_0012_01C410FD.17760F80
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=3D"Content-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>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT color=3D#0000ff><FONT size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D550152622-23032004>>></SPAN>Call me naive, but I am =
bitterly=20
disappointed that the SB5 is not a straight forward updated and =
improved=20
SBLM, which is what we parents of the HG+ were eagerly anticipating, =
especially=20
in areas of the world that do not even have access to the =
SBLM. It=20
would have been a wonderful service to desperate children to be able to =
get them=20
assessed with a NEW test which gave scores for HG+ at the 'old' =
levels,=20
instead of the new 131. <SPAN=20

class=3D550152622-23032004><<</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT color=3D#0000ff><FONT size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D550152622-23032004></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT color=3D#0000ff><FONT size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D550152622-23032004>I was OK with it, when Deborah explained her=20
"classifications" but ... I'm not so sure =
now.</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT color=3D#0000ff><FONT size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D550152622-23032004></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT color=3D#0000ff><FONT size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D550152622-23032004>Deborah, Drew and all, tell me if I've got =
this wrong:=20
the SB-5 scores moderately gifted kids at about 125 to 130, and highly =
gifted=20
kids beginning at about 131.  OK, then we've got an image and=20
identification problem, because the various state laws and district =
policies=20

require a 130 for gifted (or that in combination with other =
criteria).  So=20
we can fix the image problem.</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT color=3D#0000ff><FONT size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D550152622-23032004></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT color=3D#0000ff><FONT size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D550152622-23032004>But... if it's identifying gifted kids with =
scores of=20
125, then what about those statistical goals - scores above 130 should =
be=20
assigned to (very close to) 2.5% of the population, I.e. what we call=20
"gifted."  But if the new "gifted" begins at 125, then is it true =
that=20
we're really identifying more than 2.5% of the population as gifted, or =
is it=20
true that the new SB-5 no longer identifies an appropriate amount of the =

pupation as gifted?  (Or some third thing, that I'm not=20
seeing?)</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>

<DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT color=3D#0000ff><FONT size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D550152622-23032004></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT color=3D#0000ff><FONT size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D550152622-23032004>If the problem is that we're trying to =
identify more=20
than 2.5% of the population as gifted, then I see that education in =
general=20
needs repaid (I know, no kidding), but the image of "gifted" doesn't =
need=20
reformed - gifted still begins at 130, it's just that those may be more =
gifted=20
children than we were previously identifying, and therefore in need of =
more than=20
the moderate amount of educational variation than the kids previously =
identified=20
as gifted.</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT color=3D#0000ff><FONT size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D550152622-23032004></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT color=3D#0000ff><FONT size=3D2><SPAN=20

class=3D550152622-23032004>But if the problem is that the new test no =
longer=20
identifies an appropriate percentage (~2.5%) of children as gifted... =
shouldn't=20
we fix the test, rather than do all the research and publish the =
articles as=20
Kathi and Deborah are working so hard=20
on?</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV></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>
<DIV class=3DOutlookMessageHeader dir=3Dltr align=3Dleft><FONT =
face=3DArial=20
size=3D2></FONT> </DIV></BODY></HTML>

------=_NextPart_000_0012_01C410FD.17760F80--

Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 16:09:28 -0600
From: Andrew_Carson@hmco.com
Subject: Re: ASAT Thanks and disappointment
To: OURGIFTED-L@neiu.edu
Message-id: <OF797C982D.64D23046-ON86256E60.007866B5-86256E60.0079B8A8@hmco.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII

The problem isn't with the SB5, Stephanie, with which you can calculate
ratio IQs as easily as you can with the Form L-M or earlier SB editions
(well, technicall the L-M uses a modified ratio IQ). Do that, and the
interpretive methods developed for the Form L-M should largely hold quite
well. The problem lies with interpreting the L-M scores to indicate
particular percentages of the population. The standard deviations for the
L-M cannot support that, regardless of any optimal shape of the
distribution of intelligence throughout the population.

Any practitioner making use of the SB5 should be able to determine scores
equivalent to Wechsler or other tests with the SB5. Determination of the

ratio IQ scores with the SB5 can also be carried out by any qualified
practitioner who has read Ruf's bulletin, available at no charge through
the stanford-binet.com site. As you mention, such scores are not in a
research stage, but the data will come in over the medium term.

Whether we can develop a new version of the Form L-M is something that I've
been asked to explore by attendees of this conference. I'll suggest it here
at Riverside. In the meantime, it will be the clinician highly experienced
in its use that will be discovering ways to enhance SB5 assessment through
its joint administration.

Regards,
Drew

Stephanie Bannon
<Stephanie.Bannon@btope To:
OURGIFTED-L@neiu.edu
nworld.com> cc:
Sent by: Subject: ASAT Thanks and
disappointment
owner-OURGIFTED-L@neiu.
edu

03/23/2004 01:01 PM
Please respond to
OURGIFTED-L

Just caught up with the mail after being away for the last week +, and
would like to thank Kathi, Bobbie and Sally for this fascinating
conference, as well as all who contributed, especially Tracy and Drew, and
apologise to Sally for sending two previous posts against specific
instructions. Can I claim extenuating circumstances, since I'm getting
e-mails out of synch and didn't get Sally's until after posting mine?

Call me naive, but I am bitterly disappointed that the SB5 is not a
straight forward updated and improved SBLM, which is what we parents of the
HG+ were eagerly anticipating, especially in areas of the world that do not
even have access to the SBLM. It would have been a wonderful service to
desperate children to be able to get them assessed with a NEW test which
gave scores for HG+ at the 'old' levels, instead of the new 131.

I was hoping for a test which my local psychologist could administer,
perhaps alongside other diagnostics, in the same way as she currently gives
the WISC and WIPPSI tests. Instead we have something which may turn out OK
if used in conjunction with the SBLM in the hands of very experienced
gifted experts (read expensive and requiring a big travel budget to get to)
who know how to apply the CSS, Rarsch ratios, developmental milestones and
whatever else, to the IQ scores the SB5 gives.

I can't see psychologists around the world rushing to adopt this test when

so much controversy surrounds it. What a wasted opportunity to help HG+
children, who have been struggling for years against assumptions by
educators and others that "an IQ that high just cannot exist". Educators
will look at the raw SB5 IQ and conclude they were right. What hope is
there that they will be educated about the SB5 scoring complexities when
every other IQ test we hear about gives an MG cutoff, 2 sds from the mean,
of 130? We really do NOT NEED to have to educate educators about scoring
when we're STILL trying to get them to accept the excellent research out
there that uses the old definitions of MG/HG/EG/PG. And all in the name of
a theory of gaussian distribution of intelligence which is neither proven
nor universally accepted.

While I fully accept that giftedness is more than just an IQ score, I
really, really hope that a year of research will yield a consensus opinion
on a simple way to reach scores which will help the children. But from

where I'm sitting here, having read Riverside bulletin number 3 and the
debate so far, it doesn't seem likely.

Best wishes to all, and thanks again,

Stephanie
(in England)

Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 17:46:35 -0500 (EST)
From: HSchinske@aol.com
Subject: Re: ASAT Thanks and disappointment
To: OURGIFTED-L@neiu.edu
Message-id: <8a.688ab12.2d92184b@aol.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary=part1_8a.688ab12.2d92184b_boundary

--part1_8a.688ab12.2d92184b_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

In a message dated 3/23/04 3:26:40 PM Central Standard Time,
Stephanie.Bannon@btopenworld.com writes:

> We really do NOT NEED to have to educate educators about scoring when we're
> STILL trying to get them to accept the excellent research out there that
> uses the old definitions of MG/HG/EG/PG.

Yup. Our district is still saying "severely gifted" for the kids in the top
1-2 percent!

Helen Schinske

--part1_8a.688ab12.2d92184b_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 3/23/04 3:26:40=20=
PM Central Standard Time, Stephanie.Bannon@btopenworld.com writes:<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=3DCITE style=3D"BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT=
: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">We really do NOT NEED to have t=
o educate educators about scoring when we're STILL trying to get them to acc=
ept the excellent research out there that uses the old definitions of MG/HG/=
EG/PG. </FONT><FONT COLOR=3D"#000000" BACK=3D"#ffffff" style=3D"BACKGROUND-=
COLOR: #ffffff" SIZE=3D3 PTSIZE=3D12 FAMILY=3D"SANSSERIF" FACE=3D"Arial" LAN=
G=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>
Yup. Our district is still saying "severely gifted" for the kids in the top=20=
1-2 percent!<BR>
<BR>

Helen Schinske</FONT></HTML>

--part1_8a.688ab12.2d92184b_boundary--

Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 23:26:29 +0000
From: Sally_L@comcast.net
Subject: ASAT:ADMIN - Information
To: OURGIFTED-L@neiu.edu
Message-id: <032320042326.28215.34a7@comcast.net>

Hi List Members,
The guest experts and I have connected today:)

So you know, I will connect with everybody later. I need to pick up a child,
chauffer kids around, participate in a political caucus, get dinner and then I
will be back to send posts to the list so we can wrap up and close this
phenomenal conference which should have been closed on Sunday - two days ago.
LOL What a great adventure, which I know could easily go on!!!

It is difficult to wrap things up - I know I commiserate, yet tonight is the
time to do so.

Kind regards,
Sally_L
Conference Coordinator
List Manager
www.neiu.edu/~ourgift

Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 22:05:14 -0500 (EST)
From: JeeTed@aol.com
Subject: Re: ASAT Thanks and disappointment
To: OURGIFTED-L@neiu.edu
Message-id: <104.421e2d2f.2d9254ea@aol.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: multipart/alternative;
boundary=part1_104.421e2d2f.2d9254ea_boundary

--part1_104.421e2d2f.2d9254ea_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

In a message dated 3/23/2004 2:26:58 PM Mountain Standard Time,
Stephanie.Bannon@btopenworld.com writes:

> I was hoping for a test which my local psychologist could administer,
> perhaps alongside other diagnostics, in the same way as she currently gives
the
> WISC and WIPPSI tests. Instead we have something which may turn out OK if used
> in conjunction with the SBLM in the hands of very experienced gifted experts
> (read expensive and requiring a big travel budget to get to) who know how to
> apply the CSS, Rarsch ratios, developmental milestones and whatever else, to
> the IQ scores the SB5 gives.

Hi Stephanie,

I think that you are speaking for quite a number of people (parents, mostly)
who held out so much hope for something that would make it simpler that it has
been in the past. It is tough to have a child tested on the LM and to be
given a lot of important information only to find out when you present it to the
school or local mental health professionals they tend to roll their eyes while
informing you that the test is invalid and the results meaningless. So many
of us have spent *so many years* studying the ins and out of giftedness that a
good many (although I do not include myself here) have become quite expert.
But the real GT programming gatekeepers for the most part are the school
psychologists. And school psychologists tend to spend very little of their time
on
gifted spectrum issues. It makes for a strange situation when a parent has
to somehow try to muster up the courage and go forward with the delicate
handling of educating the educators. (While admittedly not always using the
precisely correct wording or current buzzwords in the field and having not gone
through a university program where the future psychs are told over and over that
the SBLM is BAD). The attempts many times are futile and the results are not
always pretty! So darn it, wouldn't it have been nice to have been presented
with a test that was a little less 'complicated' to pick through and decipher?
I don't know what the answer is, but maybe simply renorming the SBLM would
help.

I imagine that there will be a lot more clarity once the test is utilized for
a year or two and resulting outcomes are discussed. What I worry about is
what will happen to the children and the programs in the schools where the test
was adopted quickly? It could shut down highly gifted programs! (And I have
to say that I am somewhat surprised at how many school psychs feel that the

minute the new test is released the old one is invalid and should not be used.
We have been doing what we can to get our school psychs to hold off for just a
little while...but some of them are very antsy to move on with the new!)

It will be very interesting to watch things play out, but I am afraid it may
be kind of tragic in some situations as well. And I am not just talking about
the SB5 in this instance. In fact, I remember reading somewhere that the new
WISC will be identifying the same percentage of gifted children, it will just
be a different KIND of child than the old tests identified! And sadly, it
would seem even more 2E children will be missed...

Thanks so much to Bobbie, Kathi, Deborah, Drew, Meredith, etc....And of
course you Sally! Really this kind of opportunity is unprecedented and I
believe
very beneficial all around. Judging from the posts, most participants here are
parents (although I hope there a many other folks here too.) All of these
years I have been absolutely bewildered by the fact that so many GT
"professionals" and psychs come across as being completely disinterested in what
the
parents have to say, ask and contribute. It is beyond me why they would ignore
rather than take advantage of the enormous amount of brain power available to
them. After all, who created the very subjects they study? Who has a greater
interest in a child (and will therefore study and ponder any issue the child is
afflicted with--including giftedness) than the child's parent?

As far as I am concerned, those professionals who come down and 'mingle' with
the parents are far, far ahead in understanding the gifted than those who
prefer to pontificate from their ivory towers. Bobbie, Kathi, etc. have always
been around but Drew, I have enormous respect that you have taken the time to
be here too and that you are really listening to the suggestions. This kind of
thing can only benefit Riverside Publishing as a company.

Thanks so much to all.
Therese

--part1_104.421e2d2f.2d9254ea_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 3/23/2004 2:26:5=
8 PM Mountain Standard Time, Stephanie.Bannon@btopenworld.com writes:<BR>
<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=3DCITE style=3D"BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT=
: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">I was hoping for a test which m=
y local psychologist could administer, perhaps alongside other diagnostics,=20=
in the same way as she currently gives the WISC and WIPPSI tests. Instead we=
have something which may turn out OK if used in conjunction with the SBLM i=
n the hands of very experienced gifted experts (read expensive and requiring=
a big travel budget to get to) who know how to apply the CSS, Rarsch ratios=

, developmental milestones and whatever else, to the IQ scores the SB5 gives=
. </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>
<BR>
Hi Stephanie,<BR>
<BR>
I think that you are speaking for quite a number of people (parents, mostly)=
who held out so much hope for something that would make it simpler that it=20=
has been in the past.  It is tough to have a child tested on the LM and=
to be given a lot of important information only to find out when you presen=
t it to the school or local mental health professionals they tend to roll th=
eir eyes while informing you that the test is invalid and the results meanin=
gless.  So many of us have spent *so many years* studying the ins and o=
ut of giftedness that a good many (although I do not include myself here) ha=
ve become quite expert.  But the real GT programming gatekeepers for th=
e most part are the school psychologists.  And school psychologists ten=
d to spend very little of their time on gifted spectrum issues.  It mak=

es for a strange situation when a parent has to somehow try to muster up the=
courage and go forward with the delicate handling of educating the educator=
s.  (While admittedly not always using the precisely correct wording or=
current buzzwords in the field and having not gone through a university pro=
gram where the future psychs are told over and over that the SBLM is BAD).&n=
bsp; The attempts many times are futile and the results are not always prett=
y!  So darn it, wouldn't it have been nice to have been presented with=20=
a test that was a little less 'complicated' to pick through and decipher?&nb=
sp; I don't know what the answer is, but maybe simply renorming the SBLM wou=
ld help.<BR>
<BR>
I imagine that there will be a lot more clarity once the test is utilized fo=
r a year or two and resulting outcomes are discussed.  What I worry abo=
ut is what will happen to the children and the programs in the schools where=

the test was adopted quickly?  It could shut down highly gifted progra=
ms!  (And I have to say that I am somewhat surprised at how many school=
psychs feel that the minute the new test is released the old one is invalid=
and should not be used.  We have been doing what we can to get our sch=
ool psychs to hold off for just a little while...but some of them are very a=
ntsy to move on with the new!) <BR>
<BR>
It will be very interesting to watch things play out, but I am afraid it may=
be kind of tragic in some situations as well.  And I am not just talki=
ng about the SB5 in this instance.  In fact, I remember reading somewhe=
re that the new WISC will be identifying the same percentage of gifted child=
ren, it will just be a different KIND of child than the old tests identified=
!  And sadly, it would seem even more 2E children will be missed...<BR>
<BR>
Thanks so much to Bobbie, Kathi, Deborah, Drew, Meredith, etc....And of cour=

se you Sally!  Really this kind of opportunity is unprecedented and I b=
elieve very beneficial all around.  Judging from the posts, most partic=
ipants here are parents (although I hope there a many other folks here too.)=
  All of these years I have been absolutely bewildered by the fact that=
so many GT "professionals" and psychs come across as being completely disin=
terested in what the parents have to say, ask and contribute.  It is be=
yond me why they would ignore rather than take advantage of the enormous amo=
unt of brain power available to them.  After all, who created the very=20=
subjects they study?  Who has a greater interest in a child (and will t=
herefore study and ponder any issue the child is afflicted with--including g=
iftedness) than the child's parent?<BR>
<BR>
As far as I am concerned, those professionals who come down and 'mingle' wit=
h the parents are far, far ahead in understanding the gifted than those who=20=

prefer to pontificate from their ivory towers.  Bobbie, Kathi, etc. hav=
e always been around but Drew, I have enormous respect that you have taken t=
he time to be here too and that you are really listening to the suggestions.=
  This kind of thing can only benefit Riverside Publishing as a company=
.<BR>
<BR>
Thanks so much to all.<BR>
Therese</FONT></HTML>

--part1_104.421e2d2f.2d9254ea_boundary--

Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 20:24:51 -0500
From: Meredith Warshaw <mwarshaw@uniquelygifted.org>
Subject: Re: ASAT -- how are the tests changing
To: OURGIFTED-L@neiu.edu
Message-id: <01d401c4113e$cfab2180$6400a8c0@MEREDITH>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit

Aimee Yermish, may I have permission to contact you offlist?

Thanks,
Meredith

--
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: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 18:28:26 -0500
From: L Dunbar <ldunbar@umich.edu>
Subject: Re: ASAT Thanks
To: OURGIFTED-L@neiu.edu
Message-id: <C90B7646-7D21-11D8-AD79-000A9573CEC8@umich.edu>
MIME-version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v553)
Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit

A huge thank you to Kathi and Bobbie and Drew and Deborah and Sally,
and all the posters! What a fabulous opportunity to really get into
the nitty gritty of these new testing instruments. Thank you, thank you!

> But if the new "gifted" begins at 125, then is it true that we're
> really identifying more than 2.5% of the population as gifted

Well, in many states/districts 'gifted' = top 5% (~= 125 on a test with
mean 100 and SD=15).

Based on all I've read it sounds to me like SB5 is identifying the
'right' percentages, which I presume was one of the goals. "Highly"
gifted at 135 =~ top 1% seems OK to me too, and eg/pg at 99.9%ile
sounds about right, too.

It just isn't possible for ALL of our children to be one in a million!
<G>

It's just math; it's not a value judgement on the existence or
intelligence of a particular child! HG/EG/PG kids exist, we all know
that. It doesn't matter whether we call them group 2 or group 3,
bluebird or robins, 138 or 160, 141 or 192, they are still hg/eg/pg.
(And, btw, only kids tested using SBLM ever *were* called >160, doesn't
mean they didn't exist or weren't pg either.) And we know there are a
lot of them, so they can't be called 160 or 192 on a metric that has a
mean of 100 and SD of 15. It's just math!

Just as schools/districts/whatever establish criteria of score XXX on
Test A or score YYY on Test B, they will set the bar at 118 or 125 or
131 or whatever on SB5, as appropriate for their program and target
population.

Assuming any gifted programs are left (behind), at least in the
USA...... ;)

Laura D

Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 04:17:28 +0000
From: Sally_L@comcast.net
Subject: ASAT: Kathi Kearney's Closing Statement
To: OURGIFTED-L@neiu.edu
Message-id: <032420040417.21426.7bfe@comcast.net>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN
Content-transfer-encoding: 8BIT

> Closing Statement: Kathi Kearney
>
>
> I would like to thank all of those who participated in this conference and
> wrote such thoughtful, insightful posts. I would especially like to express
> my appreciation to Bobbie Gilman, my co-presenter; and to Sally Lyon, the
> indefatiguable coordinator of Our Gifted Online Conferences. Sally took on
> the herculean task of moderating every post, a cumbersome but necessary
> activity because of the sensitivity of the subject matter and the issue of
> test security. In addition, the technical comments by Drew Carson, Senior
> Project Director at Riverside Publishing, and Deborah Ruf were very much
> appreciated.
>

> Due to the technical nature of the subject matter of this conference,
> composing responses to your posts took a great deal more time than other
> online conferences where I have been the virtual "guest speaker." There were
> a number of posts I wanted to answer in depth, but time did not permit. I
> apologize if yours was among them! Please know that I read and considered
> every post in this conference, even if there wasn¹t the time to compose an
> answer to every single question.
>
> Bobbie¹s extensive closing statement sums up the high points of this
> conference and the varied concerns of the individuals attending a diverse
> group that included psychologists, parents, teachers, school administrators,
> test authors, and a Senior Project Director at Riverside Publishing. The
> international nature of this conference is also a testament to the power of
> the Internet in making knowledge available instantaneously to a large

> worldwide audience, and the far-reaching influence of current American test
> instruments.
>
> As we close, I would like to offer just a few additional comments, at once a
> combination of personal, technical, philosophical, and futuristic musings.
>
> I am a passionate believer in the power of individual assessment, carefully
> and thoughtfully conducted by trained examiners, to provide critical
> information to parents, teachers, schools, and the individual. Over and over
> again, I have seen this information literally change the course of an
> individual¹s education, career, and life satisfaction.
>
> A major theme woven throughout the questions that were asked during this
> conference involved the end uses of assessment. Two major functions of
> assessment emerged again and again, in various ways, throughout the
> discussion functions that, in today¹s society, sometimes are treated as
> mutually exclusive in practice. I would summarize these as assessment for

> gatekeeping purposes (such as admission to gifted programs or schools)
> versus assessment for understanding (assessments primarily used for the
> purpose of understanding the child and planning interventions for optimal
> development). To complicate matters further, often the same assessment
> instruments are used to accomplish these widely diverse purposes. In a way,
> these end functions of assessment mirror the larger debate in the field of
> gifted education today: Is giftedness primarily a function of external
> achievement, competition, and production in a cultural context, or is it
> primarily a developmental phenomenon?
>
> Politically, we live in an increasingly test-driven world, especially in the
> United States and especially within K-12 education in its current
> incarnation. Much of the mass testing conducted with school children today
> (other than assessment of children with disabilities in special education)

> is conducted primarily to satisfy politicians and bureaucrats, and not to
> benefit individual children. Too often, the results of these
> group-administered, timed tests are being used in grossly inappropriate
> ways. For instance, many professional organizations, including the
> prestigious American Psychological Association, state in their ethics
> standards that the results of one test, alone, should never be the sole
> determinant of the educational placement of a child. Yet whole states and
> cities, including Florida and New York City, are routinely using the results
> of just one test to be the major, and sometimes sole, determinant of grade
> promotion or retention. In some states, this misuse of assessment results is
> even codified in state law. Furthermore, there have been numerous blatant
> examples of massive scoring errors on these high-stakes tests (the latest,
> just this week, involved the Connecticut Mastery Test and the state

> assessment test in Minnesota). Such large-scale misuse of group assessment
> instruments has the potential to give all assessment, (including -- simply
> by association individual assessment using well-standardized, reliable,
> and valid test instruments), a bad name perhaps a very bad name.
>
> I had the unusual opportunity of observing the course of the development of
> the SB5. From my first phone call to the former SB5 project director seven
> years ago, when the new SB5 revision project was in its infancy, to my work
> as one of many examiners nationwide for the standardization and validation
> study phases of the project, I have had the rare opportunity to watch the
> ongoing development of a major children¹s intelligence test from the inside
> out, and from beginning to end. What has surprised and pleased me most has
> been the genuine concern of Gale Roid, the test author, for individual
> children (especially exceptional children, including the gifted), and the

> continuing responsiveness of a corporation as large as Riverside to try to
> understand and respond to concerns in the field.
>
> But what of the future of the assessment of gifted children? Not since the
> early heydey of the mental testing movement in the 1920s and 1930s have so
> many essentially new instruments been released at once. It will take time to
> conduct research and to sort out what the information gleaned on newer tests
> really means when applied to gifted children just as it took time in the
> 1920s and 1930s to understand what those instruments could contribute to our
> understanding of the gifted. Although Lewis Terman had hoped to design a
> test that would allow him to find both developmentally delayed and gifted
> individuals, his original 1916 Stanford-Binet, after all, required some
> tweaking. In its original incarnation, it had only one adult level, and that
> turned out not to be a high enough ceiling; the 1937 revision added three

> Superior Adult levels (and much more difficult items). Terman¹s own
> longitudinal study of the gifted, begun in the 1920s and still continuing
> today, has linked the Stanford-Binets (in all their incarnations) with
> gifted assessment for the better part of a century. Likewise, in the 1930s,
> Leta Hollingworth also experimented with the burgeoning increase in new test
> instruments. She pioneered the use of out-of-level testing. When extremely
> gifted children hit the ceiling of the 1916 and 1937 Stanford-Binets, she
> experimented with the use of the Army Alpha test (a group IQ test originally
> developed by Terman and others to test adult U. S. Army recruits). When the
> Herring-Binet (a short-lived adaptation of the Stanford-Binet) was released,
> she tested a large group of gifted children with the test and deemed it
> inadequate for this population, publishing her findings in a leading
> psychology journal. And when the 1937 revision of the Stanford-Binet was

> published, she re-tested all the children enrolled in the Speyer School
> experimental project for both rapid and slow learners, in order to compare
> their scores on the new with the previous edition. (This research was never
> published, probably due to Hollingworth¹s untimely battle with cancer; I was
> personally given all the original data from this study).
>
> Needing time to figure out what new test instruments mean with gifted
> populations is nothing new, then. But what is new is, perhaps, the
> redefinitions of intelligence underlying many of the new tests. Some of
> these definitions are obvious the SB5 and WJ-III are CHC-model tests; the
> new K-ABC actually allows the examiner to select from two theoretical models
> of intelligence the model that will be most helpful for interpretation for
> an individual child. It¹s quite possible that a century from now, different
> models and theories of intelligence will emerge, based partly on

> neuroscience and biology, but perhaps, just as likely, based on the new
> cultural and political milieu of the 22nd century.
>
> This is probably enough of my late-night musings, so I will sign off now.
> Thanks to everyone for an exciting, stimulating, and yes exhausting
> conference!
>
>
>

Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 04:13:57 +0000
From: Sally_L@comcast.net
Subject: Re: ASAT -- Tracy - Please Contact me, but offlist
To: OURGIFTED-L@neiu.edu
Message-id: <032420040413.16399.3c5@comcast.net>

Tracy,
My email to you was undeliverable,twice, please contact me again offlist :)

Thanks,
Sally_L

Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 04:19:12 +0000
From: Sally_L@comcast.net
Subject: ASAT: Barbara J. Gilman's Closing Statement
To: OURGIFTED-L@neiu.edu
Message-id: <032420040419.21912.72c7@comcast.net>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN
Content-transfer-encoding: 8BIT

Assessment and Testing: What about the SB5, WISC-IV, and Other Tests?

Kathi Kearney M.A. Ed. and Barbara J. Gilman M.S

March 20th & 21st, 2004

Closing Statement

Barbara Gilman

Thank you for attending our online conference and providing a wealth of
interesting questions and comments. Highlights are presented below from what I
considered to be a fascinating discussion! Many thanks for this wonderful
experience. Bobbie

Promising New or Still Valuable Tests

or Portions of Tests

WISC-IV (Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Fourth Ed.)

I like the new WISC-IV's increased ceiling; the test offers additional harder
questions at the upper ends of a number of subtests. The WISC-IV has eliminated
the Verbal IQ and Performance IQ scores of its predecessors. The 10 required
subtests (5 are supplementary) yield a Full Scale IQ score and four Composite
scores: Verbal Comprehension, Perceptual Reasoning, Working Memory, and
Processing Speed. The Verbal Comprehension and Perceptual Reasoning Composites
are very good indicators of giftedness (Working Memory and Processing Speed are
not), that do an admirable job of assessing verbal abstract reasoning and
provide very useful tests of visual reasoning with less timing emphasis. I like
the Dumont-Willis Indices (check out John Willis's and Ron Dumont's website at
http://alpha.fdu.edu/psychology/) to evaluate WISC-IV scores when Verbal
Comprehension and Perceptual Reasoning Composite scores are higher than Working
Memory and Processing Speed (the WISC-IV technical manual
suggests this will usually be the case). A DWI-1 score can be computed for the
combination of Verbal Comprehension and Perceptual Reasoning, while a DWI-2
score can be computed for the combination of Working Memory and Processing
Speed. These computations, based on the Tellegen and Briggs formula, could be
helpful to schools. The DWI-1 score would be an excellent identifier of gifted
children for school programs, and only six subtests of the WISC-IV are needed to
produce it.

The WISC-IV is yielding many gifted-level scores at the GDC. However, some of
the Full Scale IQ scores are excessively lowered by Working Memory and
Processing Speed scores. As intelligence is primarily abstract reasoning
ability, emphasizing short-term auditory memory and processing speed on
paper-and-pencil tests is less helpful. Two Working Memory subtests (only one
was required on the WISC-III) and two Processing Speed subtests (only one was
required on the WISC-III) place more weight on these processing skills in the
Full Scale IQ score. This is unfortunate for gifted children and confounds the
FSIQ as a gifted identifier at times.

In the normative sample for the WISC-IV, the gifted group (which had scored at
least 130 previously) earned a Full Scale IQ score of 123.5 on the WISC-IV.
Their Verbal Comprehension score was 124.7 and Perceptual Reasoning score was
120.4. However, in line with our experience, their Working Memory averaged only
112.5 and their Processing Speed was 110.6 (WISC-IV Technical Manual p. 77).

Watch how this can affect scores.

One girl, age 9-10 earned these scores

VC- 148

PR -147

WM- 123

PS- 123

FSIQ- 147 (Her lower Working Memory and Processing Speed didn't lower her
FSIQ.)

But look at these two, who earned FSIQs of 127 and 125

VC- 119 VC- 140

PR- 127 PR- 123

WM-126 WM- 107

PS- 112 PS- 97

FSIQ- 127 FSIQ- 125

The child with the Verbal Comprehension score of 140 (often the best indicator
of success in a gifted classroom) really needs to be identified as gifted and
her WM and PS scores lower her FSIQ below the gifted range. The best solution is
to use the Verbal Comprehension and Perceptual Reasoning Composites for gifted
identification and not insist on the FSIQ.

SB5 (Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale-Fifth Edition)

The SB5 has wonderfully advanced mathematical reasoning and spatial reasoning
items. Gale Roid, the test's author, has shown flexibility in considering
alternate ways to score this test when young children perform at a level far
above age expectations, using Rasch-ratio scores. And, he has condoned the use
of portions of it for gifted identification (e.g., omitting the Working Memory
portion). The SB5 has continued the Binet tradition of being largely untimed.

SBL-M (Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale—Form L-M)

The SBL-M remains probably our strongest test of verbal abstract reasoning and
has established its usefulness over many years. Revising and renorming this
instrument as a test of giftedness would be appropriate. The SBL-M and SB5 show
real strengths used together because their content varies significantly.

What are the differences between the SBL-M and SB5?

The SBL-M is wonderful for assessing verbal abstract reasoning--the kind that
often defines gifted classrooms where students discuss concepts at advanced
levels, compare and contrast ideas, make inferences, debate points of view, and
write at depth about issues. This kind of reasoning is primarily assessed in
only 1 of the 10 subtests of the SB5: Verbal Fluid Reasoning. Although the SB5
is composed of 5 "Verbal" and 5 "Nonverbal" subtests, this refers to the way the
items are administered. Other Verbal subtests include "Verbal Quantitative
Reasoning," "Verbal Visual-Spatial Reasoning," "Verbal Working Memory," and
"Verbal Knowledge" (vocabulary). So, of 10 subtests, only 2--Verbal Fluid
Reasoning and Verbal Knowledge (vocabulary), assess the most important elements
of verbal reasoning in the typical sense.

However, because the Nonverbal portion of the SB5 includes Nonverbal Fluid
Reasoning (matrices), Nonverbal Knowledge (visual reasoning), Nonverbal
Quantitative Reasoning, Nonverbal Visual-Spatial Processing, and Nonverbal
Working Memory, you can see the SB5 is a strong assessment of visual reasoning,
visual-spatial reasoning (presented both verbally and visually) and mathematical
reasoning (both verbal and visual). It emphasizes areas the SBL-M also has, but
has less of. The SBL-M is a wonderful test of verbal abstract reasoning, which
also has some excellent mathematical and visual-spatial items, while the SB5
emphasizes mathematical and spatial reasoning. The tests complement each other.

It is unlikely the SBL-M will be significantly redesigned to include more
visual-spatial items because producing an entirely new IQ test like the SB5 is
very costly. However, Riverside would be wise to continue supporting the SBL-M
because its content exists nowhere else and it is a proven test of giftedness.
Just slightly revising it and renorming it as solely a test for the gifted would
be a great idea. I would propose calling it the SB-GT.

WPPSI-III (Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence-Third Edition)

The WPPSI-III offers improvements over its predecessor for gifted children. It
appears to us to be a better diagnostic test and it emphasizes abstract
reasoning quite well. It has two

forms: one for children ages 2-6 (2 years 6 months) to 3-11, and one for

ages 4-0 to 7-3 (although we would give a WISC-IV at 6-0). The form for

very young children is short (4 required subtests) and only Object Assembly

is timed (rather generously). The portion for ages 4-0 and up requires 7

subtests and has a good mix of verbal and visual reasoning in a

child-friendly test (administration is more comfortable than with the

WPPSI-R for little ones). The test does have a Processing Speed Quotient,

but only one of the two subtests from which it is calculated is included in

the Full Scale IQ score. This is a timed handwriting-like test.

“You’re Asking Me to Do WHAT With Those Letters/Numbers/Words/Pictures That You
Just Told/Showed Me????????”

(The Increased Emphasis of Processing Skills Measures as Part of the FSIQ)

Several years ago the GDC hosted a gifted testing Summit attended by several
test developers and experts in testing gifted children. As new tests were being
developed, the conversation focused on gifted testing needs. While the test
developers were planning a host of measures of processing skills (working
memory, processing speed, auditory processing, etc.) to augment reasoning items,
all of the testers emphasized the need for tests that assess abstract reasoning
ability (verbal, mathematical, visual-spatial) with processing skills assessed
separately. Reasoning tests best identify gifted children.

*Perhaps* (and I'm not convinced of this) the inclusion of more processing
skills measures is appropriate for lower functioning children. If the child's
processing speed on paper-and-pencil tasks is so slow that he or she cannot
complete work in a reasonable amount of time in the classroom, processing speed
may be such a limiting factor that it should be included in IQ scores. Likewise,
if short-term auditory memory is so poor that the teacher's instructions can't
be retained at all, this is a significant problem. However, gifted children
rarely perform extremely poorly in these areas on an absolute scale. It makes
much more sense to identify them as gifted based on assessments emphasizing
reasoning, provide them gifted learning experiences, and add any accommodations
based on relative weaknesses to the gifted accommodations. A Full Scale IQ score
that "averages" gifted reasoning and average processing skills fails to identify
either the giftedness or the relative weaknesses.

One test author at our Summit was surprised to learn gifted children weren't
especially fast processors. It had just been "assumed" that gifted children
would be the fastest processors. We explained some were very quick; others were
reflective or perfectionistic, slowing their speed. We also discussed the gifted
child's preference for meaningful test materials, and the problem of short-term
memory tests or other tasks that utilize non-meaningful material. Gifted
children usually perform so much better with meaningful material that their
scores with non-meaningful material are difficult to interpret. Our concern was
that whenever a strand is added to an IQ test that identifies a different group
as scoring the highest, than was identified by the other strands, there will be
a "confounding" of the Full Scale IQ score.

Now that we have some newly revised and renormed tests, we do have confounding
in the Full Scale scores (Note the fact that the gifted group in the WISC-IV
normative sample scored a 124.7 on Verbal Comprehension and a 120.4 on
Perceptual Reasoning, but only earned a 112.5 in Working Memory and a 110.6 in
Processing Speed, according to the WISC-IV Technical Manual p. 77). The only
real way to continue to identify the gifted children who need accommodations in
school for their advanced reasoning and efficient learning will be to carefully
assess the instruments we have, and choose the ones--or parts of them--that can
be useful in identification. Experts in gifted testing will need to share the
best approaches, and some different ways of using tests in schools will need to
be established.

My Child Showed a Large VIQ- PIQ Discrepancy.

Does That Warrant a Serious Diagnosis,

or Is It No Problem At All?

Discrepancies between Verbal and Performance IQ scores on Wechsler tests can be
diagnostically important. For example, on the WPPSI-R, a table in the manual
indicates that for 4-year-olds, a discrepancy of 10 points is significant at the
5% level. Another table notes that a discrepancy of 25 points between Verbal
and Performance IQ scores occurred in only 16 percent of 4-year-olds in the
normative sample. A discrepancy of 50 points occurred in 9 percent of cases.
Tests offer such tables to evaluate the significance of discrepancies. (This
one isn't too specific.) However, a discrepancy of 32 points (VIQ-150, PIQ-118)
[the example given in the post] should be further investigated.

Verbal items are administered verbally (the child responds to the tester's
verbal questioning), while Performance items are administered visually (the
child looks at pictures, manipulates objects, completes paper-and-pencil tasks).
Verbal items require reasonable speech and language skills (including good
hearing and auditory processing). Performance items require good visual
processing, visual acuity, and visual-motor coordination and speed. So, the
first thing to rule out when Verbal scores are higher than Performance is visual
problems. Frequently, young children are somewhat farsighted (longsighted) and
may have trouble seeing detail. Children may also have good distance vision and
healthy eyes, but may have some visual processing problems. Perhaps their eyes
don't easily track words on the line of a page (they inadvertently skip to the
next line) or they have difficulty changing from far-point to near-point focus
(these children have trouble copying from the blackb
oard). Or they may have difficulty copying designs, reproducing angles in the
wrong direction. Such problems can be subtle in a gifted child who compensates
well.

We find that behavioral optometrists are helpful here. They are trained to
assess these additional visual processing issues and can either rule them out as
problems or prescribe vision therapy, which has been effective in many cases
(see <http://www.covd.org> for a referral). 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).

If Verbal scores are significantly lower, we first see if there is a history of
chronic ear infections and rule out auditory acuity or auditory processing
problems. Auditory processing has also often proven to be a culprit when
children have difficulty with short-term auditory memory. Such children may
have difficulty understanding the sounds they hear (it may take a little longer
to comprehend what is heard) or they struggle with background noise, even when
they pass hearing screening tests. Keep in mind that the brighter the child,
the more subtle such difficulties may be to detect.

If none of the above problems exist, the VIQ-PIQ discrepancy may mean something
else, but ruling out basic problems with vision and audition has proven to be
important. The most common discrepancy we see in gifted children is high
Verbal/low Performance and vision is usually the culprit. Vision therapy
usually requires 6-9 months, with exercises practiced daily at home for 15-20
minutes to be effective.

Tests often give us indications of problems which then require specialists for
further evaluation. Following up on such apparent problems can bring extremely
helpful results.

How Can We Accommodate Aspergers, Learning Disabilities and Other Deficits in
Testing?

Dr. Deirdre Lovecky's new book, *Different Minds: Gifted Children With AD/HD,
Asperger Syndrome, and Other Learning Deficits* (Jessica Kingsley Pub, Mar 2004)
might be helpful. My experiences testing gifted children with Aspergers have
varied from no difficulties during testing and an apparent enjoyment of the test
situation to one young man who required several days to test (instead of one)
because it was felt he couldn't function before later in the day and had serious
motor problems that lengthened the time it took to complete any written work on
the achievement test.

There are many children who present challenges in testing and testers need to
develop strategies to meet varying situations (and remain flexible for the
situations they've never before experienced). Once in a while, we encounter a
child who is so difficult to test that we attempt to document only the most
important strengths, so that parents have something until the child becomes more
testable.

Parents might try to establish a relationship with a very experienced tester, so
that a child feels as comfortable with that person as possible. Then, when
testing is tried, agree to discontinue as soon as difficulty is encountered.
You can always finish another day.

Of course refusing to finish the test lowers scores. Just because the child in
this example is "regularly uncooperative and recalcitrant" doesn't mean that his
lowered scores actually reflect his true potential. The results must be
considered minimal estimates of his abilities *for now*.

With Likely EG and PG Children, Is It Important to Seek Testing From Testers
Experienced With This Population?

It is very important. Children at this level have the characteristics of
giftedness, only to more extreme degrees. They will respond best to testers who
are familiar with these traits and enjoy them. Testers who are also familiar
with their response styles will know when to speed up the administration to
accommodate a child who needs a very fast pace (and will lose focus without it),
and when to slow down to accommodate the child who offers an initial answer,
then continues to "hone" it to perfection. I have seen experienced testers of
more average children test their first exceptionally gifted child and make
mistakes for lack of experience with this population. I have observed a tester
hearing an initial answer, rushing to administer the next question, and
"training in" a short-answer response style, which lowers such a child's score.

Question 2: In general, when working with specialists (such as OT's,
psychotherapists, etc.) is it important to find people that have experience
dealing with EG/PG kids? Does it really matter?

It certainly helps. One behavioral optometrist in the Denver area says flatly,
"gifted children should have gifted vision" and knows to continue vision therapy
longer with more gifted children to support their other extraordinary abilities.
A local hospital has realized that with gifted children, it is benefiting them
to undertake OT when their tests indicate less need than the hospital usually
recommends therapy for. It is the discrepancy that is important, so the more
the specialist understands about gifted children (including the higher levels),
the better. When counseling or psychotherapy is involved, it is important to
understand the differences of these children and to avoid simply counseling them
to "fit in."

Is Early Testing Valid?

If a young child, say age 4-3, earned a Verbal IQ score of 150, it would be a
reliable estimate of highly gifted abilities. He earned that score on a test in
which a child must generate his own answers. His score is not a fluke. When
compared with age peers, his score indicates he is at the 99.9th percentile.
If, further, he has successfully been accelerated, it is testament to his
abilities. Giftedness is a permanent "developmental lead," not a temporary one.
The idea that children eventually even out is not borne out by our experience.

Responding to a highly gifted child's needs early can prevent considerable
frustration. The test scores are only one indication of a child’s developmental
advancement. Another is his response to acceleration at school. If he is doing
well and likes his placement, he needed the acceleration. A typical child would
be overwhelmed, but for a child this advanced, accelerated placements would be
necessary solutions. The test scores, resulting diagnoses, and observations of
a child should fit together well, and they usually do.

When Is the Best Age to Test?

We set testing age guidelines more for the sake of "testability" with a young
child. Children under 6 are more unpredictable in their responses. Sometimes,
they will respond beautifully to tasks they like and refuse to do others. Or
they may arrive for testing and answer far fewer questions than their parents
know they could answer. Other times, they perform beautifully. Most testers
would probably prefer children who are 6 or 7 because the added maturity largely
eliminates these problems, but educational decisions often won't wait. Many
younger children are testable and perform well. Gifted children are cognitively
advanced, so there is a good chance they will respond as older children would.

Only rarely do children who are tested young score lower when retested. It is
more common that they will score similarly (on a test with a similar ceiling) if
the test sessions went well, or higher if there were problems in the early
testing getting them to answer questions or attempt items.

If there is a question whether or not a young child is testable, it is a good
idea to seek a local tester and, perhaps, arrange a brief visit between the
child and tester beforehand. On the testing day, if it appears the child is not
responding, the test should be quickly discontinued and tried when the child is
older.

"My parents told me some people wanted to test me for the gifted program. I was
4 and kept waiting for my presents to show up."

(What to tell children about testing)

I tell children I am testing that my purpose is to find out more about them and
suggest ways to make their education more successful and fun for them
(vocabulary varies somewhat with this explanation, but not too far from what I
would tell any adult!). I work for them. The tests give me the information I
need to make suggestions.

I explain that we are going to do a number of activities, some "verbal" (I will
be asking questions), some involving things they do with their hands (puzzles,
looking at designs or pictures, etc.). I would say something like this to
prepare a child, as well as ensuring a good night's sleep, and bringing snacks
to have at breaks on test day.

One little boy I tested told me the following. He said, "My mom says everyone
has gifts; I've come to see what mine are" (although this might have resulted in
the misunderstanding about where the presents are!) [:)]

How Can I Find a Good Tester in [Insert location Here]?

Try these sources:

www.educationaladvancement.org www.hoagiesgifted.org

Be choosy. You want a good testing situation for your child that offers the
best opportunity to document his abilities. Look for people who like working
with these children, have high standards of professionalism, and write reports
you will feel comfortable using on a number of occasions for placement decisions
and program admission.

Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 04:49:29 +0000
From: Sally_L@comcast.net
Subject: ASAT: ADMIN - Closing - Assessment and Testing: What about the SB5,
WISC-IV, and Other Tests?
To: OURGIFTED-L@neiu.edu
Message-id: <032420040449.14453.4b4a@comcast.net>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN
Content-transfer-encoding: 8BIT

Dear List Members,

What a pleasure it has been to be the conference coordinator for Our Gifted
Online Conferences guest experts - Barbara J. Gilman and Kathi Kearney on
Assessment and Testing: What about the SB5, WISC-IV, and Other Tests?

Each conference is an adventure which I treasure. I hope you all treasure them
too. They are a labor of love.

As I have stated on my website and I would like to share with you all in this
closing email

"It is my hope this web site and listserv will provide a bridge - a meeting
place - for parents, educators, psychologists, students seeking to become
professional educators and psychologists, gifted individuals, anyone who has an
interest in advocating, learning, and sharing experiences involving the myriad
of issues concerning giftedness. It is my humble opinion that all of the above
roles are highly valued and needed to cooperate, share, and grow together in
endeavors to advocate for the gifted and talented.

In addition, I wanted to create a project which would have the potential to take
a life of its own and grow. This growth and its influences may not be
scientifically known quantitatively or qualitatively, but nevertheless may
become a positive influence in the lives of those who are gifted and talented.
This project is my way to be able to help others in some small way no matter
where one might live and play.

Therefore, this is “Our Gifted” place where I hope people from all walks of life
and professional and non-professional backgrounds can meet online because of a
common interest and passion concerning the hows, whys, and the myriad of issues
associated with the words - gifted and talented as applied to human development.

I expect many lively discussions will be enjoyed by participants in “Our Gifted”
online conferences. The archives of these conferences along with future articles
and downloadable information will become accessible on this website. The image,
I believe, can be compared to the Internet - a web of concern with activity in
depth, breadth and scope."

Yes, there were many lively discussions and I thank you all being an integral
part of making my dreams come true - helping others.

I am thankful to rub shoulders with you "ALL". I stand in awe of your passion
and determination whatever your role(s) may be to advocate for those whom for
whatever reason ignited you to seek out others to discuss issues pertaining to
giftedness and talent of all individuals regardless of race, age, gender,
economic status, and/or twice/thrice exceptionalities.

Your Conference Coordinator and List Manager,
Sally_L

PS
Do you all know that I wore out a pair of virtual tennis shoes running to keep
up with our guest experts my "friend brains", Kathi and Bobbie. (Inside joke
LOL)

Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 00:09:18 -0500
From: Meredith Warshaw <mwarshaw@uniquelygifted.org>
Subject: Re: ASAT Thanks and disappointment
To: OURGIFTED-L@neiu.edu
Message-id: <029401c4115e$2ad4be80$6400a8c0@MEREDITH>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit

From: <JeeTed@aol.com>

> I think that you are speaking for quite a number of people (parents, mostly)
> who held out so much hope for something that would make it simpler that it has
> been in the past. It is tough to have a child tested on the LM and to be
> given a lot of important information only to find out when you present it to
the
> school or local mental health professionals they tend to roll their eyes while
> informing you that the test is invalid and the results meaningless. So many
> of us have spent *so many years* studying the ins and out of giftedness that a
> good many (although I do not include myself here) have become quite expert.

I think that there was also a sense of expectation raised in the gifted
community that the new SB-V would combine the high ceiling of the SB-LM with the
wide acceptance of the SB-IV/WISC. So many of us were eagerly awaiting this new
test with very high expectations - and so we feel a great sense of
disappointment that it isn't living up our anticipations. None of us expected
the WISC-IV to solve these problems, so we aren't as disappointed in it (unfair?
perhaps, but true).

As I think Kathi pointed out, it is also very problematic that all the tests are
changing at once. It is really too bad that the SB, WISC (and even the SAT) are
all changing in concert - it makes it much harder to evaluate the new tests when
all the old ones are being retired at the same time.

--
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: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 05:15:12 +0000
From: Sally_L@comcast.net
Subject: ADMIN: Notice - Conference is Closed and the list is no longer
moderated
To: OURGIFTED-L@neiu.edu
Message-id: <032420040515.19783.7f53@comcast.net>

The conference is closed and the list is no longer moderated.

Sally_L
List Manager
Conference Coordinator
www.neiu.edu/~ourgift

Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 05:43:01 +0000
From: Sally_L@comcast.net
Subject: ADMIN: The Opening Statement, Closing Statements , Digests,
& Compiled Resource Lists,
To: OURGIFTED-L@neiu.edu
Message-id: <032420040543.24271.5130@comcast.net>

Hi List Members,

The Opening Statement, Closing Statements and Digests can be accessed at
http://www.neiu.edu/~ourgift/pages/Conference.htm

Archives are a very important component of my website. Volunteers have come
forward to compile resources which are mentioned during conferences.

I will announce to the list when the resources for the prior conference with
Dr. Ellen Fiedler and the Kearney/Gilman conference are completed.

One volunteer has offered to do this task for Dr. Sally Reis' conference in
April. Please contact me offlist if you would like to join in doing this very
important task as well.

Take care,
Sally_L
Conference Coordinator
List Manager
www.neiu.edu/~ourgift

Thanks,
Sally_L

PS Bobbie did a great job in formatting two of the documents:)))

Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 00:56:12 -0500
From: Meredith Warshaw <mwarshaw@uniquelygifted.org>
Subject: Re: ASAT Thanks
To: OURGIFTED-L@neiu.edu
Message-id: <035701c41164$b7dd1e20$6400a8c0@MEREDITH>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit

From: "L Dunbar" <ldunbar@umich.edu>:

> Based on all I've read it sounds to me like SB5 is identifying the
> 'right' percentages, which I presume was one of the goals. "Highly"
> gifted at 135 =~ top 1% seems OK to me too, and eg/pg at 99.9%ile
> sounds about right, too.
>
> It just isn't possible for ALL of our children to be one in a million!
> <G>

I guess this brings up an important point that was never fully discussed - what
is the goal?

I don't really care if my child is 1 in 100 or 1 in a million (after all, I'm a
loving mother who thinks he's 1 in a zillion ;^) What I care about is what this
IQ number means educationally, emotionally and socially.

With the SB-LM's "mental age", problematic as the practicalities of it may have
been, I had information that was much more important to me than where a child
falls statistically. I knew that an SB-LM score of, for example, 150 meant that
a child's mental age was 50% greater than his chronological age - if he was 8
when the testing was done, then his mental age was 12. This explained
educational and social issues that aren't explained by just knowing that the
child is in the 99.9%ile. Further, it allows me to understand the difference
between a child with an IQ of 150 and one with an IQ of 180 in a way that just
knowing percentiles doesn't begin to. In my opinion, this is important
information that is being lost when one is overly concerned with matching
statistical distributions.

--
Meredith Warshaw, M.S.S., M.A., mailto:mwarshaw@uniquelygifted.org
Special Needs Educational Advisor, http://uniquelygifted.org