Mind Your Language - the power of little words

During the last year or so I have been taking Italian lessons and, in the process, learning grammar I didn’t learn at school. My school years fell in a window of time when there wasn't a focus on teaching grammar in more than a very basic way. So in learning a new language I am discovering all manner of things about English and the power of different parts of speech to change the intention.

Conjunctions (or 'joining words' as they were when I was at school), for instance, are small but they are clearly not interchangeable. They have the power to completely alter the intention of a statement.

Take for instance the ‘little’ words ‘and’, ‘but’, and ‘or’. Despite their size they are heavy weights.

Consider the impact on a twice exceptional child – a gifted learning disabled child. Our choice of conjunction makes all the difference to their future, at the very least in the short term.

Gifted and learning disabled

Gifted but learning disabled

Gifted or learning disabled

A child who is seen as gifted and learning disabled (or having learning difficulties of some sort) is recognized for both the giftedness and the disability or difficulty. It is reasonable to expect then that both will be catered for, even though the giftedness may be difficult to see when it is masked by the difficulties. Acknowledging both the giftedness and the difficulties means that schools (and parents) will be more likely to look for ways to accommodate both of these differences.

Gifted but learning disabled has a different tone. It almost sounds like an apology. The giftedness might accepted as being present but, oh dear, there is this learning difficulty that means we don’t have to take it too seriously. We won’t expect too much, perhaps not provide too much for either the giftedness or the disability.

Gifted or learning disabled is even more dangerous.  Make a choice. Gifted. Or Learning Disabled. One wins, the other loses. And it is not just that it is one or the other, it is the fact that it is one without the awareness of the impact of the other. If the learning disability is ignored and the child considered gifted, they will struggle in gifted programs and the classroom without accommodations for their disability. Sooner or later doubt will set it, for the child, the teacher or the parents……. Maybe they aren’t gifted after all………. opportunities dry up.

If the giftedness is ignored and remediation put in place using the methods and pacing that would typically be used with less able children, the gifted child is unlikely to be engaged or motivated (either by the pace of the level of content), and gains are likely to be small. Sooner or later this is used to discount the presence of giftedness at all. It becomes self fulfilling and convenient when it is awkward or time consuming trying to solve the problem of why learning is difficult.

If you have a child whose learning needs differ from the mainstream for some reason, listen closely to the words used when there is discussion about your child, their needs and how they can be accommodated.

One little word can speak volumes.

AAEGT Conference snippets from Adelaide 2012

I posted these snippets on Facebook during the conference, but a few people have asked about them, so I am reposting them here over the next few days, along with a little more detail for some comments.

Reflecting forward
Abraham Lincoln suggested “The best way to predict the future is to create it.”  Jim Watters in his Eminent Australian Address suggests this could be extended now to “The best way to create the future is to predict it.”

Jim reflected on where gifted education has traveled over the last 10 years and offered some insights into the future, for the period of the next 10 years, drawing on research changing views in the world and the field of gifted education, the media and Future Studies.

Jim suggests we need to ‘lay some predictions in the sand‘ and follow them to fruition, so they happen, rather than just seeing what unfolds.

Dyslexia
Dyslexia is not just about transposing of letters.  Anne Jackson from Kids Like Us, a Nor For Profit Group, gave a really interesting presentation reinforcing the need to have a history of accommodations in place in order to get the disability recognized with extra time or special provisions (for example a scribe) in TEE exams.

She explained that dyslexia is a neurological, life long condition and it arises from a chromosomal mutation. There is a strong family link, often most evident in male relatives (including uncles). Dyslexia is a spectrum disorder ranging from mild to severe and Twice Exceptional (2E) kids are more prone to depression and anxiety especially during adolescence as a result of the frustration of the condition.

Signs that ‘nothing is working’, when gifted children in particular are not achieving with adequate instruction (i.e. what is sufficient for others to learn) is cause for alarm. While most gifted children will learn to manage to a degree and most will learn to read, some do not and these children may not have their gifts recognized either. Often the difficulties are most evident in high school where the demand increases and the work load in terms of reading and writing increases. Gifted children are often able to mask their difficulties to a degree until the demand increases.

Snippets from Carolyn CallahanDownload the slides from Carolyn's presentations
"If we always do what we have always done, we will always get what we have always got."

"As responsible educators we have an obligation to evaluate the programs we implement."

"We must make sure changes we make are good for the child. Put the child at the centre of the decision making, not the convenience of the administration."

"Differentiation is different to a program for gifted, and it is not sufficient on its own."

"Appropriate education fulfils a democratic ethic – not to make everyone the same but to offer equal opportunity to develop and show their gifts."

"Treat them as they are and they will stay as they are. Treat them as they ought to be or could be and they will become what they ought to be or could be."


Updated profiles of the Gifted from Betts and Neihart
These profiles were updated in 2010 to reflect the changes in knowledge over the last 20 years. Much more is known about 2E children in particular, but it is also apparent that the Underground Gifted Child encompasses minority and disadvantaged students not just predominantly girls.
Find Maureen Neihart’s presentation slides here

Questioning Preschoolers
Rosalind Walsh presented on her research indicating the way we question preschoolers has a significant impact on the complexity of their responses (and may communicate our expectations of them in subtle ways) . The Williams Model is a useful tool for differentiating questioning BUT it needs preparation. You probably cant develop questions ‘on the run’ while reading a story using Williams. Which means differentiation for early childhood (as at any point), requires planning.

TEAM means "Together Everyone Achieves More"

This post is a part of SENG’s National Parenting Gifted Children Week Blog Tour.
Take the opportunity to check out the list of participating blogs and find more posts about parenting gifted children.

Speaking up for your child is scary. It is hard work. Sometimes it feels like running on the spot. It can test your patience and commitment and it isn't a ‘one shot fix’. It requires confidence and being well informed. It depends on positive relationships and working together.

Over the last 6 or 7 years as an independent gifted consultant I have worked directly with more than 300 gifted children and their families, providing information, education planning advice and advocacy support.  Very often parents arrive at my door as the result of some sort of crisis – something has not been working and amongst the help they have sought they have discovered their child is gifted.

When facing the need to advocate for their child, the parents largely fall into one of 3 groups:

• Those who want to know what they need to know, what they need to do and who then set off to guide the changes needed for their child to thrive.
• Those who are willing but lack the confidence.
• Those who hope the problem will go away.

The first group don’t always get it right first time, few of us do! But they are proactive, they set out confidently, have a goal in mind but are willing to look at other options when something doesn’t work. The outcomes are often positive, even if it takes a bit of tweaking along the way.

The second group generally hesitate and initially doubt their ability to manage the process. Very often these parents have not yet recognized their own giftedness and need to come to terms with that before they can be really effective for their child. Helping them build their confidence as well as their knowledge base can make a world of difference to their situation. They may need to check in at each new challenge in the early stages but gain confidence over time as the situation for their child improves.

The third group. These parents often wring their hands, reluctant to step across the threshold into the school and hope that now that they understand a little more about their child, the teachers will too and they won’t need to ‘make waves’. Things may improve a little simply because they understand the situation better and subtly change the way they interact with the child, so they sometimes feel justified in not speaking up for their child. But sooner or later things come to a head once again. These parents often come back for more information and support at every challenge, without yet recognizing that they have the power to change their course themselves. Over the years I have learned that I can’t help this group of parents very much until they are ready to be proactive. I can provide information and strategies but I can’t do it for them.

"It is not because things are difficult that we do not dare; it is because we do not dare that they are difficult."

Seneca

It is human nature to fear change. When something has been done a particular way for a while, it feels like it must be a good way to do things. The longer things have been done that way, the better we assume them to be, even when there is evidence to the contrary.

Apart from wanting to ‘get it right’ for our children, the thing which seems most likely to cause us to hesitate is our own journey, your own school ‘story’. These personal experiences at school seem to have a powerful influence over how willing we are to advocate for our gifted children and how confidently we approach the process. If our memories of school are not positive, the thought of having to talk to teachers about our child can be intimidating. 

It is natural to hesitate and worry about whether we are ‘getting it right’. Perhaps that is a mark that school has left on us, even if unintentionally. With advocacy, as with life, it is actually less about ‘getting it right’ than ‘doing our best’. I advise parents to make the best decision they can at the time with the knowledge they have. With more knowledge or at a different time they may make a different decision, but if they do the best they can, it will be enough, at least for the time being. Trusting your intuition, or as some parents call it ‘making choices of the heart’, often turn out to be the right ones in the long run, what ever they are.

Parenting is tiring, with gifted children it can be exhausting. As Jan Merill (Laughing at Chaos) mentioned earlier this week ‘These kids are the ultimate in personalization’, and they don't come with a parenting manual. Parents need to draw on all the resources they can. Working with the teacher or school is just another resource parents can draw on.

For a child to thrive it takes team work and a willingness for all parties to listen to and learn from the other. The parent and teacher often see very different sides of the same child. Parents have expert knowledge about their own child. They know their quirks and foibles, what lights them up, what shuts them down. They have seen the child reach milestones and watched their skills unfold. A teacher, who only sees the child for part of a day, often over a single year, cannot possibly hope to know every child in the same sort of detail. The teacher however, can draw on a perspective the parent is unlikely to have. Building up the common ground by sharing what you know can make all the difference.

And a positive relationship with your child’s teacher can pay off hugely. Here’s a few pointers that have come out of talking to and observing parents’ advocacy efforts, along with the parents own words:

Do what ever you can to become known to the teacher in positive ways

“Volunteer your time to help them if you can. Go and help in the classroom, listen to reading, photocopy, staple, make costumes, help with science... what ever you can to be there and be seen to be supportive. At the very least the teacher knows you do not have two heads and breathe fire.”  

"You can not expect the school to go out of their way for you without giving them something back. The relationship has to be two way.”

Build trust
Talk to the teacher about things other than just your child, try to be interested in them as a person. They will almost certainly be more responsive when the purpose of talking to them is conversation rather than confrontation.

"It’s not only what you say to the teachers but how you say it that matters. It does not matter that you are ‘right’, if they have stopped listening.”

Say Thank You
Thank teachers for the little things they do and the things they try. Celebrate the successes, even the little ones and let them know when things are going well. Let them see you appreciate their efforts, even if you have not got the result you hoped for.

“Say thank you and make them feel appreciated for their efforts – frequently. Praise their good qualities – not just how they benefit my child but in what they bring to the field.”

Remember teachers have lives too
Parents can be a great resource for teachers just finding their way in the gifted landscape. Parent often read voraciously and come across articles that think might be helpful for the teacher too. Sharing this information in a non-threatening way is good advice. Try to avoid handing over a thick sheaf of papers and suggesting you meet to talk about it the next day. Teachers are more likely to find time to read a few pages here and there and it can help further to have highlighted what you most want them to read. Even better if you include something that acknowledges your request on their time. Chocolate could be what does the trick. (OK that one was in my words, the chocolate idea was a parent's. You can read more about The Chocolate Frog Thankyou in Gifted and Thriving at School)

There is nothing more satisfying than seeing your child happy and thriving. That is the goal of almost every single parent with whom I have worked. It's important to believe that teachers also have the child’s best interests at heart, even if they do not always do things we think are ‘right’ for our children. While thriving it is not something that will necessarily happen overnight, to move towards it parents (who have the longer term view), need to be proactive and guide the process.

And one final word from a parent:

“Be realistic when talking about your child. Pick your battles carefully. Realise which battles are important and which are not. Does it really matter if your child already knows all their spelling words because they memorise them? Probably not. Does it matter if they’re meant to do repetitive busy work with those words for a whole week? That matters a whole lot more.”

Busy underachieving.

What has purpose got to do with busy work and underachievement? Quite a lot I believe.

As adults or as children, we find it difficult to maintain focus and attention when tasks are tedious or monotonous. It is difficult to keep feeling positive about a task which doesn’t give us a spark of satisfaction. The brain associates the restlessness and disengagement with tedium and monotony, and lack of value in the activity. We complain of feeling ‘bored’.

When you look closely, often it is not the task itself which is the problem, it is how we feel about it. Emotion is a powerful driver.

When we are faced with a different task which we discover to be tedious or monotonous suddenly, up pops the same emotion, even though the task might be unrelated to the previous one. If we feel ‘bored’ our mind convinces us that the task is ‘useless’, regardless of whether the feeling is legitimate or not.

Too many instances where this happens and eventually we stop bothering altogether.

It is true that we need to develop the ability to manage some boring bits; life is made of up them too. We would quickly burn out if everything we did was exciting and we were operating at our limits all the time. But we need a balance. When that balance tips in favour of the monotonous or boring we find it difficult to become motivated even about things which might usually give us a spark of enjoyment. We might say, tellingly, that ‘our heart is not in it’. Flatness, disengagement and depression can be the result. For children as well as adults.

Let's move from thinking about life to thinking about school. We refer to tasks at school as school ‘work’. Our choice of words implies there is an element of ‘work’ involved – that it will require crunched eyebrows and some effort. Yet when our gifted children are faced with work which is simplistic, or which requires them to practice skills they have already demonstrated that they have mastered, the emotions associated with tedium frequently slide in and, over time, the child can stop bothering with school work generally. 

Parents often mention the spark fading in their child’s eyes and we wonder where the resulting underachievement has come from.

‘What’s the point?’ is a question children often ask. It is a valid one. When we know the purpose of ‘busy work’, things that just have to be done, we can often tolerate it a little better. Sometimes the task that seems tedious has a purpose in the bigger picture. Knowing the long term worth of a task can put the tedium in context and make it more palatable. In this case ‘busy work’ might be justifiable, if the amount is tailored to a child’s readiness and pace of learning. Some may need more practice, others less, in order to lay the foundation for the long term. Even building persistence requires tasks to be meaningful in order to stick with them to develop the skill. 

It is the pointless ‘busy work’ that most often leads to complaints from children (and if we are honest, from adults in variety of settings as well).

When we are well aware that there are differences between students in any class, it does not make sense to presume or insist that everyone should complete the same tasks. A differentiated curriculum recognises the student differences between students and makes a commitment to plan for these differences with the goal of maximising student growth and individual success. Tedium then should be minimised.

Carol Ann Tomlinson whose name is well known in connection with the need for and design of differentiated learning opportunities advocates for respectful tasks which are appropriately rigorous and engaging for the learner (at what ever level they may be at). She suggests that it is when teachers disregard differences in readiness or pace of learning that complaints arise. When work is too simplistic, overly rote or offered too frequently, it will become monotonous.

And the chances are that our emotions will take charge of our engagement with learning.

Photo credit jscreationzs via www.FreeDigitalPhotos.net

Wearing the Right Glasses

Before I get started I just want to let you know that I am very excited to be participating in this Blog Tour, not only because this is a first for me but because it has further opened up the wonderful world of giftedness and blog posts from far and wide, and reminded me that despite being a long way from anywhere, the world really is a small place.

Wearing the Right Glasses

"It's not what you look at that matters, it's what you see. ”
Henry David Thoreau (1817-1862)

 A long time ago, when I was a trainee teacher, I took a Special Needs elective unit as part of my degree. I don't recall that any mention was made of giftedness (and didn't find it mentioned in the unit text book when it came to light in a recent clean up), so I no doubt, started my teaching career as blind to the concept of giftedness as many teachers continue to do even today. I do recall one particular class in that unit though which required us to put on different glasses and walk around the campus. These were designed to simulate the experience of various vision defects. It was difficult, and it changed our perception.

Over time my interest in giftedness grew and I now have many years of experience working with families with gifted children, teachers and schools. As I try to help others grasp the differences that are part of giftedness I often think of those glasses and wish there was something similar which could help teachers (and others) understand the gifted experience more clearly. It could save much heartache and frustration and even avoid mis-turns and unfortunate misdiagnoses.

Let’s imagine for a moment that you work in a setting with a group of people whose values or interests are wildly different to you own. While you might prefer to discuss current affairs or the environmental impact of a proposed mining project, your workmates are focussed on the latest reality TV show or celebrity faux par. You initially attempt to join in the conversation, perhaps trying to introduce something of more interest to you but are met with blank looks. Your work mates quickly turn away and go back to discussing what interests them. Pretty soon you stop trying to engage them in conversation.

A similar situation may exist for your gifted child who goes to school and finds that his or her classmates are equally disinterested in their latest passion. After trying to engage them in the topic of interest and maybe even trying other ways to belong to the group, perhaps even trying ‘just running around’ like everyone else, or hanging about on the edge of conversations or games, your child decides they would really rather read a book or chat with the teacher on duty.

Before long the teacher raises concerns about your child’s social skills, mentioning immaturity based on not engaging with their classmates. (They may have a similar opinion about the adult situation above as well, although they would probably word it slightly differently). This is not an uncommon situation, although the scenario might change at times to include a child who cries when mum leaves them at Kindy, or the child who gets 'more upset than normal' when a humanitarian issue is discussed at school.

Think for a moment about the glasses I mentioned earlier.

If the teacher is wearing glasses that give a 'normal' view of the situation with an average ability child, their interpretation of the situation might seem reasonable for a child of the same age.

If they change to wearing 'gifted glasses', ones that let them see the behaviour in the light of giftedness, the situation may appear very different.

The child who isn’t engaging with their classmates of the same age because they have moved beyond that stage of development is not immature. If we were to relocated a ‘normal’ child to the classroom of younger children for some reason we would not immediately deem them immature when they found it difficult to connect appropriately with their new classmates.  First we would look to see how they interacted in other settings. It is equally appropriate (and important) to do so with a gifted child who struggles to connect with classmates. Knowing they are comfortable interacting with older children or in other settings provides a vital insight regarding their social disconnectedness and ‘maturity’.

The clingy child may be using the only method they have available to them to let mum know they are not comfortable in a particular setting. The sensitive child who is upset at the plight of others may be exhibiting signs of a greater awareness and concern for others than their class mates. Without the right (gifted) glasses, their behaviour could be misinterpreted.

It is not just teachers who would benefit from these glasses. Parents too would find them invaluable, especially in the early stages of their journey into giftedness. A parent's frustration at their child's increasing forgetfulness, or perhaps their need to know exactly where they will be going and when, are just a couple of examples of times when parents too might benefit from the looking through the right glasses.

They would be handy for health professionals too. Imagine a GP or psychologts (or even an optician) who could consider what they saw in light of giftedness. A child or adult’s intensity or difficulties might not be viewed as symptoms of a mental or emotional disorder and therapy or medication may not follow in an attempt to ‘cure’ the symptoms of giftedness.

In my recently published book The Beginner’s Guide to Life on the Bright Side I mention a woman who came to see me regarding her daughter. During the consultation she described how she herself had been taking antipsychotic drugs for 8 years following a Bipolar diagnosis. In the process of understanding her highly gifted young daughter’s needs and the challenges the family were facing as a result, this mother gained insight into her own situation. Her neurologist subsequently took her off medication and agreed that she had been misdiagnosed. It was, however, the only way to explain her ‘symptoms’ when they were compared to the general population. With the benefit of ‘gifted glasses’ he may have been able to refer this young mother to a different sort of help.

Similarly, a child’s intensity, impatience, sensitivity and high energy, all characteristics common amongst gifted children, can be mistaken for AD/HD. A sensitive, intense and strong-willed child’s behaviour might be mistaken for Oppositional Defiant Disorder, particularly if they do not like to be criticized for thinking differently and tend to question rules or engage in power struggles with those in authority. The impact of inconsistencies or injustices they observe in the world, or their lack of opportunity to interact with like minds might be considered to be signs of a mood disorder in another. Gifted individuals often experience intense feelings or changes of mood and depression can have its roots in unrecognized giftedness.

Interpreting the behaviour in light of 'normal' or 'most people' can result in pathologizing what is, in reality, a cry for help. Many misdiagnoses of gifted children (and adults) based on behaviours which appear abnormal when they are viewed through 'the lens of normal' can be attributed to asynchrony, misfit and feeling alienated. Many gifted individuals spend years trying to understand their differentness, grappling with being 'too much' or out of step with others. With the right glasses they may be able to appreciate their intensity, complexity and drive as positive traits relating to giftedness.

Quite apart from the problem of general lack of awareness about giftedness, the brain science of attention has demonstrated clearly that we can see what we expect to see while other aspects of a scenario go unnoticed. To see what we missed, we need to stop looking one way and start looking another. In effect we need to check whether we need to swap our ‘normal’ glasses for the ones that let us interpret what we see in the light of giftedness.

Which glasses are you wearing? It could make a huge difference to the lives of gifted individuals and their families.

Photo credit Michelle Meiklejohn via www.FreeDigitalPhotos.net 

Use this link to find out more about The Beginner’s Guide to Life on the Bright Side

Be sure to go and read other blog posts from this Blog Tour. You will find them listed at http://ultranet.giftededucation.org.nz/WebSpace/696/

IQ tests are just one piece of the puzzle

It is tempting to think that an IQ test settles the matter of whether a child is gifted or not. Sometimes it does, but often it does not. It is simply one piece of the puzzle.

While an individually administered IQ test will not over estimate intellectual potential, there are many reasons why it might under estimate intelligence, and I believe that is why we should avoid relying solely on IQ tests as an identification tool.

In addition, there is the problem of exactly what level of intelligence qualifies as ‘gifted’. The cut off point varies depending on the circumstances, who is doing the selecting and for which program. As intelligence is a continual scale not and either-or attribute like blue eyes or brown, setting a strict cut off point is highly problematic. A child, who scores just above the nominated gifted cut off point one day, may not do so if tested on another day (or at a less optimal time of day). Conversely a child who just misses out may score within the nominated range on another day. Scores can vary a few points up or down from day to day.

** That is not to say anyone could test within the gifted range. The tests are stardardised rigorously and luck does not play a part in an individually administered IQ test (in a group test where questions are multi choice, chance can play a slightly greater role). So an average ability child could not suddenly score within the gifted range – the variation in scores is simply not that great.

The expected repeatability of a score achieved on an IQ test is indicated by the confidence interval which shows a range within which a person is likely to score, were they to take the test again immediately. It is usually a few points above and a few points below the score calculated from an assessment. A 90% confidence interval (90% chance the scores will be within the indicated range)will encompass a wider range of scores above and below the achieved score than a 95% confidence interval (tighter range). If your score was very close to a nominated cut off point, it could actually be slightly above, or below, the magical 'cut off point' if you were able to take the test again.

If we set a particular, fixed, score as the cut off to the land of giftedness, we would need to be 100% sure that a score on an IQ test is exactly repeatable. This also implies that we are 100% certain that this score is a complete indication of a persons intellectual potential.

I have worked with a lot of children who have IQ test results and this simply is not reasonable.

Giftedness is not an exclusive club – it is meant to be a descriptive tool which helps determine the sort of opportunities which are needed for the child to thrive. Giftedness does not make a person ‘better than’ anyone else, simply ‘better at’ some things (or even many things). (James Delisle elaborates in Barefoot Irreverance, p 31). Wisely used they tell us a lot about the child  but we still need to be sure that the results fit with other information about the child. If not, we need to ask more questions, search for more pieces of the puzzle.

Imagine you had received the results of some regular blood tests and they were quite different to what was expected especially as you don't have the typical risk factors that would accompany such  results. Would you accept them without question? Or would you expect that your doctor would consider them in light of what else he or she knows about your history, ask more questions and if concerned, order more tests? (I know this would be my expectation). Imagine the outcome if interventions were prescribed based on results which turned out to be incorrect because of poor sample taking, contamination or some other as-yet-unidentified issue.

This same thing can happen when IQ tests are taken at face value and not considered in the light of what else we know about a child. IQ tests can tell us a lot about a child, their strengths and relative weaknesses. It can also highlight possible learning problems which are likely to have depressed the scores. If the child is retested once these are identified and addressed, their scores will be likely to be a more complete measure of their intellectual potential. If the original score was accepted without further consideration, opportunities to develop their potential may be barred from them.

Perhaps that sounds a little theoretical without some background on IQ testing and intelligence.

General intelligence or cognitive ability is often thought of as synonymous with abstract reasoning and problem-solving ability. Defining intelligence is complex but it is generally accepted that intelligence is more encompassing that simply intellectual ability.

Psychologist Robert Sternberg is one of many who have grappled with the conundrum of what intelligence actually ‘is’ and he defines it as “the ability to adapt to, select, and shape environments.” This includes not only intellectual ability, but creative and physical aptitude, as well as interpersonal skills including persuasive ability and strong leadership qualities. Francoys Gagne also identifies a number of domains where giftedness may be present as can be seen in his Differentiated Model of Giftedness and Talent (DMGT), also including the physical, creative and social domains in addition to intellectual potential.

                     
The most common way to measure cognitive potential is via the use of an IQ (intelligence) test. These are a measure of a person’s ability to learn rather than what they have learned in school. An IQ test is a ‘snap shot’, a sample of behaviour on tasks that measure what we value in a society at that point in time. Current IQ tests have been developed based on the belief that abstract reasoning is synonymous with general ability, and as a result they currently measure reasoning ability, understanding and use of language, processing skills, attention and learning style preferences, providing us with an objective insight into a child’s unique profile of abilities.

A crucial thing to remember is that an IQ test is a sample. It doesn’t measure everything, and it may not give a complete picture of a child’s potential.

As the child needs to come up with their own answers to the questions and tasks on the assessment, an inflated score is not possible. However, many factors can reduce the accuracy of the results. If a child is tired or unwell when assessed, the test may not capture the full extent of their ability. Stress and anxiety and the degree of experience the psychologist has with testing gifted children can also affect the results. Depending on the experience of the assessor and their knowledge of gifted children, other traits in a child such as perfectionism can also have an influence on results. The scores of very young children can also be lowered by their lack of experience in formal, directed test type situations. By about seven or eight years of age, results tend to be stable in this regard but conversely scores can begin to be affected by the child’s level of engagement at school. Consequently IQ test scores should be considered a minimum, showing that your child is at least as capable as the results show.

An IQ test does not tell you how successful a person will be at school or in life in general. It does not tell you about their musical, artistic or physical potential. IQ tests are not designed to measure creative ability, empathy or physical skills, nor do they measure everything a person knows.

So can we use an IQ test to identify giftedness?

Intellectual giftedness, yes. But not giftedness in other domains. A high score on an IQ test is a high score and as I have said earlier, it isn't a fluke. If a child scores in the gifted range (what ever that is determined to be in particular instance) they are gifted.

But there is a good chance that it doesn’t tell the whole story.

It is crucial to consider the results alongside other background information about a child’s development and behaviour. It may be that the child is more gifted than the scores suggest. It could be that despite a high level of potential a child still has some learning difficulties (or differences) that have impacted on the results. Or perhaps the person who assessed them was not experienced testing gifted children, or the child had a bad day, was unwell or overly anxious at the time of testing. If the IQ test results are taken at face value and as complete indication of a child’s potential then many gifted children will be overlooked.

Using an IQ test alone to identify the gifted potentially excludes others who equally deserve opportunities to meet their needs. Several of the most gifted children I have had the privilege to meet would have continued to languish, their needs unmet, if the Full Scale score, had been taken on face value, rather than subtest and other information in the IQ test results .

On the other hand, discounting IQ testing as an identification tool makes it extremely difficult to identify a child’s learning strengths (or weaknesses) and potentially the degree of giftedness, all of which will be extremely important in determining the sort of opportunities which will be needed to assist them to develop their potential to the fullest.

Just as any child should have the opportunity to do.

The problem is not the test, but what comes before it

It is a high stress time of year for many families. Not only is NAPLAN national testing taking centre stage in classrooms in Years 3 5 7 and 9, but for those wishing to have the opportunity to attend Perth Modern School, WA’s only academically selective high school, or one of the other academically selective programs,  the GATE testing is looming.

Many parents feel their gifted child’s future rests in the results of this one test. Discussions about whether coaching is beneficial and whether those who are coached will secure places ahead of those who have greater potential but didn’t perform so well on the day abound at this time every year. Discussions about the appropriateness of using a single test to choose the students who are offered places have a tendency to become heated. Questions are even raised in Parliament.

Many parents with gifted children whose IQ test results show their child’s high potential
feel their child should not have to compete for a place. They already have evidence that their child is sufficiently able.

I agree that there are flaws in the selection process and places in the selective schools and programs are in woefully short supply, and sympathise with parents frustrations, however, I do think the test finds what it is designed to find.

Let me explain.

If you are planning to begin offering programs or provisions for gifted students in a school, you must decide what you can offer before you begin to identify students. Different students benefit from different opportunities. Identifying students with strengths in language is not a lot of use if the program you will offer is maths. Identifying those with strong non verbal reasoning will not find the students most suited to a language based program (unless they are also strong in the verbal domain) but would probably find a group more suited to a hands on problem solving or building unit. Knowing what you will offer is essential to identifying the right students.

Perth Modern School, WA’s only selective high school, identifies itself as a school for academically talented students. Their website mentions that they are gifted and, as Gagne’s Differentiated Model of Giftedness and Talent (DMGT) is the model of giftedness in use in Western Australia (identifying the top 10% of population in terms of potential as gifted), the students at Perth Modern School will be gifted. This does not however mean it is a school for gifted students – it is a school for academically excellent students.

There are a number of other selective programs operating in various government secondary schools in WA covering a wide range of fields - aeronautics, hockey, art, performing arts and languages among others, and of course, academic programs. If students were randomly assigned to one of these programs simply because they were identified as gifted (by one means or another), there would be an uproar. These programs are for students with particular talents. The Academic Talent Programs (ATP’s) which operate in a number of schools in addition to Perth Modern School are no different. These programs for academically able students are called, rightly or wrongly, Academic Talent Programs – not gifted programs.

The test students take for selection is designed to identify academically talented students – those performing at a high level. Parts of the test measure achievement levels while other sections provide insight into potential. As this part of the test is not one that can be much improved by coaching, it can provide useful information to those making the selections as it can shed light on whether a child is gifted but may have performed poorly in the testing, or whether a child is perhaps less able but is achieved highly due to a high degree of effort or coaching. These insights, if taken into account, can provide valuable insights into how likely a student is to cope with the work load and pace of curriculum delivery.

Remember, it is possible to be gifted without being talented, to have the potential without exhibiting exceptional performance, on a test or in the classroom. And this is where the problem may lie. Gifted students who are not achieving at a high level compared to others who seek selection may miss out.

If highly gifted students are missing out on securing places, the fault is not in the test itself but in the fact that they may have had fewer opportunities to develop their intellectual potential into academic talent in the years leading up to sitting the test. With few opportunities available in the early years and PEAC, where it is available, only available to students in Yr 5, 6 and 7, there is plenty of time for gifted potential to languish prior to GATE testing.

Perhaps the GATE test is poorly named. By including gifted in the name it suggests to parents that it is identifying gifted students when in fact it is doing what it set out to do – to identify academically talented students, for academic talent programs.

If a child of average ability only attended school for half of the time we would be concerned and we would expect their progress to be less than it should have been. When our gifted students are in classes where they are only learning half the time and are effectively spending significant parts of the day waiting for others to grasp concepts or finish, or in needless repetition of work they have already mastered, their progress too is restricted.

There is a perception that gifted children don’t need any special provisions, that they will be fine because they are bright. In fact this is far from the case. Many of our most gifted students are languishing, most are underachieving, very few are in educational settings that meet their learning needs for more than a brief portion of the week, the majority do not have access to anything beyond the regular classroom. Yet they are gifted all day, every day. The do not suddenly become gifted at the time of selection for PEAC, high school programs or any other options which become available.

With teachers inadequately trained in identifying and differentiating for gifted students in the years before the testing, and schools unfamiliar or unwilling to provide settings in which the intellectual (and social) needs of these students can develop appropriately there is much more that needs attention than the selection test.

If development of talent requires a systematic process as outlined in Gagne’s model, it should be available from the time a child enters the system. And then a test to select academically talented students for high school programs may actually select our most gifted students.

Looking for them at such a late stage is missing the boat on our greatest natural resource.