My oldest is HG, my 2nd is hg/2E, my 3rd hasn't been tested yet, but she definitely isn't 2e. She's likely HG or G-- she reached the ceiling in the reading assessment in K and the teacher is going to order a special reading curriculum for her. :)
So, 1/3 of mine or 2E.
My kids haven't been tested, but I think the younger would test as just plain gifted and the older is probably 2E-ish (possible learning disability.)
I realize this will sound ungenerous, but don't you think there is a little bit of mama-pride working on that one?
The statistical definition of PG is an IQ of 180+, which corresponds to fewer than 1/10^6 individuals. So there should only be about 300 of them in the entire US (whence most posters seem to be coming), and presumably fewer than a third of those are children living at home.
As a seat-of-the-pants calculation, I see there are currently 200 active users on MDC. If we assume that this represents 1% of the total users (total guess - anyone know how many registered users there are?) then there would be 20,000 registered users on MDC. Assuming a random selection from the population and an average of 2.5 children per user (so 50,000 children), MDC would have to be ten times bigger than that to have half a chance at even one PG child among the registered users.
And yet I frequently see people stating that their kids - multiple kids even - are PG (or even 'not tested but likely PG,' which seems like a bizarre claim - without testing how would you possibly be able to tell whether your kid is one in a million or just one in 500,000?).
I definitely buy the idea that people with PG children are much more likely to be seeking out advice and assistance for their unique challenges, so it's totally believable that there are *some* PG kids among the users (and some posters do say their kids have tested as such). Just not nearly as many as are claimed.
I realize this will sound ungenerous, but don't you think there is a little bit of mama-pride working on that one?
The statistical definition of PG is an IQ of 180+, which corresponds to fewer than 1/10^6 individuals. So there should only be about 300 of them in the entire US (whence most posters seem to be coming), and presumably fewer than a third of those are children living at home.
As a seat-of-the-pants calculation, I see there are currently 200 active users on MDC. If we assume that this represents 1% of the total users (total guess - anyone know how many registered users there are?) then there would be 20,000 registered users on MDC. Assuming a random selection from the population and an average of 2.5 children per user (so 50,000 children), MDC would have to be ten times bigger than that to have half a chance at even one PG child among the registered users.
And yet I frequently see people stating that their kids - multiple kids even - are PG (or even 'not tested but likely PG,' which seems like a bizarre claim - without testing how would you possibly be able to tell whether your kid is one in a million or just one in 500,000?).
I definitely buy the idea that people with PG children are much more likely to be seeking out advice and assistance for their unique challenges, so it's totally believable that there are *some* PG kids among the users (and some posters do say their kids have tested as such). Just not nearly as many as are claimed.
Well yes. I find that the definition of profoundly gifted seems to have changed. The term used to be reserved for those rare children attending the university at 10 and such. Now kids who are reading 2 or 3 years advanced in elementary are being called profoundly gifted. I do suspect there is some parental inflation here and there but I also feel the definition has changed. When the latest version of the WISC and Standford Binet came out they stopped giving IQ numbers higher than 160. 160 is now considered profoundly gifted. It used to be 160 was highly gifted. Add to it that other tests just give percentiles but normed differently from the new tests... there is a lot of room for misinformation.
It doesn't do anyone any good to call our people you feel who are exaggerating online. You can't prove it and really, they are only hurting themselves by asking for advice from a peer group they don't exactly belong with. I wasn't trying to accuse anyone. I was just observing that online communities always have more of the extremes than you'd see in real life.
Well yes. I find that the definition of profoundly gifted seems to have changed. The term used to be reserved for those rare children attending the university at 10 and such. Now kids who are reading 2 or 3 years advanced in elementary are being called profoundly gifted. I do suspect there is some parental inflation here and there but I also feel the definition has changed. When the latest version of the WISC and Standford Binet came out they stopped giving IQ numbers higher than 160. 160 is now considered profoundly gifted. It used to be 160 was highly gifted. Add to it that other tests just give percentiles but normed differently from the new tests... there is a lot of room for misinformation.
I have suspicions as to why you see what you see. For starters, large quantities of gifted children have gone through some sort of testing process. You test for one thing, and often multiple labels appear. You also have to remember that most people search for boards when they are having issues. 2E kids are complicated and so the need to connect with others of similar circumstances is higher.
It's still not the norm in the gifted community to be 2E but it can seem so on support boards.
This is EXACTLY why I am on here. My DDs are 2E and suspected GT. They have such a different pattern of growth/development that I have/had no resources in person of people that have faced similar situations. They also have been tested a lot over the years (not IQ, but developmentally) and gone through a few different labels to get services.
I know friends/families that are dealing with one or the other....but no one personally that had dealt with anything like we have. I know there are people/families/kids out there and I find it wonderful to bounce ideas/thoughts off anyone else that may or may not have been in some of the unique situations we have (like a 3.5 yr old reading fluently, but unable to ride a trike, hop, or use the potty or a 5 yr old that can explain the different dinosaur time periods but then fall into a fit of sensory overload & tics).
The more complicated and unusual the profile of child in the population, the more likely the parents are reaching out for help and brain storming (or venting!)
This is because they've never been so stymied by the educational limitations or difficulties in raising their kids. The school system works for them.
Yes, yes. It is frustrating to try and get an IEP for obvious areas of concern when the school is insisting it is not impacting their educational success (ok twirling around the classroom during freeplay, licking the paintbrushes, and hiding under tables doesnt impact?? WHAT?!)
Teachers (myself included) dont often see a kiddo with special needs that also needs both physical/social accommodations and also upwards accommodations for academics. They tend to look at one area (advanced) or the other (areas of struggle) rather than the whole picture. They figure a bright kiddo will develop coping skills.
I don't think there is a single child out there who develops exactly evenly or exactly at the time "the books" say they should.
I think the distinction here is the magnitude of the asynchronicity.
I should note, though, that the parents IRL that have helped me the most in navigating this all are the parents of SN kids. They are also very much aware of the complexities of raising a child with variable skills developing out of sync. For all those awesome SN parents out there open about their experiences, I'm eternally thankful.
I think my background in SN has been fabulous in navigating the GT/SN combo. We have found great SN resources in our area and not many GT.
Really, I think kiddos that may have atypical ANYTHING may have parents that are seeking more information. So as PP suggested, you are likely to see more of them online actively.
Like I said, I wasn't accusing anyone nor do I feel any of us should go down that road. I've just been posting on gifted message boards since my 14-year-old was 2. There is no doubt that the term PG is used more liberally now and it's no coincidence that this started shortly after the updated IQ tests came out. In fact, we used to use several levels. There was your moderately gifted, highly gifted, exceptionally gifted then profoundly gifted. Highly gifted was the point where most normal school accomodations weren't adequate. Now, we seem to jump from moderate to profound but there really is so much inbetween!
I do admit to finding it frustrating at times. People have used the term with my eldest but really I don't see it. Yes, she's unusual even in the gifted community and every teacher has felt they've never had a child like her. Yes, she took her school GATE test in 20 minutes (supposed to take an hour) and got 100 percent (which has never happened.) However, if you call HER profoundly gifted at 14 when she's done well with a single full grade skip, additional subject accelerations and a flexible curriculum, what do you call a kid who at 14 is graduating college? Is that making sense? If we give that label to kids who are comfortably working (not testing) just 2 or 3 years ahead, what do we give those who are working 10 years ahead? Then what do you call my DS who tested in the 99.9th percentile just like his big sister and he's doing just fine with a specialty language school and a year or two bump in certain subjects. I will not call either of my kids profoundly gifted but it's too bad that because I don't, there are parents who disreguard our experiences even though I know my kids were at higher working levels than the child they are describing and I might actually have some ideas that can help.
Like I said, I wasn't accusing anyone nor do I feel any of us should go down that road. I've just been posting on gifted message boards since my 14-year-old was 2.
... If we give that label to kids who are comfortably working (not testing) just 2 or 3 years ahead, what do we give those who are working 10 years ahead?
My experience is similar. I started posting on message boards like this since my eldest (now 17.5) was 3 or 4. She has been, on average, 2 to 5 years ahead in academic areas and has done well with part-time school, very flexible teachers, the ability to work a couple of years ahead in her weak subjects and unschooling herself in her strong areas. She too has been casually described as PG and her IQ tested at over 145. But she is nowhere near the level of a kid I knew growing up who earned a bachelors degree in both music and mathematics at age 15, and masters and doctorates in both by 19. What term do we use to describe the one-in-a-million kids if PG is now used for one-in-a-thousand kids?
If the general understanding of PG is that we need a term for "kids who are not generally adequately served by typical gifted services," I think that's a very loose, overly inclusive definition. It seems that many districts, particularly in the US, have gifted programming aimed at the top 3-5% of students, which is a very liberal definition of gifted in my book. It's no wonder the kids with IQs of 145 are not adequately served in pull-out programs made up largely of kids with IQs around 130 - 135.
Miranda
Re the OP: I have one 2E (DS), and one gifted (DD).
Re PG: I think it's a confluence of factors.
-DYS having "lowered" stated levels for PG,
-being identified as PG in verbal OR quantitative instead of FSIQ broadens the numbers,
-increased use of the GAI where kids would have been previously been exempted from PG identification due to lower processing speeds and working memory,
-parental inflation,
-a lack of understanding or specificity in terms by users of those terms,
-increased understanding that the tail of the bell curve is bumpier than previously understood (in other words, there are more high-IQ individuals that statistical distribution would predict),
-increased media representation of gifted, and often quirky, individuals which makes it seem more common,
-increased attention in populist books on the issue (thinking Outliers and NurtureShock here, along with various newer books on achievement strategies,
the ongoing tension between anti-intellectualism and the consumerist, achievement-oriented culture wherein a gifted label confers status, and if all the kids are gifted, ones own child must be really gifted,
-the apparent declining ability of schools to offer gifted programming and differentiation, causing parents to be more dissatisfied with the educational options availalble and advocating for their gifted kids (my mom never blinked over the issue as my needs were met, while I feel like I have a part-time job advocating for my kids or homeschooling because we don't have access to other reasonable solutions).
-
My dd5 is gifted and not 2E.
Like I said, I wasn't accusing anyone nor do I feel any of us should go down that road. I've just been posting on gifted message boards since my 14-year-old was 2. There is no doubt that the term PG is used more liberally now and it's no coincidence that this started shortly after the updated IQ tests came out. In fact, we used to use several levels. There was your moderately gifted, highly gifted, exceptionally gifted then profoundly gifted. Highly gifted was the point where most normal school accomodations weren't adequate. Now, we seem to jump from moderate to profound but there really is so much inbetween!
I do admit to finding it frustrating at times. People have used the term with my eldest but really I don't see it. Yes, she's unusual even in the gifted community and every teacher has felt they've never had a child like her. Yes, she took her school GATE test in 20 minutes (supposed to take an hour) and got 100 percent (which has never happened.) However, if you call HER profoundly gifted at 14 when she's done well with a single full grade skip, additional subject accelerations and a flexible curriculum, what do you call a kid who at 14 is graduating college? Is that making sense? If we give that label to kids who are comfortably working (not testing) just 2 or 3 years ahead, what do we give those who are working 10 years ahead? Then what do you call my DS who tested in the 99.9th percentile just like his big sister and he's doing just fine with a specialty language school and a year or two bump in certain subjects. I will not call either of my kids profoundly gifted but it's too bad that because I don't, there are parents who disreguard our experiences even though I know my kids were at higher working levels than the child they are describing and I might actually have some ideas that can help.
Re PG: I think it's a confluence of factors.
-DYS having "lowered" stated levels for PG,
-being identified as PG in verbal OR quantitative instead of FSIQ broadens the numbers,
-increased use of the GAI where kids would have been previously been exempted from PG identification due to lower processing speeds and working memory,
-parental inflation,
-a lack of understanding or specificity in terms by users of those terms,
-increased understanding that the tail of the bell curve is bumpier than previously understood (in other words, there are more high-IQ individuals that statistical distribution would predict),
-increased media representation of gifted, and often quirky, individuals which makes it seem more common,
-increased attention in populist books on the issue (thinking Outliers and NurtureShock here, along with various newer books on achievement strategies,
the ongoing tension between anti-intellectualism and the consumerist, achievement-oriented culture wherein a gifted label confers status, and if all the kids are gifted, ones own child must be really gifted,
-the apparent declining ability of schools to offer gifted programming and differentiation, causing parents to be more dissatisfied with the educational options availalble and advocating for their gifted kids (my mom never blinked over the issue as my needs were met, while I feel like I have a part-time job advocating for my kids or homeschooling because we don't have access to other reasonable solutions).
-
I also think it depends on what assessment instrument is being used, how it's administered and by whom. There are a lot of different IQ tests in use these days. Some are more reliable and valid than others. Sometimes the assessment isn't done by an experienced psychologist/psychometrist. I suspect that unreliable testing is responsible for some of these "profoundly" gifted identifications, and also for missing the identification of many gifted children.
I've also been on message boards for a long time. I can't be entirely certain, but I'm pretty sure that like whatsnextmom, I've also never used terms like "highly gifted" or "profoundly gifted" to describe my dc. I just don't find them all that useful. There can be such a blurring between the categories and in any event, I find gifted issues in education tend to have less to do with actual IQ scores and more to do with personality, attitude and environment. It reminds me a little of the outdated terms used to describe the other end of the spectrum, when "moron", "imbecile" and "idiot" all related to specific ranges on the intelligence scale (I believe 50 to 69, 30 to 49 and below 29 on the SB, respectively, if anyone is interested).
To answer the OP, I have 2 dc who are identified as gifted. Neither has been formally identified as 2E. One struggled with written expression issues. The other is gifted on the Verbal Comprehension scale but scores significantly lower on most of the Perceptual Reasoning subtests, but not all. As a result, we have a fair amount of insight, or at least some familiarity, and a lot of sympathy with 2E issues.
My gifted child is not 2E.
I have one DD (who I don't post about much because she's just so happy and easy going) who is just plain gifted and a DS who is 2E (ASD, not globally gifted but gifted in math/verbal logic). I've met plenty of both. I do think that gifted kids learn differently, so 2E or not, and will behave and learn differently in ways both easier and sometimes harder to deal with in the context of education.
DS tested as gifted, and he is definitely not 2E- at least nothing that has shown up yet (some LDs can show up later, I believe? He is almost 7). To be honest I was surprised at how high his tests were, he doesn't seem so obviously gifted as some other kids we know, and isn't at all that "little professor" or nerdy/quirky type. I mean, I guess he is nerdy in a way, but he's also just such a regular boys boy and gets along with other kids really well, very athletic, artistic, into fantasy play, etc. He's not an easy going kid particularly, but he's also not having any problems. My sister and I were both also IDed as gifted, my sister developed LDs later which were very poorly served by the gifted magnet school she went to. My husband was also IDed as both gifted and LD (and repeated 1st grade). So, I am around people who dealt with that I wouldn't wish it on my kids.
I agree that it makes sense that parents of 2E kids are posting more b/c its more of a struggle to find the right educational setting and theraputic services for them. I posted a bunch when we were doing the testing and looking at schools, and then not so much b/c DS fortunately found a place in a great school and is thriving.
2E more common than 'just' gifted? Wow! 
That's never how it seemed to work with me...My DD2 is twice-exceptional, but in the gifted class at her school (which she's in) all the other students are 'just' gifted, in a class of 15 students overall, and all but one other are 'normally' gifted, as opposed to profoundly gifted.
I agree with ADHD being a generally inaccurate diagnosis for gifted kids. They just can't focus on things, because they already know most of it!
I wish there was an in-between nowadays! My DD2 is a 5 year old who's intellectually 17-if you call a 14 year old who's intellectually 16 'profoundly gifted', then what do you call DD2? If you call said 14/16yo profoundly gifted, then what's DD2's intellectually-7yo 2yo classmate and friend? And if you call your DD profoundly gifted, then what are my DD2's moderately-gifted classmates who generally work a year or two above their chronological age?
Quote:
I do admit to finding it frustrating at times. People have used the term with my eldest but really I don't see it. Yes, she's unusual even in the gifted community and every teacher has felt they've never had a child like her. Yes, she took her school GATE test in 20 minutes (supposed to take an hour) and got 100 percent (which has never happened.) However, if you call HER profoundly gifted at 14 when she's done well with a single full grade skip, additional subject accelerations and a flexible curriculum, what do you call a kid who at 14 is graduating college? Is that making sense? If we give that label to kids who are comfortably working (not testing) just 2 or 3 years ahead, what do we give those who are working 10 years ahead? Then what do you call my DS who tested in the 99.9th percentile just like his big sister and he's doing just fine with a specialty language school and a year or two bump in certain subjects. I will not call either of my kids profoundly gifted but it's too bad that because I don't, there are parents who disreguard our experiences even though I know my kids were at higher working levels than the child they are describing and I might actually have some ideas that can help.
Here's a question I've been pondering wrt 2e:
Where do you draw the line as a parent between "quirk" and "disorder?"
In our case, we've got some test scores on DS, and people who make armchair diagnoses on another board are jumping to dyselxia/ADHD/Asperger's straight off the bat because they are all over the map (they span 5 sigma on subtest scores). Honestly, at this point, I'm looking at the scores and DS, and while a neuropsych might diagnose dyslexia with regards to his phonological abilities relative to the rest of his cognitive abilities, I suspect these will just play out as "spelling doesn't come easy."
His skills are in the normal range, so the school won't label him as SLD under how they apply IDEA (and I see there's debate over that, and it doesn't appear to be applied evenly between states). The fact that he'll have to work hard at something might be a good thing, honestly. Based on the rest of the scores, everything else will be coming very easily for a good long time.
Is there something I'm missing here?
Here's a question I've been pondering wrt 2e:
Where do you draw the line as a parent between "quirk" and "disorder?"
For me, a "disorder" is something that really interferes with where your child wants to be. A "quirk" is a curiousity that might add some challenge but all in all, doesn't really interfere with the goals of the child. My youngest is "quirky." He had tons of sensitivities at the younger ages which haven't totally dissapeared but he's really good at working around them these days. He is mildly dyslexic/dysgraphic which were a trial prior to age 7. At 10, he still has to be more mindful of what he sees and writes. He does have to think harder in terms of left and right. His writing is still terrible but it's better and he can type most his work. He needs a lot of help organizationally but I have faith that age will help.
Basically, his quirks may drag down his overall achievement but he's still considered very advanced. It's not a road block to him, it's just that crack in the sidewalk you have to consistantly watch for so you don't trip.
That's just my line as a parent.
Here's a question I've been pondering wrt 2e:
Where do you draw the line as a parent between "quirk" and "disorder?"
In our case, we've got some test scores on DS, and people who make armchair diagnoses on another board are jumping to dyselxia/ADHD/Asperger's straight off the bat because they are all over the map (they span 5 sigma on subtest scores). Honestly, at this point, I'm looking at the scores and DS, and while a neuropsych might diagnose dyslexia with regards to his phonological abilities relative to the rest of his cognitive abilities, I suspect these will just play out as "spelling doesn't come easy."
His skills are in the normal range, so the school won't label him as SLD under how they apply IDEA (and I see there's debate over that, and it doesn't appear to be applied evenly between states). The fact that he'll have to work hard at something might be a good thing, honestly. Based on the rest of the scores, everything else will be coming very easily for a good long time.
Is there something I'm missing here?
Went and read that other thread... :)
You need the IQ testing done, because you're right about the limitations of what an achievement test can tell you given his environments/exposures to date. I would also highly recommend getting his vision checked by a developmental optometrist (ie specialized). It's relatively cheap and at least will rule out vision as an issue. I'm suggesting this a kid can see just fine at the macro level but struggle with certain aspects of reading/close work. The print in even picture books is going to be smaller much of the time than it is in math stuff.
I think quirk to disorder is a continuum, and we all would identify the dividing line slightly differently, and it might also be different depending on context (it may be a quirk at home, but a disorder in a busy classroom environment.
DD is just mildly quirky, but was "disordered" for a time when she was in a horrible environment for her. Now that she's in a good environment, I don't even think she's particularly quirky. Dabrowski's OEs are sufficient to describe her, and while she's strongest verbally, she's got a pretty balanced profile.
DS is in the disordered end, and is at best pretty quirky in comfortable environments. He has SPD, vision issues, dysgraphia and is on the extreme end of gifted. I think it all interplays in his case. He does not have dyslexia/asd/adhd. We've been trying to figure him out since he was 3 and he's in the midst of more neuropsych evals because we still don't have a full fix on what's going on and it's negatively affecting him. It is very frustrating not having a definitive sense, but I've found it's helpful when dealing with the school to focus on what you do know. We are a lot closer at almost 9 than we were in kindie. I will say that the schools (he's been in 3) find it very, very difficult dealing with such a mixed profile.
Follow Mothering