4 ms·

I used to do pro bono professional work for a gifted organization. It was generally understood that a child with an extremely high IQ should be assessed at a yo

I used to do pro bono professional work for a gifted organization. It was generally understood that a child with an extremely high IQ should be assessed at a young age to get the most accurate results. Though there is a difference between testing and assessment and lots of pitfalls with such and TFA doesn't give enough info to determine which he got. Some people assess kids young for all the right reasons. This case being mishandled isn't proof kids should never be tested or assessed at an early age.

davemp 4y ago
> I used to do pro Bono professional work for a gifted organization. It was generally understood that a child with an extremely high IQ should be assessed at a young age to get the most accurate results. What a “gifted organization” has to say about IQ is not very convincing. There’s quite a big conflict of interest and bias in play. Afaik 6yo brains are literally missing mass and have a different structure than adults/teens. Of course this is just on average too because everyone develops at different rates. Not sure how a unitless number used in population level studies is going to help here. > This case being mishandled isn't proof kids should never be tested or assessed at an early age. Not what I’m talking about. Of course childhood education is important and assessment is part of that. IQ from what I’ve seen is not a useful tool for individual assessment/education.
- DoreenMichele 4y ago
  The organization in question: http://www.tagfam.org/ http://www.tagfam.org/ The oldest set of email lists in existence for providing free support for the gifted community. At the time, they were trying to transition from a voluntary health and welfare organization to a tax deductible charity. I was invited to be lead moderator and a member of the board.
  - MichaelZuo 4y ago
    The parent does raise an interesting point though, how are we sure childhood IQ testing is not an indicator of early-bloomers instead of a genuine delta?
    - DoreenMichele 4y ago
      I already said there is a difference between testing and assessment and lots of pitfalls with such.
      - MichaelZuo 4y ago
        Okay, how are we sure childhood IQ assessment, done completely correctly, is not an indicator of early-bloomers instead of a genuine delta?
        alistairSH 4y ago
        According to the Emory School of Medicine, IQ stabilizes around age 4 for most children (later for those who were born premature or had other significant health issues).[1] 1 - https://med.emory.edu/departments/pediatrics/divisions/neonatology/dpc/dev-iq-testing.html#:~:text=The%20average%20child%27s%20IQ%20is,who%20have%20significant%20health%20issues https://med.emory.edu/departments/pediatrics/divisions/neona....
        MichaelZuo 4y ago
        The linked article doesn't appear to cite any references. Is there some obvious source for this claim that I'm missing?
        Brian_K_White 4y ago
        Because they have been doing such testing and assessing for longer than muliple entire human life times, and have had time to see the full and complete eventual results of past procedures and conjectures, good and bad. Either early bloomers are not a thing, or they are accounted for and the tests and assessment are not as simple as you aparently imagine.
        MichaelZuo 4y ago
        This seems like an appeal to authority?
- mgkimsal 4y ago
  Apropos of nothing, but I've been IQ tested with various tests at multiple stages of my life. Earliest I remember was age 9, then a couple others at various stages, including late teens and again in mid thirties. Instruments were sometimes repeated, but may have been slightly different for age level. But the 'score', such as it is, was always in the same percentile. Being over 50 now, I'm slightly curious if I took another set of tests if the numbers would be similar. I feel slower, cognitively, but unsure how accurate that feeling is.
- tnel77 4y ago
  I guess I’m not sure what it is you’re trying to propose instead. “IQ tests are ineffective.” Okay. How do you propose we determine what children are smarter (because there will always be those who are more advanced than their peers) and get them the help they need to thrive?
  - davemp 4y ago
    I’m not proposing anything except that we don’t pretend certain tools are more powerful than they are. > “IQ tests are ineffective.” Okay. How do you propose we determine what children are smarter (because there will always be those who are more advanced than their peers) and get them the help they need to thrive? Education isn’t inherently a zero sum game. Last I heard, we were winding down “gifted and talented” programs because there wasn’t much evidence they worked. What the elementary school teacher I know says (besides that we have bigger problems in the US system) is that the high achieving students aren’t held back by low achieving students. The quicker students are often found to teach the slower students and gain an even stronger mastery of the material by doing so.
    - tnel77 4y ago
      My understanding regarding winding down those gifted classes was that it had little to do with them not working and everything to do with them being full of children that are statistically more advantaged than their peers. Aka full of white and Asian children which made people angry claiming that the other children were being ignored and left behind.
    - alistairSH 4y ago
      high achieving students aren’t held back by low achieving students I'd love to see a source for this claim, as it runs counter to my lived experience (both my own education, and my son's). Obviously, my experience isn't scientific proof, but neither is "a friend who's a teacher says..."
      - davemp 4y ago
        I poked around a bit and only really found [0] and [1]. It looks like there are a bunch of contradictory results and the effect sizes are small. That’s just education research though, it’s very hard to control for anything or get good data. [0]: https://www.aera.net/Newsroom/Study-Snapshot-Do-Students-in-Gifted-Programs-Perform-Better-Linking-Gifted-Program-Participants-to-Achievement-and-Nonachievement-Outcomes https://www.aera.net/Newsroom/Study-Snapshot-Do-Students-in-... [1]: https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w17089/w17089.pdf https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w17089/w170...

davemp 4y ago

> I used to do pro Bono professional work for a gifted organization. It was generally understood that a child with an extremely high IQ should be assessed at a young age to get the most accurate results. What a “gifted organization” has to say about IQ is not very convincing. There’s quite a big conflict of interest and bias in play. Afaik 6yo brains are literally missing mass and have a different structure than adults/teens. Of course this is just on average too because everyone develops at different rates. Not sure how a unitless number used in population level studies is going to help here. > This case being mishandled isn't proof kids should never be tested or assessed at an early age. Not what I’m talking about. Of course childhood education is important and assessment is part of that. IQ from what I’ve seen is not a useful tool for individual assessment/education.

DoreenMichele 4y ago
The organization in question: http://www.tagfam.org/ http://www.tagfam.org/ The oldest set of email lists in existence for providing free support for the gifted community. At the time, they were trying to transition from a voluntary health and welfare organization to a tax deductible charity. I was invited to be lead moderator and a member of the board.
- MichaelZuo 4y ago
  The parent does raise an interesting point though, how are we sure childhood IQ testing is not an indicator of early-bloomers instead of a genuine delta?
  - DoreenMichele 4y ago
    I already said there is a difference between testing and assessment and lots of pitfalls with such.
    - MichaelZuo 4y ago
      Okay, how are we sure childhood IQ assessment, done completely correctly, is not an indicator of early-bloomers instead of a genuine delta?
      - alistairSH 4y ago
        According to the Emory School of Medicine, IQ stabilizes around age 4 for most children (later for those who were born premature or had other significant health issues).[1] 1 - https://med.emory.edu/departments/pediatrics/divisions/neonatology/dpc/dev-iq-testing.html#:~:text=The%20average%20child%27s%20IQ%20is,who%20have%20significant%20health%20issues https://med.emory.edu/departments/pediatrics/divisions/neona....
        MichaelZuo 4y ago
        The linked article doesn't appear to cite any references. Is there some obvious source for this claim that I'm missing?
      - Brian_K_White 4y ago
        Because they have been doing such testing and assessing for longer than muliple entire human life times, and have had time to see the full and complete eventual results of past procedures and conjectures, good and bad. Either early bloomers are not a thing, or they are accounted for and the tests and assessment are not as simple as you aparently imagine.
        MichaelZuo 4y ago
        This seems like an appeal to authority?
mgkimsal 4y ago
Apropos of nothing, but I've been IQ tested with various tests at multiple stages of my life. Earliest I remember was age 9, then a couple others at various stages, including late teens and again in mid thirties. Instruments were sometimes repeated, but may have been slightly different for age level. But the 'score', such as it is, was always in the same percentile. Being over 50 now, I'm slightly curious if I took another set of tests if the numbers would be similar. I feel slower, cognitively, but unsure how accurate that feeling is.
tnel77 4y ago
I guess I’m not sure what it is you’re trying to propose instead. “IQ tests are ineffective.” Okay. How do you propose we determine what children are smarter (because there will always be those who are more advanced than their peers) and get them the help they need to thrive?
- davemp 4y ago
  I’m not proposing anything except that we don’t pretend certain tools are more powerful than they are. > “IQ tests are ineffective.” Okay. How do you propose we determine what children are smarter (because there will always be those who are more advanced than their peers) and get them the help they need to thrive? Education isn’t inherently a zero sum game. Last I heard, we were winding down “gifted and talented” programs because there wasn’t much evidence they worked. What the elementary school teacher I know says (besides that we have bigger problems in the US system) is that the high achieving students aren’t held back by low achieving students. The quicker students are often found to teach the slower students and gain an even stronger mastery of the material by doing so.
  - tnel77 4y ago
    My understanding regarding winding down those gifted classes was that it had little to do with them not working and everything to do with them being full of children that are statistically more advantaged than their peers. Aka full of white and Asian children which made people angry claiming that the other children were being ignored and left behind.
  - alistairSH 4y ago
    high achieving students aren’t held back by low achieving students I'd love to see a source for this claim, as it runs counter to my lived experience (both my own education, and my son's). Obviously, my experience isn't scientific proof, but neither is "a friend who's a teacher says..."
    - davemp 4y ago
      I poked around a bit and only really found [0] and [1]. It looks like there are a bunch of contradictory results and the effect sizes are small. That’s just education research though, it’s very hard to control for anything or get good data. [0]: https://www.aera.net/Newsroom/Study-Snapshot-Do-Students-in-Gifted-Programs-Perform-Better-Linking-Gifted-Program-Participants-to-Achievement-and-Nonachievement-Outcomes https://www.aera.net/Newsroom/Study-Snapshot-Do-Students-in-... [1]: https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w17089/w17089.pdf https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w17089/w170...