What do you think about testing "clever" children?

[Shananaaah]

Do you think there are any merits in testing for IQ or advanced intellectual levels of "clever"* children?

Do you think it makes any difference to their schooling, or the choices you will make about their schooling?

What age would you consider appropriate to test from? Do you think younger children can be tested accurately?

What abilities or levels would you consider testing applicable to - at what point would you say "gee, this child really IS clever and beyond their years".

Have you had your child tested? What age, why, how did it impact them, how did it affect their lives?

Or do you think it is unnecessary and shouldn't be done?

I ask this because a friend has a clever 4yo who they are about to get tested. I am quite against having her tested as while she IS clever, I don't see her as any different to a lot of other clever 4yos IYKWIM. I personally feel in this case that having her tested is all about her parents, not truly about her well being (I say this because of things that have been mentioned while talking about the topic amongst friends). I don't think it will prove/disprove anything, or help better her education (she is already being taught by an excellent teacher at pre-school, and will be going to a great public school when she goes).

Because she is so clever I believe she somewhat understands what her parents are doing, and I am worried she will feel under pressure to perform/worry she will disappoint them/be disappointed in herself if she doesn't live up to their standards.

What do you think about testing?

*and by "clever" I mean advanced, gifted, talented, whatever you want to call them, ranging from "a little bit bright" to "playing violin concertos at 2yo" kind of thing.

[missie_mack]

To get extra assistance in some schools they need to be tested and at times extra assistance is needed as they learn and develop differently. Some children that are G&T do need this assistance to reach their full potential, often a G&T child who is not nurtured will coast along quite easily without much effort and grow bored rather quickly which can be to the detriment of the child as well as the class where they often grow disruptive (I know this from personal experience *blush*)

Incidently IQ testing is different to be tested for being G&T. Being bright or advanced does not make one G&T...

[PeppaH]

I think it should be done to all children not just gifted ones. I think it needs to be done to keep the children up to a level of education that suits each individual child. Maybe they should stop putting schools classes based on age and do it on smarts :yes::confused:

[Shananaaah]

Being bright or advanced does not make one G&T...

This is the part I am worried about. DH teaches many G&T kids (from ages 9 and up) and from what he can tell - and he certainly is no expert but does have a bit of experience - this child is not G&T, just slightly advanced.

For the record I am neither for or against testing in general, but in this case I feel the motives probably aren't genuine (family rivalry is a big problem for them). I am just worried that she is so young, but neither DH and I have any experience with younger kids who actually have been tested and identified.

[missie_mack]

That would be up until recent years young children weren't tested. IF indeed they are doing to prove something they would generally join an association and meet other parents in the same boat should she indeed be gifted and they generally would correct these issues.

My DS is 3 and was classified at the instance of our GP. It has helped as we are able to foster his learning to suit his style of learning which is very different to my DH's. Dh learns quite efficiently through the rote however his attempts to teach DS by similar methods was leading to frustrations (and my DH specialised in special needs children when he became a teacher :p)

[jaq]

I'm actually considering testing for my DD1 to determine whether she is just bright/advanced, as you have said, or whether it is more than that.

One question I'd like answered is the full range of her talents - ie I know she can read well (very, very well) for her age, but is she advanced in maths, or science, for example? Is her general pattern of thinking any different to other 4yos? (Or even other bright 4yos).

Knowing the answers to those questions will help us make decisions on things such as whether or not to put her into extra-curricular programmes and the like. She is already working at a much higher level than her peers in her school (Montessori Cycle One - she is currently in the 3yo group doing Prep work) and I am a bit worried she will soon run out of any sort of peer group altogether.

As you say, though, whether testing at this age (4.25 for Annika) is actually useful is a very big question. I'm not 100% convinced on that front, though if we need to make some changes, it would be more useful to know sooner rather than later.

For us, it would be a decision making tool, and a means to help us understand the full range of our daughter's gifts, rather than just the easy to demonstrate ones ikywim.

[sam's mum]

DD1 got tested, it was part of the assessment for her ASD.

They were able to see her IQ levels for different learning components and it certainly confirmed the standard ASD leanings.

[Wookie1]

Being a school teacher, I think it sometimes can be difficult to judge whether a child is 'clever' or a child that is just ahead of there peers. Many children who seem clever when they begin school very quickly get caught up by there peers and sometimes even overtaken.

My advice would be to wait a little longer, until the child is at school and it is clear they are 'clever' and not just a fast learner. :)

[CrankyAndTired]

I think there are limitations to any kind of standardized testing, although they have their uses.

I think one of the dangers of labelling a child G&T is making them feel different or somehow segregated from their peers.. I think its important to identify all children's strengths and weaknesses so early intervention can be accessed (or more challenging projects can be provided).

I would be very reluctant to have my DS formally tested unless it was absolutely necessary. I would rather simply observe him closely and make sure that he is being assigned tasks that he finds challenging and engaging.

I also think its essential to view children's abilities holistically - rather than basic IQ testing. Creative, intuitive, sporting, interpersonal etc abilities can often be neglected in favour of focus on just reading & writing..

Interesting topic.

[missie_mack]

Its interesting to note that a large portion of children who are G&T also have learning difficulties which the G&T tends to mask. So having a child assessed as such could be a bigger benefit than just labelling... and as such may be a good reason why children who are advanced when they start school fall away in later years or it could simply fall into the classic situation I listed before of talents not being nurtured and children becoming use to not making an effort and slipping through the cracks.

[log1cal]

Would you test your child if they had a learning difficulty?

Would you want that learning difficulty identified so you knew what you were dealing with?

Would you expect considerations in the classroom if your child did have a learning difficulty?

I'm guessing the answer to all those questions is 'of course!'

Would you be asking the same question if the child in question had a learning difficulty?

It is a shame (but a reality) that if you think your child might be gifted, other people tend to view that as a personal affront.

It is also a shame that people seem to see Testing as a bad thing! The G&T kids eat up the tests; especially if they've been sitting in a classroom twiddling their proverbial thumbs.

It is interesting to note that most parents of G&T children never think their child is Gifted; just 'clever'.

Testing seems most accurate from about the age of 7 but there are various tests and the testing psychologist will use the test most suitable to younger children if they're younger than that. It is important they use a tester experienced in testing gifted children.

As Missie_Mack said - Gifted children will fall into the underachiever cracks if they do not learn how to learn - something that comes from challenge in the classroom.

[delirium]

We considered testing DD, but only bc we were looking at early entry to primary and most principals want an IQ test and supporting info. We didn't do it as it's about $600 and in our town both public schools don't like early entry so it would of been a waste of money.

I believe my child is mildly gifted. Pre school teachers, family, even strangers comment how intellegent she is, and you know, she really is. I find it frustrating that there seems to be this underlying thing that if you say your child is highly intellegent you are either a)hothousing them b) it's all in your head and you are just serving your ego as a parent c) you are a bragger.

If a parent said "my child has special needs or is struggling at school" no one would dream of telling them they shouldn't say that, and I don't see the difference here. Why should I feel like I have to apologise for admitting my DD is extremely bright? (that's not directed at you OP, just a general comment to society).

[Shananaaah]

Thanks everyone, there are lots of insightful and informative comments that I have learnt from here!

[QUOTE=jaq;4207980

As you say, though, whether testing at this age (4.25 for Annika) is actually useful is a very big question. I'm not 100% convinced on that front, though if we need to make some changes, it would be more useful to know sooner rather than later.[/QUOTE]

Jaq, out of interest, is Annika aware that you are thinking about getting her tested? And how much will you tell her about it IYKWIM? Do you feel any need to either tell her everything about it (including the outcomes) or not tell her, or just tell her some of it? Do you think there is benefit in her knowing details? (and this isn't aimed at you, just a general question about younger children.)

[Shananaaah]

And Log!cal and Delirium, you're absolutely right, no one wants their child to fall behind in school whether it be for learning difficulties or a clever but bored child.

Do you think there would be any merit in extra training for teachers? I know the teachers in my husband's peer group (ie the ones he graduated with) all did extra classes for G&T but there seems to be many teachers who haven't done that.

Just as extra training for learning difficulties would be helpful. I wonder of that is asking too much of teachers, or if it means a return to the "bottom", middle and top" class in school? Especially if more children are being identified as one learning level or another, it seems to open up a whole new system of teaching.

Does that make sense? Not overly eloquent today - it's a million degrees and my kids have finally gone down for a nap after playing anything and everything we can INSIDE the house...

[jaq]

No, I haven't mentioned anything to Annika at all. I don't want it repeated to all and sundry at school until we have decided whether or not to go down that path or not.

At the moment I spend a lot of time explaining about jealousy and why some of the older girls at school aren't very nice to her, and how some children are better at things than others, just like some are taller than others, but it can create bad feelings etc. :(

If we did decide to go for some testing, we would tell her it was just for fun, like the puzzles we do etc.

Re the training - yes, I think some G&T training for ALL teachers would be helpful. I adore Annika's teacher, but I find the Montessori confidence that they can provide everything she needs in the classroom environment a bit of a concern. Given that Montessori considers peer teaching an important part of the process, what happens when your child outstrips their peers (including the older children) so thoroughly that NO ONE is doing work at their level.

But another part of the Montessori approach is valuing all types of education equally - ie social, practical and emotional skills, as well as academic, and I know that while Annika is ahead on some academic grounds, she is not as emotionally mature as the older children, and maybe the focus on what she CAN do is a bit too narrowly focused ikywim. At least in Montessori they recognise her as an individual, and are willing to facilitate that with extension work, AND not expect her to be on the same level with everything.

(Off topic much :o)

[guerin]

Being a school teacher, I think it sometimes can be difficult to judge whether a child is 'clever' or a child that is just ahead of there peers. Many children who seem clever when they begin school very quickly get caught up by there peers and sometimes even overtaken.

My advice would be to wait a little longer, until the child is at school and it is clear they are 'clever' and not just a fast learner. :)


I do believe that you have a point Wookie1 in that many parents these days push their children to know their alphabet and to count to 20 by the age of 3 and in doing so their children seem to be more advanced then other children. While the truth is they are not more advanced and once the children whose parents did not push them at an early age begin to learn, the truly advanced ones soon take over.

I'm not sure what is included in the testing of children to ascertain their intelligence level, but when I was younger I know it included the standard putting the shapes into the proper holes as I was given this test when I was around 2 years of age. So I was just wondering for those who do know, what does the average test include for children today?

[Electric Boogaloo]

I'm an educational psychologist and it's my personal opinion not to test children unless we (family, teachers, me) feel like we would get additional and useful information about the child that we don't already have. To the OP, I had almost this exact same conversation recently with somebody who wasn't sure if they should get their child tested. I guess it's whether that specific information would be useful for you and your child - e.g. is your child receiving appropriate educational programming? Is she happy at school/kinder? Is she experiencing difficulties or frustrations? Would she benefit from entry into extension activities or G&T programs? etc...



I'm not sure what is included in the testing of children to ascertain their intelligence level, but when I was younger I know it included the standard putting the shapes into the proper holes as I was given this test when I was around 2 years of age. So I was just wondering for those who do know, what does the average test include for children today?

There are a number of cognitive tests (IQ tests) that may be used - probably the most common would be the Weschler scales (WPPSI or WISC) or the Stanford-Binet. They involve a range of different tasks that are meant to assess different aspects of cognitive functioning. Depending on the psych and the referral issue, there may be other tests of achievement such as reading, spelling, numeracy etc.

But as a PP suggested, all standardised testing has its limitations. A child who does not score in the "intellectually gifted" range on an IQ test might be gifted in other ways, such as creative writing or art or science.

:ecomcity: sorry.... :ecomcity: :laughing:

[jaq]

BB000, I for one am delighted to see your :ecomcity::ecomcity::ecomcity:! It's always useful to hear a professional perspective, as one of the problems of having a bright kid is that sometimes you wonder how much is objective observation, and how much is parental pride.

I see your point, Guerin, about hothousing and active teaching and the like, but the type of kids we are talking about (in my case at least) are the ones who can count to 20 at 18 months old, and reading independently at three. It's a whole different ballgame to average children being pushed along by ambitious parents - sometimes I feel like I'm being dragged kicking and screaming behind my daughter!

[delirium]

I see your point, Guerin, about hothousing and active teaching and the like, but the type of kids we are talking about (in my case at least) are the ones who can count to 20 at 18 months old, and reading independently at three. It's a whole different ballgame to average children being pushed along by ambitious parents - sometimes I feel like I'm being dragged kicking and screaming behind my daughter!

I agree. I don't hothouse my child, I just foster her natural interests in learning. I don't see why that's a bad thing. As parents our job is to support our kids in their interests and if that includes learning all the dinosaur names when she was 3, then so be it.

I really identify with your comment about being dragged along Jaq :laughing: That's how DD is, always asking a million questions always pointing things out and asking how things work. She pushes ME for answers, not the other way around. ;)