Do you tend to equate accelerated reading with giftedness?

[Just Robyn]

No. I have accelerated readers and none of them are gifted.

 

However, I think there is something that goes unrecognized (and thus has no label) and that is, basically, a knack (to put it mildly) for a particular subject. This would be a child who is not gifted, but is bright, and has a natural ability in a particular subject, gets test scores in that subject similar or equal to the same test scores a gifted child would get - without trying. As in, they are not spending more time studying something and testing well in it as a result. They are just really good at it, the same good at it as a gifted child with regard to test scores and school work, but still not gifted.

 

I think these children, just as much as a gifted child, have special educational needs in the subject in which they have a natural ability. They don't get into the gifted program because it's just one area in which they are so talented, and they don't get what they need from normal class work, so I personally consider this a major problem for some children, and it is a big reason why my kids are not in school.

Edited June 11, 2011 by crstarlette

[Elizabeth in WA]

No. Two of my kids test as highly gifted, and two as just bright but not gifted. All four are (or were in early elementary school, since this gets harder to measure as they get older and read more straight up literature with no reading levels attached) very advanced readers.

[nmoira]

I wouldn't assume a child reading two or three grade levels ahead is gifted. However, even if we're talking about four or five grade levels, I think we'd need more information. FWIW, early reading (not hot housed), especially at 2 or 3, is a fairly reliable indicator of giftedness, though not all gifted children are early readers.

[wapiti]

As other posters noted, professionals usually apply the term "gifted" to people with IQs 130 or higher on a test like the WISC, which is at the 98th percentile, and that is what I think of when I see the term. I think it's helpful, for the sake of communication, to be consistent.

 

I also think it's important to note, as some posters have, the very wide range of "normal" for reading level in elementary school. So looking at reading level alone isn't going to tell you much about the child's intelligence level, except at the high extreme.

 

Now for my public service announcement: FWIW, regarding kids who one might otherwise suspect as being gifted (including those kids with gifted siblings) but who are reading only at grade level or below grade level, that is a *HUGE* red flag that the child might be dealing with one sort of LD or another, and in such case testing may be worthwhile. Improvements are possible, to help the child reach their potential. (Sorry for PSA, but I feel like I see such stories all the time on the boards. Having a child like this, I know that big strengths are easily camouflaged by weaknesses, and parents might miss it.)

[susankenny]

No.

 

 

Susan

[alpidarkomama]

It's an interesting question. I don't really know the answer. I think it depends on how you define gifted. Both my children are accelerated in one or more subjects, but I have never had to "define" their talents, so they just....are. :D

 

My kids just are too. :) As they're learning, they just go on to the next thing then the next thing in their own time. I really stopped paying attention to anything other than their being at least on grade level-ish. They're really all over the map, depending on the subject! :)

[EKS]

I didn't vote. I do think early reading can indicate giftedness as can advanced reading, say 5+ grade levels ahead. Two grade levels ahead isn't all that impressive, particularly as they get older. However, the reverse is absolutely not true. That is, gifted children can be delayed readers.

[kalanamak]

I said "no", but I get the feeling that what I call "gifted" it the upper few percent of what many others call gifted. Those kids I just call "bright".

[Heather in Neverland]

Not since I started working at this school. Here I have many students who can "read" several grade levels ahead but their actual comprehension is far below that.

[Tohru]

I think 2-3 grades above marks a good reader or maybe even a bright child, but not gifted. Some profoundly gifted kids don't learn to read until much later than their peers.

 

Here is an interesting list of differences between bright kids and gifted kids.

 

And here is a list of gifted characteristics.

 

And here is a statistical comparison of gifted kids.

 

All of these resources note gifted kids are not all the same, just like any other group.

 

Thanks Karen! Those were awesome links! According to those links, my son is "gifted"....and he was a very late reader. lol!

 

Unfortunately had he attended public school, he would've been labeled opposite of that, put in the remedial class and probably diagnosed with ADHD.

 

ETA: I thought that >130 IQ was a bit more common rather than rare. I always thought that children's IQs do change over time?

Edited June 12, 2011 by jadedone80

[EKS]

Not since I started working at this school. Here I have many students who can "read" several grade levels ahead but their actual comprehension is far below that.

 

Yes--it also depends on your definition of reading. And of comprehension. For example, my 9yo can read adult level material but depending on what it is he might only comprehend superficially because he doesn't have the life experience or emotional maturity to get the deeper aspects of it.

[EthiopianFood]

DH and I believe that it can be a sign of potential giftedness, but that the larger discrepancy would be a stronger sign. Reading just 2 levels ahead could just be normal variation. Think about how books are graded across age ranges, like ages 9 to 12. But the 2nd grader reading on a high school level would be going beyond the normal range.

 

:iagree:Exactly what I was going to say.