[HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Underachievement rates among those gifted children

[Shaun Hately]

On 5 Jun 2002 at 13:38, cindysphynx wrote:

> On the other hand, I sense a feeling from Shaun that his views and 
> advocacy are based on more than anecdotal evidence (Message 10,937):

Yes, they are - I deliberately look at the statistical evidence, etc - for the simple 
reason, I have seen through past experience that while my own anecdotal 
experiences generally match the norm, they don't always do so, and a couple of 
times are directly opposite the norm (for example - I benefitted from a strict and 
rigid school environment - the evidence is that for most gifted kids, that's not an 
ideal situation). I've had to become aware that if I advocated based on my own 
experiences, alone, I could easily get things wrong.
 
Cindysphinx:
> It seems to me that before we can launch into an analysis of whether 
> gifted children underachieve (whether based on anecdotal evidence or 
> solid research), we should acknowledge that we have quite a number 
> of obstacles in our path:

Quite correct - and it's something we are constantly dealing with. All the 4 points 
you raised are certainly included, and it is 'immensely complex' as you said.

Cindysphinx: 
> Apparently, there has been some research indicating that 50% of 
> gifted children underachieve.  If I'm reading our discussion 
> correctly, however, the major studies and published research to date 
> use *objective* measures of whether the children are underachieving, 
> not *subjective* measures.

Correct when talking about the bulk of published studies, yes.
 
Cindysphinx: 
> Now, I'm no expert, and I certainly haven't read any of the studies 
> that Shaun and Elkins discussed.  But reading between the lines 
> here, it sounds like there *is no* completed, published, peer-
> reviewed study at all that uses a *subjective* measure to assess 
> whether a gifted child is an underachiever and whether 50% of gifted 
> children underachieve.  At the moment, we just don't know one way or 
> the other, apparently.

Not quite. There are completed, published, peer-reviewed studies in this area - just 
not many of them, and they are the smaller studies. The larger studies have only 
published limited data (which matches that of the smaller studies). However many 
of those larger studies have been peer-reviewed, and are available to people 
involved in giftedness advocacy - generally they haven't received a public release 
yet, because of confidentiality concerns - 'scrubbing' the data to ensure that kids 
cannot be identified can be quite difficult, especially when the study involves PG 
kids - quite often, I can work who an individual is, because I know so many of their 
case histories. As privacy is taken very seriously, this leads to delays.
 
Cindysphinx:
> If I've read this right (and please correct me if I'm wrong), then I 
> *really* start to wonder about the foundation for the statement that 
> half of gifted children underachieve.  The reason for my concern is 
> that the statement seems based on external, objective measures of 
> achievement coupled with a rather wobbly assessment of whether the 
> child had an ability to achieve in the first instance.  

Not really, no - though I'm not in a position to prove that, at this point. Maybe in 
another year to 18 months, the evidence will be publically available.

The thing is, at the moment, you are perfectly right to be skeptical - I'm not, though, 
because I have seen the data, and the methodologies used. 

> One problem is that the statement assumes that the mere fact that a 
> child has been identified as gifted or even profoundly gifted 
> (apparently based on IQ, primarily) means that the child *should* go 
> on to "achieve."  That, I think, is a huge leap, and an unfounded 
> one.  After all, as several people have pointed out, IQ tests 
> measure only one very narrow component of what it takes to achieve.  
> Indeed, Shaun indicated that a very tight definition of intelligence 
> is used (Message 10,875):
> 
> >Intelligence is generally defined for psychological purposes as the 
> >ability to comprehend cognitive complexity - a very tight 
> >definition. While this isn't the same as logic or reasoning 
> >ability, it correlates very highly with them (estimated correlation 
> >is better than 0.9) - you don't often get correlations that high in 
> >psychological tests. It still means it's not perfect - but it's 
> >very close, and extremely useful.
> 
> Therefore, it seems to do the child an injustice to rely on an IQ 
> test to decide that he/she is capable of "achieving" (whatever that 
> means) and will be labeled an underachiever if he/she does not.  
> This is particularly so in light of the fact that "achievement" 
> requires much more than just the ability to reason, and Shaun 
> acknowledged as much in Message 10,887):
> 
> >I think resourcefullness is more important than IQ. So is self 
> >discipline and a variety of other things.


Cindysphinx: 
> It seems inherently unfair to me to measure a child's ability to 
> reason, to then acknowledge that many other qualities influence 
> success and achievement, but to label gifted children who have not 
> been proven to have these other qualities as "underachievers" if 
> they fail to achieve.

Not, if you also look at the other qualities, IMHO.

If all that was done, involved testing a child, and then assuming their IQ score 
defined every part of their ability, that would be very unfair. And that can and does 
happen sometimes.

But what we do - and what increasing numbers of programs, etc, do - is look at IQ 
as only one part of the child. Because that's all it is. One part of the child.

In many ways, it's easier for us dealing with PG kids than for those dealing with the 
gifted in general - we have a lot fewer kids to deal with. We can look at them in 
more detail than schools, etc, often seem able to manage.
 
> Ah, but that takes us to the real problem in my eyes – the 
> definition of achievement.  Whether you use a subjective or 
> objective definition, deciding whether anyone underachieved is 
> fraught with uncertainty –- to the point that I cannot see the value 
> of even asking the question.

The value in asking the question is that for many of these kids, underachievement is 
linked to their future happiness, and unless we ask the question, we will not see the 
early signs of it, and that will make it a lot harder to help them with it.
 
Cindysphinx: 
> Fast forward to adulthood.  If the child is just a lawyer instead of 
> a federal judge, has he objectively failed to achieve?  How about if 
> he is a document clerk in a law firm?  Legal secretary?  Court 
> bailiff or court reporter?  How about if he attends law school for 
> one year, decides he hates law after all, drops out, and happily 
> begins teaching in a pre-school?  How about if the child winds up in 
> a low-status/low-paid position of any sort without ever pursuing his 
> childhood passion for the law?

It depends on the situation. It's not as simple as what job did they wind up with. As 
I've said before, our primary aim is to ensure they have a relatively happy life.
 
> I don't know for sure what the studies that use objective measures 
> would say to these questions, but I have a feeling that even if the 
> child were happy teaching pre-school, there would be a feeling 
> (among parents, teachers, researchers and psychologists) that the 
> child had "underachieved."  I somehow suspect that "achievement" is 
> defined to some extent by status, prestige and compensation, 
> although I certainly hope that I am wrong about that.

It depends on who you ask. There are people who define achievement by status, 
prestige, compensation, type of job, whether you have a big house, etc. But in our 
case - and this is increasingly the case, thankfully - our primary measure is based 
on how satisfied the person is with their final choice. If they are content with who 
they are - well, that's automatically a victory. If they want to teach pre-school, and 
that's what they are doing, great. If they want to flip burgers, and that's what they 
are doing, great. If they want to be a lawyer, and they are doing that, great. If they 
want to be nuclear physicist, and they are doing that, great.

Cindysphinx:
>And I don't think that is fair or right.  After all, there is much, 
> much more to becoming a judge or even a lawyer than the ability to 
> do well on an IQ test, or even the ability to reason.  The sad fact 
> may simply be that the child did not have the ability (i.e. talent) 
> to achieve this goal, despite being "intelligent."  So what do we 
> hope to gain by labeling the child as an "underachiever?"

What we gain is an insight into what we need to do to help them. If they are 
underachieving because they lack particular skills - study skills are a big area - we 
can help them learn them. If they are underachieving because of a lack of a talent 
we can't teach them, we can look at ways of helping them find a path they like 
where lacking that talent won't be a major impediment, etc.

 It also helps us to find systemic problems - system wide problems, wide group 
problems, etc. Take the 50% underachievement figure, and consider the 
implications of that (assuming it's true). That number points to a major problem 
*somewhere* - something is causing such a high rate of underachievement. It helps 
us to know there is a problem, because then we know we need to try and figure out 
what it is, and that's the first step to fixing it.

Identifying problems can be the first step toward fixing them. That's what we gain.

Cindysphinx:
> Ironically, even using subjective measures, the children most likely 
> to be labeled underachievers might be those who set 
> ambitious/prestigious goals for themselves or who have adults in 
> their lives who set these goals for them.  I find myself wondering 
> whether a child who sets a goal "beneath" the expectations of 
> parents, teachers and psychologists will receive tremendous pressure 
> to set a higher goal.  Perhaps the 8-year-old who does high-school 
> level math is free to declare that he "just" he wishes to teach pre-
> school, but I have trouble imagining that this goal wouldn't be 
> questioned early and often.  

It depends on where they are. Most experts in giftedness would not question such a 
goal. But unfortunately, most parents, and and most teachers, are not experts in this 
area. 
 
Cindysphinx: 
> I would imagine that it is the rare child indeed who would be 
> willing to downsize his/her goals or switch to a totally different 
> area of interest in the face of adult advice to the contrary.  The 
> result, I would imagine, might be a child who goes with the flow, 
> who sticks with the areas in which he is believed to be gifted, only 
> to be tagged as an underachiever should he finally decide to change 
> his goals or pursue another path for whatever reason.

Actually, these kids will resist adult advice - and do so routinely. In our program, we 
actually encourage them to do so - we ask that they listen to our advice, but we 
don't really expect them to follow it. And it's hard sometimes when you see a kid 
taking a path you think is wrong. But it's their choice, their life, and, frankly, they've 
often had enough people depriving them of choices, for us to risk that.

We're not perfect - and I'm sure we've got it wrong sometimes.

Cindysphinx: 
> After all, we don't label non-gifted children as underachievers if 
> they do not reach goals they set for themselves or if they don't 
> reach some objective measure of achievement.  

Actually, you'll find a great many people do label non-gifted children in this way.

> > "A person who is not achieving at a particular level, who is known 
> > to have both the ability and the desire to achieve at that level."
> 
> I'll use myself as an example here, just to see how I measure up.  
> I've always wanted to be a judge, I still want to be a judge, I have 
> the ability to be a judge, and I even have the academic and 
> professional credentials to be a judge.  Nevertheless, I am not a 
> judge and will probably never attain this goal.  There are at least 
> two reasons that come to mind why someone like me might not achieve 
> a life goal.  First, sometimes people make perfectly legitimate 
> decisions that move them away from reaching their goal (the decision 
> to put one's profession on hold in favor of raising children is one 
> example, but there are many others).  Second, there can be external 
> factors that impede achievement of the goal (lack of political 
> connections that would lead to appointment to the bench).  

Cindysphinx: 
> Under Shaun's subjective definition of "underachiever," I am a 
> textbook underachiever.  Yet no one has ever claimed I was 
> underachieving by any subjective or objective measure.  And why is 
> that?  Well, there is one thing missing from my profile that 
> separates me from the 8-year-old boy in my hypothetical example 
> earlier -- I never scored as gifted or profoundly gifted on an IQ 
> test.  It strikes me as quite misguided to suggest that changing one 
> thing about my life (whether I score high on an IQ test or other 
> tests as a youngster) would earn me the label "underachiever".

Actually you're not a textbook underachiever under our definition from what you 
have said. First of all, we don't generally link achievement to a particular job - 
'particular level' does not refer to a particular job *except* in cases where there is 
only one job at that level or even close to it. I guess that could happen. Secondly we 
don't base things on 'one thing about (a person's) life. Also, if a person has chosen 
to raise children, to put their profession on hold, to do so, then we wouldn't regard 
that as underachievement - simply that their 'desire' has changed - either 
permanently, or temporarily.

Personally I would prefer a definition which also mentioned 'opportunity' - "A person 
who is not achieving at a particular level, who is known to have the ability, the 
desire, and the opportunity to achieve at that level," which would avoid some of the 
external factors - such as political connections - that can also apply. But I haven't 
been able to get that adopted yet.
 
> All of this leads me to think that, despite the best intentions of 
> those involved with gifted children, gifted children are being 
> saddled with an obligation that other children do not have -– the 
> *obligation* to succeed/achieve.  There might even be a feeling that 
> the gifted child owes a bit of a debt to society – the obligation 
> not to "waste" their God-given talents and abilities.  The gifted 
> child must carry all of that baggage, based on someone else's narrow 
> assessment of what those gifts are, what the child could be expected 
> to do with those gifts, and whether the child has milked sufficient 
> results from them.  

No. Definitely not. Not anymore.

In fact, in many cases, experts on giftedness utterly repudiate the idea that gifted 
children have 'special obligations' because of their giftedness. That idea was really 
popular among some in the 1980s, and it did a lot of damage.
 
> That said, I wonder whether, in the zeal to advocate the interests 
> of gifted children, we might be overstating the case just a bit.  
> After all, educational resources are limited.  Gifted children must 
> compete for these resources with LD children and "average" 
> children.  Perhaps raising with alarm the possibility that gifted 
> children will "underachieve" and thereby waste their considerable 
> talents -– talents that could change the world –- is seen as a way 
> to secure greater resources for gifted children.  Perhaps it might 
> even work.

No, we're not overstating the case. Besides anything else, we don't need to. It has 
been formally acknowledged - in 1972, in the US, in 1988 in Australia - that gifted 
children have educational needs that must be met for their own good. We've won 
the acknowledgement battle. In terms of resources, we're not really in competition 
for those. Funding for LDs, disabilities, etc, are legally guaranteed by IDEA and 
other laws in the USA and similar laws elsewhere (often not to the extent they need 
to be - but the money goes to these kids). In most cases, this funding specifically 
excludes the gifted - so there's no grounds for competition there. As for competing 
with average children - gifted kids generally don't need extra resources. They simply 
need their share of the normal educational revenue to go to their needs.

We don't exagerate. We can't afford to. And, at the moment, we have no reason to. 
The clearest statements on what these kids need have come from government 
inquiries drawing their own conclusions (often the opposite ones to those the 
governments that set them up wanted) - the Marland Report in the US, two Senate 
Committees here in Australia. They've gone further in their claims of what is 
needed, than we have (-8


Yours Without Wax, Dreadnought
Shaun Hately |webpage: http://www.alphalink.com.au/~drednort/thelab.html
(ISTJ)       |email: drednort at alphalink.com.au | ICQ: 6898200
"You know the very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in
common. They don't alter their views to fit the facts. They alter
the facts to fit the views. Which can be uncomfortable if you happen
to be one of the facts that need altering." The Doctor - Doctor Who:
The Face of Evil | Where am I: Frankston, Victoria, Australia