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

[Shaun Hately]

On 6 Jun 2002 at 18:30, cindysphynx wrote:

> That could very well be a correct reading of Shaun's remarks 
> (Shaun?).  

Pretty close. As I've said, I personally would like opportunity included, but it isn't, 
and there are reason why it isn't (the number one being is that if schools could avoid 
having students they are teaching considered underachievers simply by denying 
them opportunities, some schools would do so - so including opportunity in the 
definition could backfire).
 
Cindysphinx:
> I'm not sure that limiting the question of underachievement to an 
> evaluation of academic achievement fully addresses my concerns, 
> though.  After all, if an IQ test reveals a child be profoundly 
> gifted but the child does not obtain certain grades/academic 
> honors/degrees/advanced training or other measures of academic 
> achievement, we still have the same obstacles I identified earlier 
> in our effort to determine whether the child is "underachieving."  

*If* the child wants those advanced degrees, etc, then if they don't get them, having 
the ability, and the desire (and the opportunity) then there is generally good reason 
for considering there to be a problem.

Cindysphinx:
> It does seem to me to be possible to constrain the inquiry to 
> academics so that you could come a great deal closer to extracting a 
> meaningful judgment about whether the child is achieving.  For 
> instance, if you test a child's mathematical ability and find it to 
> be tremendously advanced, but if the child is flunking elementary 
> school math tests, well, yes, you have an issue there.  That is 
> because there is such a direct link between the test and the child's 
> academic performance.

Precisely.

Cindysphinx:
> But I thought that Shaun's statement (about 50% of gifted children 
> underachieving) was addressing something more – whether the child 
> achieves certain goals, either the child's own subjective goals or 
> objective goals others have set for the child.  Academic goals, 
> professional goals, and the like.  That's where I start to have a 
> problem. 

There may be some confusion about 'goals' here. Generally - though not always - 
the goals we are talking about are particular academic levels - remember I deal in 
education. We consider other things as well, because it isn't healthy to fixate solely 
on academics, and because it's possible a given child will not consider academic 
goals significant. 

Cindypshinx:
> If the statement really is intended to be limited only to academic 
> goals and only those academic goals closely tied to the child's 
> demonstrated intellectual gifts and interests, then I think it would 
> be possible to make a determination about underachievement.  I just 
> am not sure that the studies Shaun and Elkins discussed (or possibly 
> even the smaller body of newer, unpublished, incomplete studies with 
> which Shaun is familiar) are limited in this fashion.  

Generally they are - in fact, some of them are so linked to academic goals, they 
have been attacked as far too narrow.
 
Cindysphinx:
> Let's use tennis star Anna Kournikova as an example.  She has 
> *never* won any professional tennis tournament.  Not one.  The fact 
> that she keeps showing up for these tournaments suggests to me that 
> she has a subjective goal of winning one.  I doubt she would admit 
> that she shows up so that she can lose in the first round.  But she 
> has, without question, failed to win.  Failed to "achieve" titles, 
> as it were.  

Well, using this example, we wouldn't consider her an underachiever - because the 
goals we look at are generally something like (using this example)

GOAL: To be able to consistently compete at the highest competitive level of tennis 
I can manage.

not

GOAL: To win tournaments.

Cindysphinx:
> The difference with gifted children is that some people believe 
> there *is* a test that will tell you if the child has the *ability* 
> to achieve – various IQ tests.  The problem for me, of course, is 
> that I don't buy the notion that a person's IQ is a reliable 
> indicator of ability to achieve much in life beyond the ability to 
> score well on an IQ test.  Or, at least, I haven't seen anything 
> compelling in our discussion so far to demonstrate that it is.  As a 
> result, I do bristle at the idea that IQ tests provide a meaningful 
> insight into *ability*, or by extension that a person who has the so-
> called ability to achieve something in some aspect of life but does 
> not achieve it can benefit from being labeled an underachiever.

I suppose the difference here may be that I have seen dozens of cases where that 
IQ test has been a pointer to future achievement, when it was nurtured. And dozens 
more where it hasn't, in the absence of appropriate education.

So I have no problem with the idea that these tests do indicate something real and 
meaningful.

But I can certainly understand why people who haven't seen it, would wonder.

> Mary Ann wrote:
> 
> >But yet again, the actual *label* of underachievement is being 
> >meted out by people other than the labeled person him/herself. What 
> >right does anyone have to do such a thing to another person?
> 
> Yes, that is the heart of the matter, as I don't think anyone has 
> claimed that *any* underachiever studies are premised on a self-
> assessment (a self-labeling, if you will) by the gifted child.  I 
> think the disconnect here is that the people using these studies to 
> demonstrate that gifted children underachieve may not realize how 
> hurtful it might be even to suggest such a thing.  

Cindysphinx: 
> I also find myself wondering whether the statement is offered 
> primarily for shock value.  It sound dramatic to say that 50% of 
> gifted children achieve.  But what is the relevant comparison among 
> the general population?  I imagine that if you ask most people 
> whether they have the ability and desire to accomplish more in some 
> aspect of life (or even with respect to academic or professional 
> success) than they are, many would say that this is true.  Heck, if 
> you asked the question on this board, I suspect a great number of 
> hands would fly into the air.  

What's the relative comparison - generally speaking, around 10-15% of 'average' 
children would be considered significant academic underachievers as compared to 
their measured ability levels, once LDs, etc, have been eliminated.

The only group you find a 50% level in, besides the gifted, are black and hispanic 
kids from poor socio-economic backgrounds - in some of those cases, levels of up 
to 90% have been found.
 
> That suggests to me that perhaps, just maybe, gifted children and 
> adults are about the same as the rest of us in this regard.   If it 
> really were true that half of gifted children are underachievers (a 
> statement I still find precious little support for at this point in 
> the debate), then perhaps this merely means that gifted children are 
> perfectly normal in this respect and are no different from anyone 
> else.  Better yet, if 75% of the general population underachieves 
> but gifted children underachieve at only 50%, then the 50% statistic 
> wouldn't indicate an underachievement problem among the gifted at 
> all.  

No - but when only 10-15% of the general population underachieves using the same 
criteria, it does indicate a real problem. Comparative studies have been done, using 
a variety of different definitions - whatever definition is used shows more 
underachivement among the gifted than in general.

> No matter how you slice it, though, I wonder whether the 50% rests 
> on the belief that the gifted *ought* to be functioning closer to 
> their maximum level of ability than the rest of us.

No, it doesn't. It's based on the idea that the gifted should be functioning as close to 
their ability level, as people in general. Not their maximum level - just a base level.

And when they get appropriate education, they do.

See - if the results weren't affected by appropriate education being available, things 
would be very different. In that case, we'd conclude that we're simply asking too 
much of these kids. But when they get the appropriate education, they (generally) 
easily meet these standards.

Cindypshinx:
> Maybe we are in agreement on this point.  It isn't fair to look at 
> something like IQ to decide which children are gifted and then make 
> assumptions based on IQ about the extent to which they have the 
> ability to achieve.  A much more individualized assessment of 
> ability would be required, if I read your remarks correctly.  That 
> makes sense.

Definitely - IQ testing is only one part of what is needed.
 
Cindysphinx:
> If, however, this sort of individualized assessment of ability has 
> *not* been done in connection with (1) the older studies that use an 
> objective definition of achievement, or (2) newer studies that use a 
> subjective definition, then those studies don't address my concerns 
> very well at all.  In other words, they have *not* made an 
> appropriate assessment of the child's ability to achieve the goal in 
> question, so the conclusion presented (that half of these children 
> underachieve) is inherently suspect.

Many of the older studies were based primarily, in some cases, almost totally, on IQ 
testing, without any other assessment. The newer ones are based on broader 
assessments - that's one reason they have taken a lot longer to produce.

But let me give you an example - our pilot cohort in our program (I had to get 
permission to give any details). We have a total of 40 kids in the pilot cohort. When 
they entered the program between ages 8 and 11, 5 years ago, 33 of the 40 were 
identified as underachievers (we took those with the greatest needs first so we were 
well over the 50% figure).

After 5 years in our program, only 8 are considered to be underachievers in any 
way. We haven't been able to give them appropriate education - our program is a 
matter of appropriate support, their schooling is still in the hands of schools (some 
are homeschooled, 4 are now at University). And none of the 8 are doing that badly 
- at least 3 will probably be removed from the underachieving category within the 
next year. 11 of the original 33 (and 2 of the other 7) have basically chosen not to 
consider academic learning that important - but even each of those is performing at 
least at their age-grade level.

We've gone from a rate of 82.5% to 20%. Our kids are happy, and they are doing 
very well academically, and are well on track to reaching their goals.

We know their rate of underachievement wasn't natural, or expected - because it's 
been very easy to correct it, simply by giving them access to real opportunities to 
extend themselves if they want them.

Cindysphinx:
> Hmmm.  "Underachievement is linked to their future happiness."  
> Although this does have some intuitive appeal, I don't fully 
> understand how we can know this.  After all, it might not be 
> the "underachievement" (i.e., failure to reach subjective goals the 
> child could reach) that is truly bothering the child.  It might be 
> the label of "underachiever," the life-long pressure to achieve 
> more, the implicit judgment that whatever the child has achieved is 
> not good enough, and the emotional baggage that the label carries, 
> that might be the real impediment to happiness.  How can we know 
> which it is?  

We often can't know for certain in individual cases. We can know, in general, simply 
because many of these kids have grown up and are available to be interviewed, 
assessed, etc. We know that underachievement is very closely linked to 
unhappiness in the minds of large numbers of gifted adults, because they can tell 
us.

In an individual case, we can get in wrong (I hope - and I think - that doesn't happen 
often)  - but we know the trends very well.

Cindysphinx:
> I remain puzzled, however, about how the ongoing effort to identify 
> large numbers of underachieving gifted children contributes to the 
> goal of helping them be happy.  If anything, I would think that the 
> best way to ensure gifted children are happy would be to accept 
> their accomplishments, support them through their challenges, and 
> appreciate their efforts.  Pointing out that they 
> are "underachieving" seems somewhat superfluous by comparison.  

We don't point it out. Generally they do. They know they are underachieving and 
they tell *us* if it's worrying them. We certainly never tell a child they are 
underachieving - we will ask them if they are happy, and we wait for them to come 
to us in the vast majority of cases. We will move in and tell them only if we think 
they are facing significant problems if we don't. We can't completely butt out, given 
that we can be facing very significant issues, including the potential for suicide at 
times.

But we generally would not point out they were underachieving - can't say we'd 
never do it, because we're dealing with individuals and there are cases where it 
might be appropriate.
 
Cindysphinx: 
> Then why not simply ask whether the child is content/happy/satisfied 
> with their final choice?  Why stack up their achievement against 
> their alleged ability and declare them wanting?  After all, if a 
> child subjectively believes he or she is underachieving, and if this 
> bothers the child to the extent it interferes with happiness, then 
> exploring the child's happiness directly ought to ferret out the 
> problem, right?  

Yes - and that's really what we do.

We do test beforehand, for a variety of reasons - but for the most part, the tests are 
locked away and aren't used until and unless they are needed. We test for a few 
reasons. The first is because as well as trying to help these kids, we are also 
developing methods to help other kids in the future - and test data can help us with 
that. The kids know we do this, and support it - so far unanimously. Secondly, there 
are some Learning Disabilities, etc, that are *very* non-obvious among the gifted, 
and some IQ tests - in particular the WISC-III can allow these to be identified. 
Myself, I have an auditory processing problem. It was totally missed until I was 12, 
because I was more than able to compensate using other skills - primary schools 
tend to be primarily a visual learning environment, secondary schools are more 
auditory as you move along. Because that auditory processing problem was 
identified when it was, they were able to teach me techniques to deal with it, so it 
never became a serious issue. That identification came because I was given the 
WISC-R (previous version of the WISC-III). A lot of LDs are masked by giftedness 
(and giftedness can also be masked by LDs) and these tests can get past the 
masking. Thirdly, at present, in order to accurately gauge the IQ of a gifted child, 
you must test fairly early. This is because the tests in current use - the SB-IV and 
the WISC-III both have rather low 'ceilings' and rather high 'floors'. They don't 
accurately measure IQs outside the 70-130 range. A child who scores 140 on the 
WISC certainly has an IQ of 140 - but they may have one of 180. The WISC cannot 
tell. The only test that can is the SB-LM - and even it starts to have problems with 
really high scores from the time a child is 8.

Ideally, with a gifted child, you want to test between age 6 and 8. If you already 
have a kids whose 12, you want to test NOW - because the older they get, the lower 
the test ceiling. Even if you don't think you need the data now, we have to be aware 
that a test done today may contain information that won't be possible in another 
year, simply because they will have moved past that on the test.

This is a problem that probably won't exist after mid-next year - because a new test 
that is being validated at the moment, the SB-V isn't meant to have the ceiling 
problems. But for the moment, the best policy is to test now to avoid ceiling effects 
as much as possible - and then store the test.

After testing, the psychs look at the test results for any LD indications, and write a 
brief analysis for the files. Then, generally, the test is locked away in case it's 
needed. 
 
Cindysphinx:
> But again, why frame it with the term "underachievement" in this 
> example?  I would think that parents and other professionals could 
> determine whether a child has poor study skills without reaching the 
> question of whether child is or will be an underachiever.  If it is 
> simply a matter of augmenting the gifted child's skill set so that 
> they wind up where they want to be, can't the inquiry be framed in 
> exactly that way?  

Actually parents, and other professionals often *can't* determine whether a child has 
poor study skills until the problem gets quite severe - especially if the child is gifted. 
The gifted child is likely to do very well at school even with poor study skills up until 
a certain point when they 'crash and burn'.

For me, it hit in Year 9. Until that point, I had never got less than 90% on any test - 
generally I got 95% or more. I had no study skills - but I didn't need them. A single 
reading of a text was all I needed.

Suddenly in Year 9, that wasn't enough - more than just skimming the book was 
needed. My marks plummetted. I had to learn how to study very quickly simply to 
keep up. Now, at this point, yes, the problem was noticed. And it was dealt with. But 
it had to be dealt with in a matter of weeks. I had to do crash courses on how to 
study, etc. It was miserable.

It would have been much easier for me if the problem had been identified earlier - 
say in Year 7, at which point, I could have learned and developed the skills I needed 
in a much less savage fashion.

The idea is to catch the problems early so you can deal with them before they turn 
into major problems.

Now, you may not like the term underachiever. The thing is, it's just a word. Like 
Intelligence, like Gifted. We could use different terms but we tend to use the ones 
that have been used before, simply to remain consistent - if we change terms too 
often, we wind up with a lot of confusion. 'Exceptional child' is one term - it used to 
mean roughly the same as 'gifted' does, but over the years it's changed meaning 
until it often refers to children with disabilities - and sometimes it refers to both the 
gifted and those with disabilities. Any child who's not average, in other words. The 
meaning of the word has become confused.

We need terms to use to communicate between ourselves, when making notes for 
other people, etc. If we could be sure, only we were only to deal with these kids, 
such labels would be fairly pointless. But we can't. I could walk under a bus this 
afternoon - and someone else would have to help my kids.

Cindysphinx: 
> As a parent, I frequently help my children learn skills they may 
> wish to have later or that their program of study requires.  I do 
> not, however, point out during the process that the reason the child 
> should learn the skill is that they either are or are at risk 
> of "underachieving."  The reason I do not frame it this way is that 
> it is a judgment, an unhelpful one, and an insulting one at that, 
> even if I don't mean it to be.

The thing is, there is a difference for a parent. Parents, hopefully, know their child 
intimately, and are generally dealing with only a few kids. They also, generally, have 
no plans on handing over dealing with their child's needs to somebody else. It's a 
very different situation.

It is a judgement - we sometimes need to make judgements/diagnoses/whatever 
you want to call them - in order to help these kids.

Unhelpful, insulting? It's not meant to be - anymore than saying a child is hearing 
impaired, or dyslexic, or anything else. It's a term of communication so others know 
what the child needs help with.

Cindysphinx:
> Well, if you *assume* that the 50% figure is true (and I'm sure 
> you've gathered that I find the statistic suspect on a number of 
> grounds) and if we further *assume* that this figure is an 
> aberration (an assumption I find unsupported), then there could be a 
> problem.  I said as much in my last post.  I think where we differ 
> is that I'd be very reluctant to label children as underachievers 
> and risk undermining their self-esteem unless I was awfully sure 
> that the 50% figure was both true and unusual and therefore 
> indicative of a problem.

Undermining self-esteem? We don't. Because we do not use this label anywhere 
around the kids, and we've also made it very clear over time, why we use any label 
at all, to them.

Cindysphinx:
> I guess I don't understand at all, then.  Under the subjective 
> definition of achievement you provided, what does it mean 
> to "achieve at a particular *level*"?  I would imagine that, since 
> we're talking about the child's subjective goals, the child decides 
> what the "level" is, i.e. job, degree, field of study, grade in a 
> course, etc.  If I get to be the gifted child in our discussion, 
> the "level" at which I wish to practice is as the decision-maker – 
> the judge.  So, yeah, under the subjective definition 
> of "achievement" used in the newer, smaller, unfinished studies, I 
> think I would fall squarely within the 50% of underachievers, if I 
> were gifted.

Level can mean a lot of things depending on what we are dealing with. First of all, 
provided you are happy, we wouldn't even look at the term.

I'm not exactly sure how level would be defined for someone looking at the legal 
profession - but, for science, for example, we'd be talking about working in any 
science or related field in just about any connected capacity, provided the person 
was happy with their job.

Cindysphinx:
>I think we get the same result if we move away from job-related 
> goals and consider academic-related ones.  Obtaining a certain 
> internship.  Obtaining admission to a certain program of study.  Or 
> am I missing something about the meaning of the term "level"?

No, you're not - and that's actually a far more common way of using the term. We 
only have job related goals at all, in our considerations, because we don't want 
students feeling that study is the be all and end all of life. We want them to know 
they can move outside study to work, etc. We don't expect them to spend their lives 
in academia researching - that's fine as a path, if you choose it. But so is striving for 
a particular line of work.

We're doomed if we do, and doomed if we don't. If we don't consider work, we're 
accused of setting our kids up for an ivory tower existance where their whole lives 
are based on academic performance. If we consider jobs, we're accused of forcing 
them into particuar fields of work they may not like.

We try to achieve a balance between all these areas. And that's why work, jobs, etc, 
are including in goal setting.

Cndysphinx:
> Again, I am confused.  Are we trying to decide whether the child is 
> an underachiever in their life as a whole?  Or are we trying to 
> decide whether they are an underachiever in their ability to reach a 
> certain tangible goal that is allegedly related to their alleged 
> ability as measured primarily by IQ tests?  I thought it was the 
> latter.

That's more or less correct, yes.

Cindysphinx:
> I guess that assumes that there won't be a disconnect between the 
> desire and the person's circumstances.  I can tell you that my 
> *desire* hasn't changed, believe me.  My *circumstances* have 
> changed, not the desire.  I'm simply not in a position to pursue my 
> goal and the clock is ticking, so the realistic prospects for my 
> achieving my goal are poor and getting worse each day.  So, sadly, I 
> think we're stuck with the idea that I am an underachiever under the 
> subjective definition of the studies you cited.  Which is a 
> surprise.  Because I don't *feel* like an underachiever at all.

Then you are not. If you don't think there's an underachievement problem, then by 
definition, there isn't. 

Cindysphinx:
> Yeah, this is quite a mess, isn't it?  After all, we all create our 
> own "opportunity" to some extent, don't we?  So we could decide that 
> lack of opportunity is no excuse to underachieve, perhaps.

Yes, we do to some extent. But the reason opportunity isn't included in our 
definitions currently is because of a perception that it might be used as an excuse 
not to offer opportunities.
 
Cindysphinx:
> Or maybe, just maybe, we could decide that the question ("What 
> proportion of gifted children are underachievers?") is unknown and 
> possibly unknowable and that our efforts are better spent on simply 
> deciding how best to provide gifted children with an appropriate 
> education and a suitable learning experience without needlessly 
> undermining their self-esteem.

We don't undermine their self esteem. I don't know where you have got that idea 
from, but it's simply not true. We spend our time building self esteem in kids who 
have sometimes had it ripped from them by the system they are stuck in.

> Shaun (about whether advocates for gifted children might overstate 
> the case to secure a greater share of educational resources):
> 
> > No, we're not overstating the case. Besides anything else, we 
> >don't need to. <snip>  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.

Cindysphinx:
> Hmmm.  The skeptical side of me thinks that when it comes to funding 
> and resources, there is no such thing as a bottomless pit, so I have 
> trouble accepting the idea that gifted children have all of the 
> educational resources that they need in Australia or anywhere else.  
> In fact, your statement above that gifted children "simply need 
> *their share* of the normal educational revenue to go to their 
> needs" suggests to me that educational resources are in fact limited 
> and that gifted children need advocates to ensure that they receive 
> their share of those resources.  

No - they need advocates to ensure their share is spent on what they need.

A gifted child in a classroom receives the same share of money and resources as 
every other child in that class. If a class of 25 receives $100,000 to run it, the gifted 
children in that class will be receiving around $4,000 - there will be slight variations 
but generally. Funding is typically allocated on a per child basis.

The thing is - is that $4,000 being spent on what the child actually needs. If a child 
can do trigonometry, and the class spends its days learning the multiplication tables, 
every cent being spent teaching that child how what 6x6 is *wasted* money. It's still 
being spent - the school doesn't give it back. It's not achieving it's purpose.

Gifted children do not miss out on an appropriate education because of a lack of 
money. The money is there, it's being spent. They miss out because it's being spent 
on stuff they don't need, rather than things they do need.

It's not that there is a bottomless pit - but the money is there.

It just needs to be spent appropriately.

In my state, education funding per child actually dropped slightly for 4 years from 
1994-1997. At the same time, education standards went *up*. The number of 
special programs available to children with special needs increased. They didn't 
cost anymore than the regular classes - they just met the needs of the kids better.
 
Cindysphinx: 
> If Australian school gifted education is this bad, perhaps this is a 
> sign that gifted children *are* in competition for educational 
> resources, and they are losing this competition quite badly.  It 
> does seem logical to me that well-funded (including resources to 
> hire and train appropriate educators for gifted children and so 
> forth) programs could go a long way toward meeting the needs of 
> gifted children in Australia and elsewhere.

They could - but they are not needed.

Most of the rudimentary programs I mentioned cost a lot more than the good 
programs. The most successful program for gifted children in schools in my state - 
for the last 22 years - is one at University High School. It costs $12.50 per child per 
year over and above standard funding (or about $500 a year in admin fees, total). It 
works by educating these kids in their classes to their level of ability as indicated by 
testing, instead of doing so to a level indicated by date of birth. It's a full time 
program. 

Cindysphinx:
> So we're still left with the possibility that some less-than-
> scrupulous advocates might – just might – value a statistic that 50% 
> of gifted children underachieve because it is a useful, headline-
> grabbing tool to argue for a re-allocation of resources toward 
> gifted children – to ensure that they receive their "share".  I have 
> no problem with the goal of re-allocation, but I do question the 
> means.

If we had any reasonable hope of getting more money, this might be a risk.

But we don't. And we know that through many years of experience.

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