The 120-IQ Kids: What Are We Doing For Them?

I work with one elementary student, who performs high or higher than most of my gifted students. During English/language arts, she masters research, reads grade levels above her peers, and exhibits creativity, innovation, and initiative. And yes, her test scores are well above average.

The ringer: she doesn’t qualify for gifted services.

The reason this child does not qualify comes down to numbers. The district requires a 130 or higher intelligence quotient, or two standard deviations from the norm.  This young lady scored a 128.

Now, in some cases, student can qualify for gifted programs with I.Q. lower scores if they are eligible for free or reduced lunch programs or receive English as a second language services. But what happens if the child does not meet the “Plan B” criteria but, nevertheless, has an above-average I.Q.?

I truly believe that these high-potential children, such as the one mentioned above, would definitely benefit from a gifted program or something like it. This brings up the question: what is the best way to identify and effectively qualify students for gifted programs? And what do we do with high-potential, high-performing students, who just miss the cut-off?

States such as Florida use I.Q. scores along with teacher-completed characteristic checklists to qualify students. In Georgia, students must meet cut-off scores on mental ability tests and national norm reference tests, but in the case of Plan B, looks at creativity and motivation levels as well.  Students in New York are tested using the Naglieri Nonverbal Ability Test and the Otis-Lennon School Ability Test and must score 90 percentile or above to enter district programs and 97 percentile or above to qualify for city programs.

States holding to a hard-and-fast cutoff score establish a high standard but run the risk of missing out on these high potential children, who may not perform well on a particular test or score slightly below the mark.  A Plan B type option might work for these children, but not it’s entirely based on family economics or race.

Experts will tell you that the best approach is to generally cast a wide net by using a number of assessments, ranging from I.Q. tests, to teacher recommendations, to classroom performance.  This ensures that certain types of students are not excluded from gifted and talented programs.  But it’s not an easy-fix. Where do you draw that line? You have to establish some sort of baseline, some standard. You want to ensure that the students be selected for gifted  services have a genuine need for those services.

I think there almost needs to be an advanced student-type program or services that’s  created for those mid-to-high 120 I.Q. children, like the one I mentioned at the start of the blog, who excel through curriculum at a faster rate and crave enrichment opportunities in the classroom but slightly miss qualifying for gifted  programs. These students, I believe, suffer the most since they are often the teacher-pleasers, the ones who get ignored since they do their work and produce good grades and test scores (of course, I’m generalizing here). In many instances, these children are just as capable, if not more, than those we label highly gifted. Researchers that found that beyond an I.Q. of 120, there is little connection between I.Q. and personal achievement. Studies by the Renzulli folks at the University of Connecticut have shown that there is little or no difference between the quality of work on school projects, for example, between these 120-something kids and those in the top 5 percent of the intelligence scale.

With all that said, maybe we need to have more conversations about what’s happening with these 120 I.Q. kids.  Are we doing the best we can to meet their needs?