In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Robert J. MacG. Dawson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >Herman Rubin wrote:
>> >> This is not done that often, and is generally quite difficult.
>> >> It requires changing the form of the model. The more typical
>> >> transformations attempt to get normal marginals, and there is
>> >> rarely justification for this. It has done harm; many of the
>> >> newer IQ tests never return "profoundly gifted", as this is
>> >> beyond the range which the "normal" transformation of the scores
>> >> from the too-small sample yields.
>I responded:
>> > This may not be a bad thing, as it is not clear that the tests are
>> >designed to make accurate distinctions for that part of the range of
>> >intellectual ability.
>to which Herman Rubin responded:
>> As it is used, it is a VERY bad thing. There is no way now
>> that a gifted child can get anything like an appropriate
>> education in the public schools, and failing to recognize
>> giftedness, or its extent, is really criminal.
>If the public school system had any interest in recognizing (and
>giving an appropriate education to) highly gifted children it could
>do so without IQ tests. If it doesn't, we cannot blame the tests.
Frankly, the public school system does not believe in
giving anyone of an IQ above 80 an education appropriate
to that. One can get something done (sometimes) for
highly gifted, but the educationists will not accept
anything under 130 as even being gifted. Anyone who
thinks that children should be educated at the same rate
and in the same manner regardless of ability should be
considered as an enemy of decent education. Why do you
think that the present "honors" or "AP" courses are below
the level of the old college preparatory program?
> If the maximum score attainable is (say) interpreted as
>an IQ of 140, and if that score is only attainable by somebody who
>ought to be offered an enriched program, then that can be used
>to make this decision. Scaling differently so that a perfect mark
>was intepreted as 180 or as 90 out of 90 would not add any more
>information.
Many of the present tests do not even get to 130.
....................
> In short - schools that are prepared to admit to the
>existence of gifted children had better learn to recognize
>then by more valid criteria than IQ tests.
We will never even have better than poor schools as long as
they deny a child learning because some others cannot do it
at the same pace or in the same manner.
--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558
.
.
=================================================================
Instructions for joining and leaving this list, remarks about the
problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES, and archives are available at:
. http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/ .
=================================================================
