A New Theory of Human Intelligence is a very inspirational TEDx Talk by Scott Barry Kaufman, a researcher at the University of Pennsylvania, author and speaker.

The premise of his talk is:

“Do standard tests (like I.Q.) lie about how smart you really are? Do they show what you can really achieve? In this paradigm-shifting talk, Kaufman presents a new theory of human intelligence. Scott Barry Kaufman is deeply interested in using psychological science to help everyone– all kinds of minds— live a creative, fulfilling, and meaningful life. A main takeaway from his work is that everyone is capable of creativity, the key is finding the thing that will let them shine the most.”

Kaufman can easily be called an expert on this topic. He has written, edited and co-authored several books pertaining to intelligence, the creative mind, gifted and twice-exceptional learners. He has also done research on different ways of identifying giftedness, high-ability and creativeness. In this presentation, he discusses a new theory of human intelligence that uses a holistic approach to learning, one that recognizes the capacity within each child.  Too often, institutions rely almost exclusively on IQ and standardized tests, which result in teaching practices that are rigid, unyielding and undifferentiated.  According to Kaufman, such practices lead to the type of teaching that does not encourage motivation, engagement or finding one’s passion.

Watch his lecture and listen carefully to how he describes his own educational experience as a young student. You will be amazed, perplexed and even saddened to hear about his journey, but eventually be impressed by his resilience, determination and perseverance. Kaufman is able to approach the topic from the perspective of both a researcher and a former disillusioned student, making the talk resonate from multiple angles.

What do you think of Kaufman’s theory of human intelligence? Share your thoughts in the comments!

Like this post? Sign up for our email newsletter to receive more stories, information, and resources about gifted youth straight to your inbox.

Lisa is the mother of 3 gifted children and lives outside of San Francisco.

At my son’s kindergarten parent/teacher conference, his teacher played a game with my husband and me. She put 3 marbles on the table and asked us to close our eyes. When we opened them, we saw 2 marbles. She asked us how many she was holding in her hand. When we told her “one”, she repeated the game with 4 marbles.

Our son’s teacher told us she played this game with each student until the child no longer gave the correct answer. All the children in her class stopped at 10 marbles, except my son. She played with him until she had 20 marbles on the table. Then she stopped. She told us that he was clearly very good at math.
I left the meeting feeling proud of my son’s talent and satisfied with the teacher’s assessment. My husband wasn’t.

“Why didn’t she keep going until he gave the wrong answer?”

From that moment, “good at math” wasn’t good enough for me. I wanted to know his limits. Then I wanted him to learn something new. Thus began my search for the perfect test: the one that would convince his teachers that he needed something different from the rest of the class.

I started with an IQ test. That was a terrible idea. I learned that he not only had exceptional perceptual reasoning abilities, but he also had excellent verbal abilities. When I shared this information with the principal, she was wary. What kind of parent gives her 5 year old child an IQ test? Clearly, I was one of “those” parents. I not only complicated my search, I acquired a label that would follow me throughout my son’s elementary school years.

The psychologist who administered the IQ test also gave him the Wide Range Achievement Test. His Reading and Arithmetic achievement scores placed him in 3rd Grade. I approached his 1st grade teacher with these scores and asked if she could give him 3rd grade level work. She was sympathetic to my request. She thought she could deliver an appropriate reading curriculum. Unfortunately, she didn’t have the resources to deliver a 3rd grade math curriculum in her class and the school would not allow him to sit in a 3rd grade classroom.

I decided to make alternate arrangements for math. I enrolled my son in an online math program through the Educational Program for Gifted Youth (“EPGY”). He worked on the computer at home and brought the homework assignments to school. Finally, I understood what my son knew because I saw it on the computer screen every day.

I remained optimistic when my son started 2nd grade. I gave up on the advanced reading curriculum, but I continued to advocate for accelerated math. I doubled my efforts. My son took the Sequential Test for Educational Progress (STEP) for mathematics computation. The test detailed scores in reading and whole numbers, fractions, decimals, percentages, denominate numbers and algebraic manipulation in math. He scored at a 5th grade level. Armed with the STEP results and the completed EPGY math curriculum, I tried again.

His 2nd grade teacher was hostile. Through her behavior and comments, she delivered two messages to my son. First, he is not as smart as he thinks he is. He may be good at adding, subtracting and multiplying numbers, but he didn’t understand math concepts. (Later, I would learn his conceptual math abilities are particularly strong.) Second, he needed to be quiet about his abilities, or risk being ostracized by the class. Given the teacher’s hostility to my son, I did not push acceleration. She allowed him to work on word problems independently, but that was all.

I brought out all the big guns in 3rd grade. I not only had him take a second STEP test for math, I contacted Johns Hopkins University Center for Talented Youth for an Educational Evaluation. Two Ph.Ds wrote a 3 page Educational Evaluation that concluded: “To avoid repetition of material and the subsequent boredom and decrease in motivation, (my son) should be allowed to work on fourth grade-level math or higher.” The teachers refused. I gave up. We hired a tutor so he could learn new math concepts after school.

By 4th grade, I learned that no test was going to convince any teacher at our school that his math curriculum should be accelerated. I sat in a room with my husband, the principal, my son’s 4th grade teacher, copies of the California Education Code, the school district’s policies, and the book Teaching Gifted Kids in the Regular Classroom: Strategies and Techniques Every Teacher Can Use to Meet the Academic Needs of the Gifted and Talented, and I got mad. I got leaning-over-the table-finger-poking-red-faced-mad. My surprised husband (the reliably hot headed one) jumped into the fray and suggested that “we all step back and try to find some common ground.” It worked. We got the teacher to pre-test our son before each math lesson. If he demonstrated mastery, he was allowed to skip the lessons. We kept his tutor. When he tested out of a concept, he was allowed to work on the tutor’s assignments during class. In addition, the classroom teacher did not assign him any homework.

So, what did I learn from all of this? I learned that a good assessment (or several) can let you know what your child needs and give you the conviction to fight for it. I learned that no test will convince a teacher, not otherwise inclined, to deliver an accelerated curriculum if he or she lacks the resources or motivation. I learned that when nothing else works, righteous outrage sometimes is the catalyst to make things happen. I learned that to be productive, outrage must be coupled with a reasonable proposal. Most importantly, I learned that my son is the most accommodating child in the world to put up with all this nonsense.

What has your experience been with effectiveness of assessments in getting your children the accommodations they need? Please share with us in the comment section below.

Like this post? Please share!

• Facebook
• Instagram
• X
• LinkedIn

IEA’s programs – Academy, Apprenticeship, the Caroline D. Bradley Scholarship, Yunasa, and Yunasa West – are geared toward gifted children ages 5-18, who think and learn differently from the norm. Every year we receive numerous applications for each program, and every applicant is truly amazing and unique. Identifying students who will most benefit from our programs and services is critical to our success. In order to do this, we need to find out who they are, what they know, and what interests them.

Because each gifted child has so many interests and dimensions, IEA feels that it is important to gather a variety of information to assist our selection committees in matching applicants with the most appropriate programs and services. These decisions are very difficult. We have to determine the students for whom the program will best fit their intellectual, social, emotional, spiritual, and physical needs. Even when applicants are not chosen or placed, they are still some of the best! We have to look at all aspects of the applicant, as grades and test scores do not tell the whole story. This is why each application that comes to us is evaluated by several members of our staff, why we conduct interviews, and why we use a portfolio-based application.

Our portfolio-based applications are designed to provide each student with the opportunity to highlight their individual talents, skills, creativity, and problem solving abilities. These are not things we could determine from a test score alone.

As part of our applications, we ask for several things:

• Application form (we need everyone’s general information)
• Short-answer questions
• Essay questions
• Test scores
• Transcripts
• Letters of recommendation
• Parent statements
• Samples of student work

Short-answer questions show us what the students are passionate about, what their interests are, and what their daily life is like outside of all of the academics in which they are involved.

Essay questions highlight problem solving skills and help us to understand how students think about things, what their perspective is on the world, and how they see themselves as part of their families, communities, and society as a whole.

Test scores give us a measure of the students’ strengths, so that we can place them in a situation that is the best fit for their educational needs. We like to set our participants up for success!

Transcripts tell us the applicants’ academic stories, what their experiences have been, and what they are currently doing to meet their goals.

Letters of recommendation give us a sense of the applicants’ attitude, values, and unique characteristics that other aspects of the application are unable to provide. These letters are usually from people who have worked with the student and know them well.

Parent statements provide us with even more information about a student’s personal strengths and weaknesses, give insight into the applicant’s character, and highlight the reasons why he or she would be a good fit for our program. A parent’s voice is often an invaluable resource for assessing who an applicant is and what he or she has to offer.

Samples of student work demonstrate what the students have already told us through the other pieces of the application. For the Apprenticeship Program in particular, we use the work samples to gauge their past work experiences. For all programs, the work samples often bring an applicant’s passions to life.

We know that students are more than just a list of their academic accomplishments, that there is a person behind the application. This is why it is necessary to have several determining factors when making our decisions, so that we know as much about an individual as possible. We also do our best to create an application that is of interest to the applicant, providing an important opportunity for self-reflection, critical thinking, and discovery. Our hope is that the application and evaluation process helps us to have a positive impact on the lives our programs touch!

Lisa is the mother of 3 gifted children who lives outside of San Francisco.

I feel responsible to a number: my son’s IQ score. I’ve spent 9 years struggling with my relationship to it. I’ve gone from feeling absolved of any responsibility to taking full responsibility for what the number means for his future. Eventually, I found a peaceful place in which the number and I can coexist. I just needed to see his IQ score for what it is: an invitation to challenge my assumptions about what giftedness means and to educate myself about my son’s needs.

I received my son’s IQ score by accident. I shouldn’t have been surprised; after all, I hired a psychologist to have him assessed. She told me that she was going to give him a test to “see how he learns.” She was, after all, an expert, and I needed help. I had no idea that this was her euphemism for an IQ test.

I contacted the psychologist when my son was in kindergarten. He was multiplying and dividing large “defense” and “attack” points while “dueling” with his older brother during Yu-Gi-Oh games. At the same time, my son’s intense nature took a turn for the worse. He cried every day on the walk to school. The timing of these two events made me wonder if his mathematical talent was connected to the distress he experienced on the way to school. It seemed coincidental, but I wasn’t sure.

My husband and I talked about what to do. I thought he should be tested. I had no idea what he should be tested for, but I was sure that there was some sort of test that could help me better understand my son. My husband made a prophetic statement. He said, “Before you get him tested, you should know what you are going to do with the information.” I thought he was crazy. How could I know what to do before I got the results?

When I received the results, I still had no idea what to do with them. Everyone else, however, thought they knew exactly what they meant and what I should do. According to my friends, my son was “cream,” as in “the cream will rise to the top.” Homework would be easy, GPAs would be high, and I didn’t need to do anything. The teachers at my son’s public school seemed to agree with this assessment. Their idea of differentiating the curriculum for him required no work on their part. They assigned projects and expected my son to extend and enhance them on his own. I call this type of differentiation “smart kids will act smart.” He didn’t oblige, so I changed tactics.

I swung wildly to the other extreme and took full responsibility for ensuring that the promise indicated by the number was realized. We hired tutors and subscribed to online learning courses. We enrolled him in an independent school for gifted children. After all, if the IQ number represented my son’s ability, then a subpar GPA or SAT score would reflect an inadequate educational or family environment, right? This view of his IQ score fit my “middle child” sense of responsibility perfectly. It just wasn’t true.

The substantial resources we directed to my son’s education turned out to be money and time well spent, though not exactly for the reasons I expected. I was not guaranteeing excellence; I was addressing challenges. I needed to reevaluate my assumptions about my son’s education much the same way that parents with children who have learning differences need to adjust their expectations about their children’s needs.

It turns out that his emotional intensity is connected to his gifted intellect. His sensitivity to sensory stimulation exhausted him and made him irritable. His aptitude for pattern recognition caused him to overcomplicate simple tasks. His classmates’ reaction to his developmental asynchrony caused him to “dumb-down” his performance. When we changed his environment, he found peers who were similarly excited about learning and teachers who understood his occasional outbursts and celebrated his creative problem solving. He developed new passions and let some of his anxieties go.

With the help of organizations like the Institute for Educational Advancement that study and support gifted children, I learned about my son’s needs. I still get it wrong, and it’s those stories I like to share because I learn more from my failures than my successes. As part of the gifted community, I think it is our responsibility to share our stories so that we feel less isolated. So, I’ll start with this story, because I am, above all, very responsible.

What was your experience when you first found out your child is gifted? Please share with us in the comment section below!

Like this post? Please share!

• Facebook
• Instagram
• X
• LinkedIn

1. Some definitions address the “asynchronous development” found in gifted kids. One such definition comes from the Columbus Group (1991):
   “Giftedness is asynchronous development in which advanced cognitive abilities and heightened intensity combine to create inner experiences and awareness that are qualitatively different from the norm. This asynchrony increases with higher intellectual capacity. The uniqueness of the gifted renders them particularly vulnerable and requires modifications in parenting, teaching and counseling in order for them to develop optimally.”
   This is the definition we use at IEA.
2. Through the Jacob Javits Gifted and Talented Students Education Act – part of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act – the federal government currently defines gifted students as:
   “Students, children, or youth who give evidence of high achievement capability in areas such as intellectual, creative, artistic, or leadership capacity, or in specific academic fields, and who need services and activities not ordinarily provided by the school in order to fully develop those capabilities.”
3. In Gifted Children: Myths and Realities, Ellen Winner defines giftedness with these three atypical characteristics:
   • Precocity – “They begin to take the first steps in the mastery of some domain at an earlier-than-average age. They also make more rapid progress in this domain than do ordinary children, because learning in the domain comes easily to them.”
   • An insistence on marching to their own drummer – “Gifted children not only learn faster than average or even bright children but also learn in a quantitatively different way.”
   • A rage to master – “Gifted children are intrinsically motivated to make sense of the domain in which they show precocity.”
4. The National Association for Gifted Children (NAGC) defines giftedness as the following:
   “Gifted individuals are those who demonstrate outstanding levels of aptitude (defined as an exceptional ability to reason and learn) or competence (documented performance or achievement in top 10% or rarer) in one or more domains. Domains include any structured area of activity with its own symbol system (e.g., mathematics, music, language) and/or set of sensorimotor skills (e.g., painting, dance, sports).”
5. Most states also have their own definition of “gifted” for program and funding purposes. To see your state’s definition, look here: http://www.ecs.org/clearinghouse/52/28/5228.htm. It is important to note that few districts differentiate between the different levels of giftedness. A child who scores in the 130 – 140 range on an IQ test is very different than the child who scores in the 150 – 180 range.

While no two definitions are the same, there are a few guiding principles which can help structure our thinking about giftedness.

• Annemarie Roeper, who developed the Annemarie Roeper Model of Qualitative Assessment, helps bring together many of the different theories with her conception that “giftedness is a greater awareness, a greater sensitivity, and a greater ability to understand and transform perceptions into intellectual and emotional experiences.”
• Some believe there are many areas of giftedness, not all of which are what we typically think of as intellectual. The following are six categories of giftedness to which experts and definitions often refer:
  1. General intellectual ability
  2. Specific academic ability
  3. Creative ability
  4. Leadership ability
  5. Visual and performing arts ability
  6. Psychomotor ability
• While some define giftedness based on IQ score, IQ tests do not always tell the whole story, and identifying solely based on IQ tests can ignore many kids considered gifted by other criteria.
• “Gifted” is not the only word that can be used to describe these incredibly bright and talented young people. (For an exploration of the various terms most often used, take a look at Stephanie Tolan’s post “What is in a Name?”) The word itself is not what is important. Neither, in many ways, is the definition. What is important is that we identify these highly able young people and help them reach their full intellectual and personal potential.
• Gifted children, no matter how you define or identify them, have different educational needs than their age-peers. Their education needs to allow them to grow with their unique intellectual development.

Due to the variety of definitions in the field, it is often more effective to use specific descriptions of your child’s abilities and insights. This may make it easier for others to understand your child’s needs.

Like this post? Sign up for our email newsletter to receive more information and resources about gifted youth straight to your inbox.