cover article in Time magazine on gifted education

My daughter was picking out words on signs before age 2, and is reading
through the easy reader section of the library at 2 1/2. She read 47 books
this summer for the summer reading club, independently, most of them not to
me but to the librarians and volunteers at the library.

I somehow doubt that she's just average.

That's clearly very bright, I've no idea whether it's 1 in 100, 1 in
1000, or what. It will be interesting to see what her interests and
talents are in 5, 10, 15 years time. I suspect she's reading by word
recognition rather than phonics, but I don't really know what later
talents these might map to - I wouldn't be surprised if it was
scientific, rather than, say, English Literature, or languages.

Cheers
Anne

To Sue
http://www.educationaloptions.com/levels_giftedness.htm
Here's a summary of Deborah Ruf's research on early giftedness. Please read
it. This is one of several resources that led me to the conclusion that my
DD was probably truly gifted, as opposed to bright.


My daughter can decode unfamiliar words, and does read phonetically (she is
very interested in dinosaurs right now, and can decode unfamiliar dinosaur
names pretty accurately. I don't think Quetzalcoalatus is a sight word).
And given that her phonics instruction is largely limited to Sesame Street,
I don't know where she figured it out. She is capable of decoding newspaper
headlines, including names, and understanding a good part of it. Since we
regularly go over the Mississippi river bridge, when she saw headlines on
the collapse of the bridge in Minneapolis, I had an upset child to deal
with. We don't do TV news, and no one read her the article, nor did we
discuss it at the dinner table. She read the headline, she understood that a
bridge over the river that she goes over had fallen down, and it scared her.
That's not decoding without comprehension or sight word reading or
memorization. That's reading.


As far as "never having fun" for my daughter, right now, fun is making words
and showing me that she did. It's gleefully pointing out letters on signs
and spelling the words out. It's looking at a box of tomatoes and commenting
that there's 16 because there are 4 in each row. It's dressing her toy bears
and dinosaurs up in doll clothes so they can be book characters and making
up stories. It's "writing" in her journal and "Reading" me what she's
written. It's typing letters and words on mommy's computer. And it's also
running, playing outside, gathering leaves and commenting on their shapes .
It's being very noisy-swinging for hours, then building dams and trying to
make a lake work in the sandbox, finally figuring out that if she lines her
lake with rocks (so much for Daddy's landscaping) that the water stays in
better. She's teaching herself better than I ever could-so why would I push
her? Much of the time, I feel overwhelmed trying to keep up at all.

She plays, and plays a lot-and it's through her play that she learns and
that she shows what she knows. She doesn't act like any other 2 1/2 yr old
I've met, and not like many 3 1/2 yr olds.

I was an early reader as well, and entered kindergarten reading and
comprehending well over the top of the test given (which stopped at 4th
grade. My father's comment is that the school said they couldn't put me in a
higher class than that so why test higher.) I went through years of school
bored and coasting, and might have looked like I "levelled out" but actually
it had more to do with figuring out what was desired and giving people what
they want. I've heard similar comments from many adults who were gifted
children. It wasn't until I got a little older and got seriously into music
that I had an area where I was allowed to soar as far and as fast as I could
desire.

For my child, it wouldn't bother me if she truly "levelled out" because she
had reached a plateau in her abilities. What I don't want to see is her
coasting and doing what is expected, nothing more.

On the "she'd have the social skills if she were truly gifted", DD does fine
with adults. She has social graces and politeness down. What she struggles
with is playing with other children, because she doesn't play like a child
her age, and the older children are reluctant to play with a baby. There are
a few friends who she does well with and has had a lot of experience with,
and honestly, many of these kids may not be picking up the early academics
the way DD is, but they're pretty bright when you talk to them as well-and
many of them also struggle in generic "play" situations.

Based on what I've read on Hoagies, this is a very common pattern for very
young children who later turn out to be gifted, because there's so much
developing at this age.

And as far as "3 is too early to think about GT programming". If you had a
child who was, at 3, acting like a child 2 years younger, would you wait to
start thinking about appropriate services because "they might level out", or
would you start looking at options? Because I know that you believe I'm
making all of this up, or that I'm misreading signs, but you haven't been
around my child to see what she's doing. I'm the one who has to deal with
trying to find an appropriate situation for her which will allow her to
continue to learn and grow, not one which will expect her to work on her
alphabet because that's what 5 yr olds do.

To Toypup-THIS is largely why I wish DD would level out. Because if I'm
getting these comments on a chatboard which is largely pretty knowledgeable,
educated people, can you imagine what comments I get when DD starts reading
signs on the playground, or when parents see her reading a book to herself
at the library, sitting next to a 6 yr old who is reading a book in the same
series? Or when she makes comments in the grocery which cause heads to turn,
because she's adding together the things in my basket? People either
completely disbelieve what they see or seem to assume it's some sort of
parlor trick or that I'm pushing my child academically. Even David Elkind
(The Hurried Child) makes a distinction between children who are hurried and
those who are actually ahead-but the assumption, these days, is that if your
child isn't right with the pack in all areas, you're a bad parent. It gets
wearing after awhile.

And it's very hard to see your child go over to and want to play with the
older children, only to have them leave her in the dust because she's "just
a baby", and to see her get frustrated in trying to direct children her age
in play when they have zero interest in being a character and playing
imaginatively. It bothers me that my daughter's best friend is someone who
lives an hour and a half away, because that's the only other parent I've
found with a child who has similar behavior and with whom DD can simply
relax and play and enjoy herself.

And it bothers me to look at the school setting and realize that unless she
forgets material she already knows KINDERGARTEN will likely be boring-and to
recognize, as only someone who has worked in the school system and knows it
from the inside out can, that all the talk about classroom accommodations is
largely smoke and mirrors and that the actual services provided to GT
children are very minimal. We don't have anything even close to the Davidson
Academy, and while I don't know that it would be right for DD or that she'd
qualify-but at least it's one more option (and my guess is that by having
that option, there's probably more for the full spectrum of giftedness.

"Donna Metler" wrote in message
My daughter was picking out words on signs before age 2, and is reading
through the easy reader section of the library at 2 1/2. She read 47 books
this summer for the summer reading club, independently, most of them not
to me but to the librarians and volunteers at the library.

I somehow doubt that she's just average.

And she may not be average. All I am saying is that because she is reading
words by sight doesn't mean that she understands the words and that she is
gifted. She may be good in reading, but then be lousy at math or something
else and that won't be gifted. If she was truly gifted, she would have the
social skills down, but she doesn't. I think it is way too soon to be
thinking about getting a 3-4 yr old in gifted classes, when you really don't
know what is going to happen 5-10 years down the road.
--
Sue

toypup" wrote in message
The kid is 2 yo and reading for Pete's sake. What more do you want? I do
think a child reading that young is gifted. I know some parents push and
push their kids, and those kids can probably read without truly
understanding anything. However, one who does it on her own volition is
definitely gifted.

There's more to life than reading and she is not doing any of those things
yet, so imo, she is not gifted.. I am not too impressed by reading at an
early age, because mostly it is sight words and remembering them from
repeating them over and over. They don't have comprehension nor the rules
that go along with it. If a child picks up a book and reads it, sure it is
lovely and mine have done that too, and they could read certain books at an
early age, but it just doesn't mean that they are gifted.
--
Sue

"toto" wrote in message
For front-loaded children perhaps. This is a myth though when it
comes to gifted children. They do NOT even out. Other children may
begin to do better, but the truly gifted child will continue to be
ahead because s/he learns at a faster pace.

But, what I am saying is that because a child picks up a certain skill
early, does not mean they are gifted. The ones that don't even out or are
even ahead should have accommodations made, but from what I have seen in our
gifted and talented program at school, probably only about 3 kids should
really be in there. It's the parents that are pushing these poor kids. I
have overheard the kids talk about all they do is study and they are not
allowed to have fun. It's sad, imo.
--
Sue

Anne Rogers wrote:


Could well be. I was much closer to that stereotype
myself, but having children who are different (from me and
from one another) has suggested to me that all gifted kids
are not the same ;-)

Well of course they aren't! To be honest, when I was at school, I
thought there was 3 categories of people, clever people, sporty people,
and girls who like boys and parties (I went to a girls school). It was
quite a surprise to me when I went to university full of scarily
intelligent people (still convinced they got something wrong on the
admissions) and there were still people who focused on academics, people
who focused on sport and people who focused on having fun! I can't put
my finger on why I never did that well at sport in school, yet when I
took it up again by choice at uni, I turned out to be pretty reasonable
at some.

Could be that the reason that you didn't do sport was probably because
of the perceptions of clever vs sporty and also because you were
involved in dance.

"Sue" wrote:

"toto" wrote in message
For front-loaded children perhaps. This is a myth though when it
comes to gifted children. They do NOT even out. Other children may
begin to do better, but the truly gifted child will continue to be
ahead because s/he learns at a faster pace.

But, what I am saying is that because a child picks up a certain skill
early, does not mean they are gifted. The ones that don't even out or are
even ahead should have accommodations made, but from what I have seen in our
gifted and talented program at school, probably only about 3 kids should
really be in there. It's the parents that are pushing these poor kids. I
have overheard the kids talk about all they do is study and they are not
allowed to have fun. It's sad, imo.

In my case, my parents did not push me at all, other than reading to
me which I assume you will think is OK and is not too pushy.

When I was in grade school, my mom walked us to the local public
library branch every week. We were allowed by library rules to get
two books, and my mom was allowed 10 books. Mom allowed us to pick
the books we wanted, and then she got herself two books, and the rest
of the books in her allotment were to read to us.

When I was in first grade, I remember picking my two books, and one of
them was a book of Kipling short stories. I was reading "The
Elephant's Child" while I waited for my mom and sister to finish
picking. When we went up to check out, the librarian tried to
persuade me not to take that book which she thought was too hard for
me. (At that time in our elementary school we were not allowed to
read books above our grade level and that was REALLY boring.) I
protested that I'd already read part of the story and wanted to see
how it came out. So I was allowed to take the book.

I thought reading was so wonderful, that I taught my little sister
(2.5 years younger) to read using my reader. By the time she went to
kindergarten, she was reading fluently enough that the kindergarten
teacher could have her read aloud to the class while she took a break.
While just reading early may not indicate that a child is gifted, and
not reading early doesn't mean that the child is NOT gifted, that does
NOT also mean that an early reader is not gifted. And it is kind of
rude of you to disparage the possible intelligence of early readers of
other parents just because not all early readers are gifted. It is
not up to you to hold the line against parents thinking that their
children are gifted. You are not doing some kind of service to the
community by repeatedly insisting that early readers are not gifted.

Anne Rogers wrote:


My daughter was picking out words on signs before age 2, and is reading
through the easy reader section of the library at 2 1/2. She read 47 books
this summer for the summer reading club, independently, most of them not to
me but to the librarians and volunteers at the library.

I somehow doubt that she's just average.

That's clearly very bright, I've no idea whether it's 1 in 100, 1 in
1000, or what. It will be interesting to see what her interests and
talents are in 5, 10, 15 years time. I suspect she's reading by word
recognition rather than phonics, but I don't really know what later
talents these might map to - I wouldn't be surprised if it was
scientific, rather than, say, English Literature, or languages.

Why do you think that word recognition is a less valid method of
reading? That is the way I was taught - I never had any phonics. And
I read pretty well.

Anne Rogers wrote:

Yep. Most of our dancers go on to other professions.
We seem to have a run of dentists, for some obscure reason.

how bizarre there is such a difference, most of the dancers I knew
either became hair dressers or worked in a shop - I wonder if this could
imply something deep about US v UK culture and education systems!

Things could vary by region around here, but in this
case, this is a rather affluent area and a ballet studio.
Most of the parents are in fairly high paying jobs (dance
isn't cheap!). It isn't surprising to me that the expectation
is that their kids will go to college and pursue a professional
career (with some exceptions, of course).

Best wishes,
Ericka

Rosalie B. wrote:
Anne Rogers wrote:

My daughter was picking out words on signs before age 2, and is reading
through the easy reader section of the library at 2 1/2. She read 47 books
this summer for the summer reading club, independently, most of them not to
me but to the librarians and volunteers at the library.

I somehow doubt that she's just average.
That's clearly very bright, I've no idea whether it's 1 in 100, 1 in
1000, or what. It will be interesting to see what her interests and
talents are in 5, 10, 15 years time. I suspect she's reading by word
recognition rather than phonics, but I don't really know what later
talents these might map to - I wouldn't be surprised if it was
scientific, rather than, say, English Literature, or languages.

Why do you think that word recognition is a less valid method of
reading? That is the way I was taught - I never had any phonics. And
I read pretty well.

Absolutely. Many kids who read *very* early pick it
up this way initially. They also often internalize the phonics
rules along the way, which is part of why it typically doesn't
present any downsides to them long term.

Best wishes,
Ericka