Do I belong? (potential interloper here)

[chinaKat]

You tell me -- I don't know any children DD's age to compare her to. Like all parents, I am convinced MY kid is bright, but I generally feel like an intruder lurking in this forum. ;)

She will be 2 at the end of the month, and has known her alphabet (can identify letters, knows ABCs in order) for a while now. She knows what sounds most of the letters make, and if I point out a (VERY SIMPLE) word in a book and slowly sound the letters out H-A-T she will say "hat". She can pretty reliably count to 10 or 12 in English and to three in German. When we make three hard boiled eggs together and she eats one, if I ask her how many are left she will say two. She knows all her colors and shapes.

I didn't drill her on any of this stuff, but she has toys that are "educational" and I always talk to her about things ("how many grapes do you want? Are these grapes green or purple?"). She's loved books since she was really really small.

What do you think? Feel free to kick me to the curb if I don't belong here. I feel really WEIRD even asking -- like I'm assuming too much or something. I suppose she's too young to really determine "gifted" at this point anyway -- I ought to be happy with "bright", right? :)

[alegna]

Sounds like it!

Welcome.

-Angela

[teachma]

Welcome, chinaKat. My feeling is that if you read through these threads (an activity which should not make you feel like an interloper!) and you find yourself relating to may of the experiences shared here, so much so that you feel that comfortable feeling, "At last, people can hear my stories without accusing me of bragging. Oh my gosh, some of these children sound just like dd! At last, I found other parents who deal with many of the same struggles we face. Finally, a group of people who can understand..." then you belong. But then again, after so long, I haven't truly figured out if I belong!

[chinaKat]

Well, weirdly, I have returned to this thread more than half a dozen times since posting it, with the intention of deleting it.

Why? Why do I feel so... I don't know, maybe ashamed for even daring to ask if my kid might be gifted?

I feel sort of the way I imagine I might feel if everybody I knew found out that I'd applied to get into Mensa. (Nothing against Mensa. More like I feel like people would think that I was some sort of poseur or something for thinking I belonged in Mensa.)

What's wrong with me?

Maybe I let all those "it's not cool to be smart" kids back in middle school get to me more than I thought. :(

[chinaKat]

OK, 75 people have looked at this thread and not one person has chimed in... so, clearly, I'm the only one with misgivings about whether I belong here! :)

I hope I haven't insulted anybody with my musings here. I just feel like half of me is saying "Who the heck do you think you are, lady -- your kid is just a regular kid, stop trying to LABEL her." The other half of me just sorta feels like an @ss for admitting that I'm unsure about the whole thing.

Back to lurking... maybe my kid is gifted, maybe not. But I guess I'm not so comfortable with the whole concept yet, now that I've thrown it out there.

I'll stop talking to myself now. :dizzy:

[lckrause]

I didn't reply because teachma did such a good job of summing up what I would have said anyway (I'm lazy). I think anyone who can be supportive belongs here. :)

[darien]

Hey chinaKat, stay!

I think everyone who looked and didn't reply probably was just leery of being asked to "judge" your little girl-- KWIM? She sounds like a smart little dumpling to me.

Whether she's ever stamped "officially gifted" or not, I'm sure you have a lot to contribute, and there's a lot be be learned "hanging out" in this forum.

So stay, please. :loveeyes:

[Alenushka]

majority of kids, like 90% of them do not read anythign ata ge 2.
There is nothing worng with indentifying your chil correctely be it gifted, dyslexic or both.....becuase when you know what your child is, you can provide proper educational opportunity for her/him
We do not rag on people who discovere that their kid has LD and needs soemthing diffrent in a way of schooling. Gifted children are no different in the way that they are diffferent and need different apporach
Good linkk for you http://www.sengifted.org/

[blessed]

I don't think that the majority of 2 yo's are unable to grasp knowing the alphabet and early small words. Rather, it's more dependent on the environment the child is being reared in, which sadly enough, for many kids is pretty unenriched. Probably 'the majority' of 2 yos spend much of the day parked in corners with the same old toys or in front of the television.

Essentially all of my dd's 16 classmates also functioned at this level. They have all known their colors, shapes, days of the week, months of the year, seasons, the alphabet, numbers and so forth starting around 18 months. At 2.5 dd can also point out and name many of the US states and several countries when shown a map. She can count to ten in Chinese, Spanish and French. Since age 2 she's made letters of the alphabet out of sticks on the ground and poined them out ("look mama! A! T!") She does complex structures with block play - bridges, buildings with roofs and doorways and so forth which typically are not seen at this age. However, so much of this is just part of the rich environment she's immersed in throughout her day.

My kid amazes me, but to be fair, I have to step back and realize that her classmates are all similarly talented. And to be even more fair, my neighbors' two stay at home boys have been similarly 'accelerated' under her excellent tutelage.

Honestly, I don't think of her or her classmates as 'gifted', so much as just lucky to have loving, attentive parents and the financial resources to support a dedicated educational environment.

Sadly, 'the majority' of kids in this country are just not getting a fair shake.

[chinaKat]

Honestly, I don't think of her or her classmates as 'gifted', so much as just lucky to have loving, attentive parents and the financial resources to support a dedicated educational environment.



Which is a "gift" in and of itself, no?

:)

Thanks for all the thoughtful responses. This is an interesting forum.

[chinaKat]

Essentially all of my dd's 16 classmates also functioned at this level. They have all known their colors, shapes, days of the week, months of the year, seasons, the alphabet, numbers and so forth starting around 18 months. At 2.5 dd can also point out and name many of the US states and several countries when shown a map. She can count to ten in Chinese, Spanish and French. Since age 2 she's made letters of the alphabet out of sticks on the ground and poined them out ("look mama! A! T!") She does complex structures with block play - bridges, buildings with roofs and doorways and so forth which typically are not seen at this age.

BTW, it is helpful to know that my child is a LOT more average than I thought she was. Thanks for the heads up.

I suspect one of the interesting aspects of this forum is that no matter what level one poster's child is at, there will always be another parent whose child is more advanced.

[teachma]

I suspect one of the interesting aspects of this forum is that no matter what level one poster's child is at, there will always be another parent whose child is more advanced.

As will be the case elsewhere throughout her life. Fortunately, we are in the business of supporting, rather than competing, here...which won't necessarily be the case elsewhere.

[teachma]

I didn't reply because teachma did such a good job of summing up what I would have said anyway

Hey, thanks.:)

[lckrause]

Hey, thanks.:)

:D It's true!

[momtokay]

I'm not convinced my girls are gifted, though I'm also not convinced that they aren't. They must be bright (because I get told that by strangers, teachers, gym coaches, etc. quite frequently), but are they gifted, I'm not sure. I do know that much of what I read here seems appropriate for my kids and our situation, so I hang around, whether I "belong" or not, yk? At any rate, just wanted to say "welcome". :)

[loraxc]

They have all known their colors, shapes, days of the week, months of the year, seasons, the alphabet, numbers and so forth starting around 18 months.

FWIW, I don't feel this is the norm, even when children are exposed to these things or consciously taught them. I have many friends who introduced colors, shapes, the alphabet and numbers very early whose children did not know them at 18 months, which is really quite young. If you had said they all knew all that by 2.5, that would sound more normal to me, but hey--many normal, happy, well-stimulated 18-month-olds can only speak 20-50 words, if that.

[wonderactivist]

I'm not convinced my girls are gifted, though I'm also not convinced that they aren't. They must be bright...I do know that much of what I read here seems appropriate for my kids and our situation, so I hang around, whether I "belong" or not, yk?

Dear Momtokay and ChinaKat,

One thing that it took years of homeschooling for me to learn is that you just do what works - you have to teach to your child, respond to their needs, and not worry about labels.

Yes, the information and the terminology is so incredibly useful, there is much to be learned here from the parents of other intellectual kids, but when it comes down to it, comparisons and labels themselves do more harm than good. (Maybe read the thread about "Were you gifted?")

If you find the forum useful, stay and share and learn together, if you don't, then try another forum. The very fact that it is useful to you means that you belong. (period)

It really is that simple. The moms here are just trying to help each other to parent children with similar gifts and problems...that's all.

Best wishes,

Lucie

[eilonwy]

I don't think that the majority of 2 yo's are unable to grasp knowing the alphabet and early small words. Rather, it's more dependent on the environment the child is being reared in, which sadly enough, for many kids is pretty unenriched. Probably 'the majority' of 2 yos spend much of the day parked in corners with the same old toys or in front of the television.

Essentially all of my dd's 16 classmates also functioned at this level. They have all known their colors, shapes, days of the week, months of the year, seasons, the alphabet, numbers and so forth starting around 18 months.
...
Honestly, I don't think of her or her classmates as 'gifted', so much as just lucky to have loving, attentive parents and the financial resources to support a dedicated educational environment.

I kind of agree with this, but I think that it has more to do with misconceptions about giftedness than anything else. I think that most two year olds could, in a supportive environment, learn to recognize their letters and a few sight words; they could recite the days of the week and months of the year and such, no problem. I've met perfectly normal kids who could count to ten in half a dozen (or more!) languages when they were 2.5 years old; even kids who were "slow."

That said, I don't think that in and of themselves such skills are necessarily indicators of giftedness, particularly when the children are indeed being raised in enriched environments. A child who is raised in a house where the most interesting thing to read is a cereal box will definately have a harder time of it than a kid who is surrounded by books from birth; when the first child learns to read a few sight words by 3, it's probably safe to say that she's gifted. With the second, who knows? You've got to look at other factors.

Early alertness is a good one. The ability to entertain themselves, especially from a very young age, intensity and focus, long attention span, an awareness of their surroundings (may be percieved positively or negatively by the child); those are the sort of things that I look for, rather than early developmental milestones. In and of themselves, they don't necessarily mean all that much unless the child is being raised in an impoverished environment, or has noticeable learning differences.

[LeftField]

BTW, it is helpful to know that my child is a LOT more average than I thought she was. Thanks for the heads up.

I suspect one of the interesting aspects of this forum is that no matter what level one poster's child is at, there will always be another parent whose child is more advanced.

I don't know. Your daughter doesn't sound very typical to me. Those things you listed seem pretty early to me. My jaw hit the floor on reading about the class of 18 month olds who knew seasons, days of the week, etc. I don't think my 5 year old knows the days of the week in order, tbh.

Here enters another facet...taught vs self-taught. There are children who figure out, largely on their own or totally on their own, that taking 1 egg away from the 3 leaves 2; they do this in their head. And then you have the child who has been drilled to recite "3-1=2!" or has been repeatedly and consistently taught to do it. It's not the same thing. You can have an 18 month old who has been drilled to identify letters. And you can have the 2 year old who just figures it out himself. While I'm shocked about the 18 month olds being able to identify and recite those things, I'm not overly impressed by it if it's been formally taught. Look at the Doman kids who are taught to recognize words insanely early; studies don't show them staying advanced. But the kid who sort of picks it up by osmosis, that catches my attention. I've heard Montessori folks say that most 3 year olds can be taught to read with their method. But it's not the same as the 3 year old or even the 4 year who figures it out on her own, YK.

So, yeah, in that sort of situation, you have to look at the other things like Eilonwy listed...attention span, focus, imagination, abstract thinking, etc.

At any rate, your daughter sounds remarkable to me and I, personally, think you fit in here.

[lckrause]

I think it depends what the kid does with the information as well. Recognizing a sight word after having it pointed out to you many times is not the same as figuring the word out by yourself out of natural interest, being able to figure out other words based on what you've learned about the first sight word, reading the sight word in a book in context, wanting to practice writing the sight word because you think words are so cool, etc. It's the independence and intensity with which a child learns these facts that makes him gifted, not the facts themselves.

[blessed]

My jaw hit the floor on reading about the class of 18 month olds who knew seasons, days of the week, etc.Sorry, I should have been more clear. Dd and the kids in her class are all in their 2's (they move into different classes just before age 3). Virtually all of them have mastered the alphabet, counting, days of the week, so forth, all of which was part of their regular curriculum starting at age 18 months.

[LeftField]

Sorry, I should have been more clear. Dd and the kids in her class are all in their 2's (they move into different classes just before age 3). Virtually all of them have mastered the alphabet, counting, days of the week, so forth, all of which was part of their regular curriculum starting at age 18 months.

Thanks. :-) That was my understanding of what you were saying. Without intending to discredit your dd's class, I see this as very different from the OP's situation as it's a case of curriculum vs self-taught and potentially an issue of rote memorization vs abstract understanding. :innocent

Edited: To be clear, I'm saying that it's not about the skill, rather how that skill is acquired. I could be wrong, but it sounds like the OP's dd has basically picked this up from random stuff in life. That seems remarkable to me for her age.

[blessed]

I didn't drill her on any of this stuff, but she has toys that are "educational" and I always talk to her about things ("how many grapes do you want? Are these grapes green or purple?"). She's loved books since she was really really small.These sound like pretty similar methods for exposing kids this age to these concepts. I mean, it's not like the toddlers in dd's class are lined up in front of a chalkboard or standing at the front of a classroom undergoing verbal examinations :). They just have lots of educational toys, they sing the alphabet song, there a calenders and maps on the walls, they're read to... They're just...exposed, in same way as this little girl. As I mention, my SAHM neighbor acheives the same result at home with garden variety educational toys (blocks, puzzles, alphabet letters) and play.

I've noticed that we all like to think that what we are doing with our own kids is simply 'play', while the other parents must be doing 'drills'. Our own kids are bright and creative, while everyone else's are just demonstrating rote memorization. This seems like nearly a universally held notion amongst parents, it seems, for whatever reason.

I agree the op's dd sounds like a super bright little girl. I'm just trying to make the point that the bar is so very low here in the US. One of the developmental guidelines I've seen states that, at 2.5 a child might be able to identify one color :dizzy: .

I'm afraid the standards are being set by children who are challenged with unstable home environments, characterized by neglect, substance abuse and violence. They have terrible nutrition, poor health, and are intellectually stagnant.

My dd came to us from the orphanage at 12 months of age, weighing 13 lbs, unable to rollover or stand unassisted. With a warm, safe home environment, constant love and encouragement and a good diet, she's now off the charts for her developmental milestones.

I think a lot of kids are failing to achieve anything near their capacities due to such challenges, yet many times these are 'the majority' against which our own children are measured.

[loraxc]

Mmmm...I think we need to be careful about categorically stating that the developmental milestones and guidelines are way off and can't possibly represent well-cared-for children with access to knowledge. I do feel that maybe some of them are set a tad low, but on the other hand, as I say, I know many parents whose 3-year-olds have had educational toys for years now, and who watch Sesame Street and read books about educational things and so on and so forth, yet they can't reliably count to 10, have just mastered colors, and only know a handful of letters. However, they may be climbing to the top of the jungle gym beautifully, or they may have great rhythm, or whatever. Children develop differently. Some children take to these academic things sooner and more easily than others.

I think that when we start saying "Oh, any child who is well-stimulated and in a good environment can learn all these things much earlier than the books say--those books are just way off" we run the risk of instilling paranoia and anxiety in people whose children are, in fact, developing perfectly normally. I've seen this in my own peer group, and I find it kind of depressing.

[eilonwy]

I've noticed that we all like to think that what we are doing with our own kids is simply 'play', while the other parents must be doing 'drills'. Our own kids are bright and creative, while everyone else's are just demonstrating rote memorization. This seems like nearly a universally held notion amongst parents, it seems, for whatever reason.

I don't know about that; I just think that when it comes to kids from enriched environments, you have to take other factors into account when determining giftedness. I don't know the OP's little girl, I just wanted to offer her something else to think about. There are gifted children who don't do all the tricks as infants, who don't teach themselves to read at two or even four, but many times these children can still be identified as gifted. There are also very healthy, bright children who do all of the tricks, but their minds simply don't work the same way as those of gifted children; they're harder to pick out in a crowd, but given enough information parents can usually tell which sort of child they have.

I'm just trying to make the point that the bar is so very low here in the US. One of the developmental guidelines I've seen states that, at 2.5 a child might be able to identify one color :dizzy: .

That's definately true, and it's getting lower all the time. :shake

I'm afraid the standards are being set by children who are challenged with unstable home environments, characterized by neglect, substance abuse and violence. They have terrible nutrition, poor health, and are intellectually stagnant.

Unfortunately these children are, in many places, the majority. Most children don't eat enough vegetables, or get enough calcium. Most children in this country have less than ideal (whatever that means) home environments. That doesn't mean that there are no gifted children among the poor, it only means that unless the kids are profoundly gifted, they're unlikely to be recognized (and sometimes not even then).

Anyway, my point: of course the majority will set the standards. That's kind of what standards are. :shrug

I think a lot of kids are failing to achieve anything near their capacities due to such challenges, yet many times these are 'the majority' against which our own children are measured.

Even in ideal circumstances, not every child will excell. I think that most children would probably be better off, noticeably so, but they won't all suddenly appear to be gifted with the introduction of better nutrition and stable home environments. Growing up, I knew plenty of upper middle class children with two active, involved, and caring parents and loads of enriching activities; more than one of these kids struck me as being on the slow side (though in retrospect I must say that the majority of them were probably average). I watched these kids take piano lessons from the age of six and never progress past the intermediate beginner stage. They took ballet from the time they were three or four and never performed in anything more interesting than a recital for their parents; they went to science camps every year and never made it past Bio 100 in college.

These are the kids people are looking at when they say "Giftedness all evens out by third grade." The kids aren't gifted, they're just healthy, happy kids with active, involved parents. When they're very young, they know lots of things but they don't have that rage to learn which characterizes even exceptionally gifted children. To use the example of the purple grapes: An active, involved parent might say, "Would you like to try some of these delicious grapes? Mmm, they're so yummy! I love their cool, purple skin. Let's have four more," and so on. After several such incidents, an average three year old child might ask for purple grapes instead of green, maybe even counting out four grapes at a time. After a single incident like this, a gifted three year old might take the grapes out of the fridge, begin washing them and say, "Hey, Mamma, remember when you bought those purple grapes last week, and we each had six of them? We had twelve grapes all together. I think that we should have twelve each this time."

Healthy, average children are receptive to such information, and may pick it up in as few as half a dozen repetitions; Gifted children tend to draw such information from their parents, and remember it in one or two. I didn't count cars with my son; he insisted on having a way to keep track of them, so I showed him what he needed to know to do that. I did count fingers and toes with BooBah, playing one, two, three little piggies; she was the one who counted them all and realized that five fingers on each hand meant ten fingers all together, and then extrapolated to her toes, and to the hands of others. Like most healthy young children with younger siblings, my son asked where babies come from. I explained it to him, and he understood the first time (not terribly uncommon). Later, he told me that he thought it must be sad "to have an empty uterus all the time and never have a baby." :bigeyes I certainly didn't tell him that, nor did I explain infertility. When I asked him how he'd come up with that, he said he'd remembered talking to a woman who didn't have children of her own. He thought that she'd liked him, and determined that she must have been disappointed to have never had children.

It's an entirely different way for the mind to work, you know? Making connections that other children entirely miss, and having an awareness of the world which other people just don't have. Like I said, it's not about what they know or don't know, and it's not even about what they have to eat or how many parents they live with (though those are major factors when it comes to quantifying intelligence); it has to do with the way the brain works.

[LeftField]

bold mine
Mmmm...I think we need to be careful about categorically stating that the developmental milestones and guidelines are way off and can't possibly represent well-cared-for children with access to knowledge. I do feel that maybe some of them are set a tad low, but on the other hand, as I say, I know many parents whose 3-year-olds have had educational toys for years now, and who watch Sesame Street and read books about educational things and so on and so forth, yet they can't reliably count to 10, have just mastered colors, and only know a handful of letters. However, they may be climbing to the top of the jungle gym beautifully, or they may have great rhythm, or whatever. Children develop differently. Some children take to these academic things sooner and more easily than others.

I think that when we start saying "Oh, any child who is well-stimulated and in a good environment can learn all these things much earlier than the books say--those books are just way off" we run the risk of instilling paranoia and anxiety in people whose children are, in fact, developing perfectly normally. I've seen this in my own peer group, and I find it kind of depressing.

I *totally* agree with you. I think it's either overly optimistic or very dismissive to say that kids who learn these things on the average timeline are victims of a poor environment. I know tons of 2 year olds who don't know their colors and they come from wonderful attentive environments with all the "right" toys. I watched one lady in our class repeatedly try to teach her kid colors and shapes. Her son was 3 and he was still unclear on most colors and shapes, like most of the other 3 year olds I've known. She was always working with her kids and they just were on their own *normal* timeline. She and her husband were well-educated people and I'm sure their kids will do well in life. But not knowing their colors or shapes at 2 or 3? Totally normal. Not only are they not at a disadvantage in life over colors but it's not even a sign of them being less intelligent than the kid who was taught to memorize this at an earlier age.

Furthermore, I'd still say a class with a curriculum for 1 year olds is very different than most 1 year old's home environment, chalkboards or none. And yeah, Ok, some home environments are similar. It's all really down to what kids enjoy and what people feel comfortable with. But for the record, I don't ask my kids to count things for me or quiz them on object attributes. I wouldn't ask my husband how many socks he sees on the couch, so I don't do it with my kids. I don't think it's wrong to do it, but it doesn't feel natural to me, personally. If another mother enjoys doing this, this is great too. I don't think either is wrong. There was a lady in the zoo next to us today with a boy that looked to be about 4. She was seriously working with this kid. I don't fault her but it would drive me nuts. She was pointing to every cage and naming each animal by its full name and if her kid moved onto a different cage in the reptile house, she'd call him back and say, "But, look, no look, Johnny, look. It's a, look! It's a black sheltopusik. He's from Turkey and eats...Johnny? Are you listening to me?". Even at the snake window, she asked him how many snake heads he saw and corrected him when he was wrong. He didn't seem overly interested, but he appeared to be patiently tolerating her. She might love doing this. That's cool. BUt that would drive me nuts or make my throat sore or something. I don't think it's a better environment than the one where kids do whatever they feel like with their "same old toys". Some people would probably argue that a more minimalist environment is more challenging to the brain; it's down to personal parenting philosophy.

I don't see the point of purposely tweaking environment in such a serious way unless it's purely for enjoyment of parent/child. And a tweaked environment might be increasing the odds of child A learning to recite something before child B, but aside from the pure enjoyment factor, I don't see this as a serious long-term advantage. It's not like whoever gets a head start on memorization wins the developmental race. Enter comprehension and abstract reasoning and those trump who first knew green from blue. If the parent/child love this sort of teaching, that's great. But I don't believe for a minute that it really matters in the long run from an academic standpoint.

I'm not even sure this has anything to do with giftedness. Does it? Maybe I should spin off on a new thread.

[lckrause]

I'm not even sure this has anything to do with giftedness. Does it? Maybe I should spin off on a new thread.

I'm not sure how much it has to do with giftedness, except that often people assume we must be "working" with our kids like that lady in the zoo to get them to know stuff. Personally, I'm not much of a talker when at home, and wouldn't think to narrate everything I'm doing for my kids' benefit. I would never stand there saying "Oh look, I'm putting the bowls on the table now. How many bowls are there? Here are some cheerios. Now the bowl is HALF full." Not that there's anything wrong with that, it's just not my style.

So my kids pretty much learned what they did by osmosis and then by being really really demanding about it. For instance, when my son was a baby, he made me read Dr Suess' ABC so often that the book literally fell apart. Starting at 12 months of age, he used to throw books at my head in the morning to wake me up, and put a crayon into my hand and put my hand on a piece of paper and say "X, O, X, O" over and over until I wrote the letters for him. Then he would trace them and make me write them again so he could trace them again... you get the idea. This is the stuff people aren't getting and can't really understand unless they've seen it in action, I think. They wouldn't ever think (or believe) that a 12 month old would be asking to write letters, so they conclude that you must be hothousing your kid a la zoo lady.

[LeftField]

*nods enthusiastically to Lckrause*

When ds1 learned lowercase letters, he did so by repeatedly asking us what they were. He got alphabet magnets for his 2nd birthday. Over the course of a week, he would periodically bring one over and ask me to identify it. Then, he just knew them. Did I teach him those letters? Yeah, I guess so, but he was the one who kept asking me. We really loaded him up on space info in a variety of formats, but he was driving me freaking bonkers with his space questions. I couldn't answer them and he was relentless. We got a bunch of books, looked at some websites, did some activities and he was much happier and relaxed. I love the push vs pull analogy. "Do you work with him?" I don't push him rather he pulls me along. :p

[teachma]

I don't see the point of purposely tweaking environment in such a serious way unless it's purely for enjoyment of parent/child.

This is just what I was thinking but lacked the eloquence to say. (Very distracted at present, as it's almost "back to school" time for me- in my classroom.) The idea of an 18 month old participating in an explicitly academic curriculum does not sit well with me. However, I do recognize that the way I parent my children at that young age might seem academically oriented to some. I think a curriculum overtly emphasizing "school skills" for early preschoolers (or, children even younger than most preschoolers) implies that children who are one year old should be learning these skills at this age, and should be able to grasp them to some extent. This is different, in my opinion, from what many of us do with our own children because we are so intensely connected to them that we believe we understand what they need, when to provide it, and how best to encourage their development. A school, with teachers, no matter how excellent, cannot possibly understand children on an individual level to know that all of them would be ready for such a rigorous curriculum. Teaching and parenting are waaaay different, even if you're doing both with your own child. Sorry to go off track here.

I obviously agree that some children have advantages. I obviously believe that even those relatively disadvantaged (by my standards, which are biased of course) can still be gifted. The recall of facts/names and labels that can be memorized does not indicate giftedness, in my opinion. Nor does the identification of shapes and symbols. I am more interested in what the child does with the knowledge he has acquired (i.e, how he analyzes and synthesizes, makes comparisons and forms judgments). I think ideas that come from the child's own mind-- rather than ideas that have been put into her mind-- can be more indicative of giftedness. And disadvantaged children can express brilliant ideas just as likely as those with "ideal" life circumstances. It is possible that they may go unrecognized, or maybe some cultures aren't as intent to label.

[chinaKat]

wow, this discussion has been so interesting...

I do wonder about the impact of parenting on early milestones. My mother didn't even *know* that I knew how to read -- until I read my birthday cards aloud to everybody on my third birthday! :)

She said afterwards, you know -- the babysitter told me that you knew how to read, but I just told her no, you had just memorized all of your books. :lol

I always think about how oblivious my parents were to that sort of thing when I see parents pushing flashcards, etc. today. Different generations, I guess!!!

[Charles Baudelaire]

OK, 75 people have looked at this thread and not one person has chimed in... so, clearly, I'm the only one with misgivings about whether I belong here! :)

I hope I haven't insulted anybody with my musings here. I just feel like half of me is saying "Who the heck do you think you are, lady -- your kid is just a regular kid, stop trying to LABEL her." The other half of me just sorta feels like an @ss for admitting that I'm unsure about the whole thing.

Back to lurking... maybe my kid is gifted, maybe not. But I guess I'm not so comfortable with the whole concept yet, now that I've thrown it out there.

I'll stop talking to myself now. :dizzy:

Okay, I'll chime. I usually don't, because if IMHO the child is gifted, the parent usually knows anyway, and if the child isn't, then what kind of jerk would I be to say, "Naah, I don't think so"?

Hey, check out this source for a good guideline to what constitutes giftedness.link. (http://www.educationaloptions.com/levels_giftedness.htm)

[chinaKat]

Okay, I'll chime. I usually don't, because if IMHO the child is gifted, the parent usually knows anyway, and if the child isn't, then what kind of jerk would I be to say, "Naah, I don't think so"?


LOL!!!

Too funny! And true.

To be honest, I wasn't looking for a referendum on my kid :) so much as affirmation of my mixed feelings on discussing the topic, I'm not sure I was totally clear on that.

I'm glad the ball got rolling b/c this has been an interesting discussion.

Thanks for the link!

[mamajody]

I thought I would throw in my 2 cents worth here. To the OP, it sounds like your daughter is pretty talented to me. I wouldn't over analyze at this point, she is still changing and growing so fast. Also, giftedness really does come in so many packages, and most children are not globally gifted, YKWIM? Most gifted kids are weak in some areas. Sometimes this is due to an organic problem, and sometimes due to lack of guidance or instruction.

I was identified as gifted early and so was my brother, but he didn't read until he was in 3rd grade. He had developmental dyslexia. It wasn't found until mid-first grade because he was memorizing the text read aloud by other reading groups, and then chiming in when it was his turn in his group. He always got it right, except on days when his group went first or read a differnt story from the other groups. I OTOH, had a REALLY bad teacher for 3rd,4th, and 6th grade. He assumed if I was so gifted I could do anything, and made no attempt to motivate me at tasks I didn't like. He NEVER made me do math if I didn't want too. It wasn't until I was getting ready for middle school that he and my parents discovered I had MAJOR deficits in math learning, and I paid for that for YEARS! For awhile, my self- esteem was so bad when it came to math, that I thought I might be some kind of savant.

My point is, that although I think gifted children are in some way different from average children, they still have the same basic needs for support. They can do a lot on their own, but still need motivation and instruction. You can't learn everything in this world by osmosis. I think that in some respects gifted children may need extra support. When so much comes so easily it can be very devastating when they encounter something they cannot figure out on their own. (My chemistry books can attest to the depths of my unhappiness.) My so called "average" peers often seemed more resiliant when faced with failure. I had to learn to put effort into things that didn't come easily. My brother still struggles with this.

As an addition to this dicussion, do any of your kiddos struggle with their behavior in school, or preschool? My DH and I were very much the "work the system" kind of smart a$$ students. Our brothers on the other hand were more the misanthropic, anti-social types that couldn't function within the system. They should have both been homeschooled. My DD is starting to show some of her uncle's tendencies , so we made the decision not to send her back to preschool, and I have started a preschool age co-op for this year.

[sophmama]

I'm with you on the holding-out-on-labeling-my-kid thing right now. She may be or may not be. I'm fine with that. I personally find my radar far more piqued when a child pursues learning something on their own or by provoking someone to teach them than by learning through adult initiated instruction.

It does sound like this forum may be a good place for you though. It's not everywhere that you can discuss the unique challenges that come with a child with these kinds of manifested behavior. Today my 2 yo and I had discussions about death and then later she started telling me about her plans for her own wedding. It's not something I thought I'd have to deal with yet and I'm a little gun shy about telling others where she's at on a lot of milestones because it's almost always instantly labeled "pushy parent". So I keep my mouth shut and post here and mostly on a private board. I'm not interested in pushing her at all, but I do need the support with how to deal with some unique things that arise from early 'blooming'.