s/o Everyone's gifted: ever wonder...

[Charles Wallace]

I've had the discussion re: reading and giftedness with several folk and still have not come to any conclusion. Can you teach ANY child (excluding one w/ LDs) to read at age 2? age 3? age 4? I know of folks who have tried and it simply did. not. work. There is a developmental switch that needs to happen and I've read that from several sources. And if a child is forced to learn to read, it's usually whole words and in a few years, that child will be no further ahead in reading than a child that started at 5yrs old. I think for me, the bigger question is....can he read a book, comprehend it, compare it to another book.

 

This is in essence what I was saying above. I certainly agree!

[Nan in Mass]

"level of tolerance for others their own age" - I don't know the child you are refering to, obviously, but I do know that that is one of the major advantages my sister's children, who are in public school, have over mine. We all spent a weekend with another child who was just yucky. (Among other things, she tried to divide our tight pack of cousins into boys against girls and had several of them (the ps ones) hysterical because they had gone along with her for a bit before they realized the implications of what they were doing.) I can't decide whether to worry about it or not. Sometimes, it seems very sensible of my youngest to decide he despised her and to spend the weekend avoiding her. On the other hand, I watched his cousins manage to politely entertain her and tolerate her enough to include her in their games, and I think there is some merit in being able to do that. I try to think what I would want my 20-something to do under those circumstances. If the someone was equally yucky but in a 20-something way, I would very much want him to avoid them. But it is also important that he be able to work with the person and be pleasant, if required. Sigh. I've seen my youngest be polite, when need be, but he definately does not tolerate fools gladly and lacks his older brothers' ability to be friendly to anyone. (His brothers were both in ps for awhile.) On the other other hand, I managed school by ignoring and avoiding almost everyone, and people in general have improved, at least a little, as adults, at least compared to their middle and high school selves. And avoiding people with stupid ideas is generally a good idea. I don't even know what I'm trying to ask. It's probably another one of those hitting-the-right-balance things. This thread just happens to hit on a bunch of issues that worry me a whole lot. Avoiding suicide or self-medicating. Getting the balance right between teaching self-discipline and pushing, between providing resources and a lift here and there and destroying the sense of achievement or having them get discouraged and give up. Staying alive. Driving. Getting along with others. Not following others. Teaching them or letting them teach themselves. Letting them take risks to follow their dreams. Keeping them safe. Messing up their creativity or giving them a base of knowledge from which to build and advance. Allowing them to learn from their mistakes but not kill themselves. Ug. I don't consider mine gifted, just a brightish, but maybe, judging from the number of hot spots this thread has hit, we land more over the line than I thought. Not that it matters or changes anything at all. I think probably all parents have these issues, and that is partly why the whole gifted issue gets muddy. What a horrid waffly post. I just sent my older two off to college after spring break this afternoon, and am miserable and worrying about them. Probably I'm not making any sense at all. Sigh.

-Nan

[Renee in NC]

Renee, with all due respect, I believe your statement is factually incorrect. Hoagies has, if memory serves, more than one article explaining the very, very strong correlation between early reading and giftedness -- and I would assume early math and giftedness also, though I know more about reading.

 

What you may perhaps be thinking of is this: if a child reads late, this does NOT mean she ISN'T gifted. She may be. However, if a child is a precocious reader, that is a very, very strong indicator that yes, that child is gifted.

 

As far as hyperlexia, there is a distinction between hyperlexia and precocious reading/giftedness, but I think others have made it. If a child is hyperlexic, he is a precocious reader; however, the reverse is NOT true: just because a child is a precocious reader does not mean he is hyperlexic.

 

Moreover, I think it is vital we define "reading." By "reading," I do not mean "able to say ABCs" or "able to remember the words of a story read previously," but "able to read words independently and accurately in a context with which the child was previously unfamiliar."

 

In other words, if you give a three-year-old child The Cat in the Hat, which you've read a thousand times, and she "reads" it to you, this is a wonderful and delightful -- and absolutely vital -- PREreading skill. It is absolutely applauseworthy. However, if you give the child the first page of The Tale of Two Cities and ask her to read it to you and she can, that's in a completely different league. It's in another different league if she can read it and understand what the author is saying.

 

Will s/he understand it with the full depth and resonance she will as an adult? Probably not -- but consider this: I read The Lord of the Rings at thirteen and loved the story. I read it again when I was in my twenties and later again. Each time, I understood it in a different way. Were any of my ways "not reading" because I didn't have the experience I did later? I don't think so. I believe there is a comprehension threshold a reader must achieve in order for the text to make "good enough" meaning for them. If a reader is able to achieve and maintain this "good enough" level, she or he understands it sufficiently to have truly "read" it.

 

I think there is a difference between a child *taught* to read at a young age (very possible) with children who start to read at a young age with no instruction. It also depends on what you define as "young." And, as you rightly pointed out, it depends on *what* the child can read.

 

I'd be interested to read studies on it if you have links - I did a quick search at Hoagie's and didn't find anything immediately.

[Corraleno]

I've seen my youngest be polite, when need be, but he definately does not tolerate fools gladly and lacks his older brothers' ability to be friendly to anyone. (His brothers were both in ps for awhile.)

You know, sometimes I think we give public school (and other "socialization" opportunities) too much credit. It may be that your youngest is the way he is because that's the way he is, and your elder boys are they way they are because that's who they are, and homeschool vs PS has nothing to do with it, KWIM? Does it really increase a child's tolerance and social aptitude to put them in an environment they find really uncomfortable? Or does it just teach them to mask their discomfort better? Or worse ~ does it make a part of them just shut down?

 

My DH was sent away to boarding school at 13, and he eventually learned to "tolerate" the bullying and nastiness there ~ but at great cost. He talks about the night he started crying and couldn't stop; after about 4 hours, he was taken to the infirmary. He cried and slept for about 3 days, and he says he felt something in him break that could never be put back again. A sense that the world was an OK place and that you could find "safe" places in it. After that he became a pretty tough kid, fearless even, which ironically made him very popular. But now, as an adult, he's always on the defensive, quick to assume others are being snarky or rude even when no offense is intended. And there were other kids in his dorm who truly couldn't hack it, and were sent home as "basket cases." I think sometimes sending a gifted kid ~ or any sensitive kid, for that matter ~ into that kind of environment does far more harm than good.

 

I don't consider mine gifted, just brightish, but maybe, judging from the number of hot spots this thread has hit, we land more over the line than I thought.

Nan, having read many posts about your boys in the last year or so, I think they are considerably more than "brightish," and probably land well over the "gifted" side of the line. :001_smile:

 

What a horrid waffly post. I just sent my older two off to college after spring break this afternoon, and am miserable and worrying about them. Probably I'm not making any sense at all. Sigh.

-Nan

It made perfect sense to me. :grouphug:

 

Jackie

[Nan in Mass]

May I offer a piece of advice? Make sure he actually gets his license before he goes off to college. Once they go to college, you have the choice of giving them a car to take, in which case they are going to have to do their initial practicing with a car full of passengers and without the safeguard of being able to say that they don't want to drive in this snowstorm, or not giving them a car, in which case finding time to practise during vacations is hard and the rest of the time they are at the mercy of their friends' driving skills and judgement.

Just in case you hadn't thought of it...

-Nan

[zaichiki]

I think there is a difference between a child *taught* to read at a young age (very possible) with children who start to read at a young age with no instruction. It also depends on what you define as "young." And, as you rightly pointed out, it depends on *what* the child can read.

 

Renee,

 

Both of my older children have had testing and the results "prove" giftedness of similar levels. One figured out phonics on his own and the other was taught. Gifted children can be taught to read and can still be gifted.

 

:)

[DarlaS]

May I offer a piece of advice? Make sure he actually gets his license before he goes off to college. Once they go to college, you have the choice of giving them a car to take, in which case they are going to have to do their initial practicing with a car full of passengers and without the safeguard of being able to say that they don't want to drive in this snowstorm, or not giving them a car, in which case finding time to practise during vacations is hard and the rest of the time they are at the mercy of their friends' driving skills and judgement.

Just in case you hadn't thought of it...

-Nan

 

Were you talking to me? (Or is someone else's ds a reluctant driver?). In either case, yes, you can offer me advice anytime! :001_smile:

 

I constantly think of these things. All the time. :001_unsure:

 

I hope when he goes off to college we will be able to send him with a safe reliable car--especially since one of the colleges he finds appealing is in the northern upper peninsula. :willy_nilly: Something with lots of airbags would be nice...

[Charles Wallace]

I think there is a difference between a child *taught* to read at a young age (very possible) with children who start to read at a young age with no instruction. It also depends on what you define as "young." And, as you rightly pointed out, it depends on *what* the child can read.

 

I'd be interested to read studies on it if you have links - I did a quick search at Hoagie's and didn't find anything immediately.

 

Gifted children often need less (or no) explicit instruction and far fewer repetitions, but believe me, if it were somehow magically possible to teach all children to read, every kindergarten teacher in the country would be doing it.

 

Here's a place to start:

 

http://www.hoagiesgifted.org/levande.htm

Approximately half of the children classified as gifted by intelligence tests could read in kindergarten, and nearly all of them could read at the beginning of first grade (Burns & Broman, 1983). Their reading abilities develop naturally, without formal instruction, in home environments where literacy is valued and language usage is encouraged (Durkin, 1966).

 

http://www.hoagiesgifted.org/underserved.htm

Reading, a third and significant source of knowledge acquisition, also tends to develop at remarkably early ages. Terman found that one of the few variables, on which the exceptionally gifted children in his study differed from the moderately and highly gifted, was the very early onset of reading (Terman & Oden, 1947). Hollingworth (1942) also noted that it was the early development of reading which most clearly differentiated exceptionally and profoundly gifted children from the moderately gifted. All Hollingworth's 12 subjects of IQ 180+ were reading before school entry, while four were reading at age 2, three at age 3, and three at age 4.

[Renee in NC]

Renee,

 

Both of my older children have had testing and the results "prove" giftedness of similar levels. One figured out phonics on his own and the other was taught. Gifted children can be taught to read and can still be gifted.

 

:)

 

Of course. I don't think I ever said anything to the contrary. All I said (or at least I was *trying* to say:lol:) was that an early reader didn't necessarily end up being gifted in the IQ-higher-than-130-sense. They might be, or they might not be - you can't make a gifted determination based on early reading alone.

 

And, of course, that goes *both* ways - a late reader might not be gifted or they might be.

 

I am interested if anyone has any good peer-reviewed studies dealing with the correlation between age of reading onset and IQ.

[Renee in NC]

Gifted children often need less (or no) explicit instruction and far fewer repetitions, but believe me, if it were somehow magically possible to teach all children to read, every kindergarten teacher in the country would be doing it.

 

Here's a place to start:

 

http://www.hoagiesgifted.org/levande.htm

Approximately half of the children classified as gifted by intelligence tests could read in kindergarten, and nearly all of them could read at the beginning of first grade (Burns & Broman, 1983). Their reading abilities develop naturally, without formal instruction, in home environments where literacy is valued and language usage is encouraged (Durkin, 1966).

 

http://www.hoagiesgifted.org/underserved.htm

Reading, a third and significant source of knowledge acquisition, also tends to develop at remarkably early ages. Terman found that one of the few variables, on which the exceptionally gifted children in his study differed from the moderately and highly gifted, was the very early onset of reading (Terman & Oden, 1947). Hollingworth (1942) also noted that it was the early development of reading which most clearly differentiated exceptionally and profoundly gifted children from the moderately gifted. All Hollingworth's 12 subjects of IQ 180+ were reading before school entry, while four were reading at age 2, three at age 3, and three at age 4.

 

Hmmm, those studies approach from the opposite view that I am looking at it. I would like to take children who were reading in K and/or at the beginning of 1st grade and find out what percentage of that cohort were gifted. I don't doubt that gifted children read early, I am intrigued rather about the thought that all early readers (even at the beginning of 1st grade definition of early) are most likely gifted.

 

Only if I had time.....:D

 

ETA: I am not remotely HG or PG, yet I was reading before K. I was not in a language-rich environment per se - I was the only child of a single father and spent 10-12 hours a day in daycare (late 70s and early 80s.)

Edited March 8, 2010 by Renee in FL

[elizabeth]

http://www.davidsongifted.org/db/Articles_id_10124.aspx

 

I actually heard the hyperlexic moniker tossed about by dd principal who also had the insight to share that many many girls read early. We have a lot of 4th grade students reading Sweet Valley High...Seriously I could not get out of there fast enough. Not a clue and ...she ...had ... a PhD. Idiot

[cougarmom4]

http://www.davidsongifted.org/db/Articles_id_10124.aspx

 

 

 

Excellent article! Thank you for sharing.

I find the correlation between early mobility, early verbalization, and early literacy among the gifted to be interesting and worthy of future study.

[cougarmom4]

I am not remotely HG or PG, yet I was reading before K. I was not in a language-rich environment per se - I was the only child of a single father and spent 10-12 hours a day in daycare (late 70s and early 80s.)

 

And yet, maybe you started out as HG or PG...and it went un-recognized and under-served...and so 'it all evened out in third grade or so'. :D Not trying to stir the pot and certainly not being snarky...but *I* think this happens often! So then one might say, well, you were never gifted. But could it be that you just never had the direction or opportunities to live up to a different 'potential'?

[asta]

http://www.davidsongifted.org/db/Articles_id_10124.aspx

 

I actually heard the hyperlexic moniker tossed about by dd principal who also had the insight to share that many many girls read early. We have a lot of 4th grade students reading Sweet Valley High...Seriously I could not get out of there fast enough. Not a clue and ...she ...had ... a PhD. Idiot

 

To what do they attribute this? (the ubiquitous "they")

 

 

Girls, I mean.

 

 

a

[Renee in NC]

And yet, maybe you started out as HG or PG...and it went un-recognized and under-served...and so 'it all evened out in third grade or so'. :D Not trying to stir the pot and certainly not being snarky...but *I* think this happens often! So then one might say, well, you were never gifted. But could it be that you just never had the direction or opportunities to live up to a different 'potential'?

 

:lol::lol: My dh would love that - he already thinks I am crazy! "Hey hon! Did you know that I am an unrealized genius?":tongue_smilie:

 

It is possible - I think of IQ as being fairly stable, but I know that isn't true in the early years (which is why early IQ tests aren't as valid as those taken later.)

 

You have reminded me that I need to make sure and stimulate the language and development of my young children. I don't want any of them being unrealized...:D

[TravelingChris]

Opportunities aboud for our kids that weren't there when my dh and I were young. What opportunities-media, computer, lectures, etc. Some is the same- when I was a teenager, I took adult ed classes at the American Film Institute. I was by far the youngest person there. I had a love of movies and went to them frequently including old ones. (Oh and watching movies is not pure entertainment since I learned a lot from them). But that was nothing compared to the things my kids do- discuss their interests on the internet with like-intersted people- a lot more than I ever met, watch college lectures on tv (teaching company, others), also attend some adult classes and activities (my oldest two ended up in adult Sunday Schools since the youth ones were taught at a level way to elementary for them and my middle has been in adult choirs for the last three years. My youngest watches science and engineering shows as much as her schedule and her wants allow.

These things weren't available.

 

Another thing I also think about is the keeping people to age 18 or longer is a very recent phenomena. Read about at what age our founding fathers went to college. Then you will see a big difference.

[Nan in Mass]

My three children had a near-miss this winter when the car in front of them hit a deer. Lots of airbags is a good idea. It is very scary.

[Dmmetler]

I believe that the reason kids "even out by grade 3" has more to do with the child showing the school exactly what they want to see. If the classroom teacher is constantly pushing the child back and forcing them to do the same level of work as everyone else, isn't the child going to learn that success is being like everyone else? And peer pressure plays a part, too.

 

Right now, my DD doesn't fit in academically. I had an older gentleman cross the sanctuary to ask if DD was "one of those gifted children", based only on seeing her at Children's time and her behavior in church.

 

But I've still, even at age 5, also witnessed her commiserate with friends about something being "too hard for kindergarten", when it's not a task that's hard for her at all. And her teacher reports that she's learned NOT to call on DD to correct another child-that DD will give a silly, incorrect answer rather than embarrass the other child by giving the right one.

 

I admit that right now, given the earlier fears of an ASD and the fact that my DD IS younger than her peers, this tends to lead to a response of "Hallelujah! She's developing social skills!" But it also clearly demonstrates why leaving DD in a traditional school could hurt her, because I could easily see that by 3rd grade, that mask could be a reality, and that a teacher who hasn't watched this process develop might really take DD's silly answers as a sign she doesn't know-not that she's trying to spare a classmate's feelings.

 

My guess is that you see MUCH less "leveling off by grade 3" in homeschooled students than in traditional schools, because the social and academic are separated.

[radiobrain]

Has anyone read "Nurtureshock" yet?

 

They have an interesting chapter in there about giftedness. If I remember correctly, they say that most school districts get most gifted testing all wrong, as there are late and early bloomers (gifted) and if you are on the wrong side of the testing you are screwed. Also, as they don't re-assess there are kids that really don't belong in the gifted programs and others who should be there and never get in.

 

The book seems alright, but as I HS, most of it is not particularly relevant. :D

[Nan in Mass]

Perhaps you are right. I guess he actually has very good social skills, when he wants to apply them. He just chooses not to apply them in situations where I think he ought to, sometimes. Mostly, I've been afraid to think about it because I've known some very scathing intelligent people and I'm fluff-brained so I'm scared of them and I naturally would rather not have my beloved son turn into someone like that. I'd prefer that they kept some of their childhood tolerence and ability to see something good in everyone. Now that I am thinkng about it, I realize that it is a major religious issue for me. And of course you are right - protecting them from bad experiences when they are too young to deal appropriately from them is the way to achieve that. I think when they are strong enough, though, they need to begin to develop endurance and strength and coping skills. Another balance point to find, this time between too much idealism and innocence, and too much cynosism? sysonism? I have no idea how to spell that. Either one is unworkable as an adult. Anyway, thank you.

-Nan

[MBM]

Believe me, if there were some magic method of making children able to be geniuses, I would immediately put it to work in my class and be hailed as a school saint, an educational alchemist.

 

I hope I'm not being presumptious here, but you might be interested in reading Spark: The Revolutionary New Science of Exercise and the Brain by John Ratey, a clinical associate professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School. In the first few chapters he discusses how exercise affects the ability to learn, particularly that it creates a cascade of chemical reactions in the body that then affect the brain. Schools that have implemented these ideas are seeing significant improvements in test scores and, as a bonus, behavior problems as well.

 

The whole process is fascinating and if anyone is interested, I'll link some of Ratey's articles:

 

http://www.johnratey.com/newsite/Articles.html

 

Ratey's blog:

 

http://johnratey.typepad.com/blog/

Edited March 8, 2010 by MBM

[DarlaS]

I hope I'm not being presumptious here, but you might be interested in reading Spark: The Revolutionary New Science of Exercise and the Brain by John Ratey, a clinical associate professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School. In the first few chapters he discusses how exercise affects the ability to learn, particularly that it creates a cascade of chemical reactions in the body that then affect the brain. Schools that have implemented these ideas are seeing significant improvements in test scores and, as a bonus, behavior problems as well.

 

The whole process is fascinating and if anyone is interested, I'll link some of Ratey's articles:

 

http://www.johnratey.com/newsite/Articles.html

 

Ratey's blog:

 

http://johnratey.typepad.com/blog/

 

Weren't (aren't?) business in Japan having their employees do calisthenics before starting their day? Same principle I guess. That is fascinating. I notice I think much clearer (The difference is actually huge for me--far more effective than caffeine.) if I get a bit of a walk before doing anything that requires concentration.

[lionfamily1999]

Perhaps you are right. I guess he actually has very good social skills, when he wants to apply them. He just chooses not to apply them in situations where I think he ought to, sometimes. Mostly, I've been afraid to think about it because I've known some very scathing intelligent people and I'm fluff-brained so I'm scared of them and I naturally would rather not have my beloved son turn into someone like that. I'd prefer that they kept some of their childhood tolerence and ability to see something good in everyone. Now that I am thinkng about it, I realize that it is a major religious issue for me. And of course you are right - protecting them from bad experiences when they are too young to deal appropriately from them is the way to achieve that. I think when they are strong enough, though, they need to begin to develop endurance and strength and coping skills. Another balance point to find, this time between too much idealism and innocence, and too much cynosism? sysonism? I have no idea how to spell that. Either one is unworkable as an adult. Anyway, thank you.

-Nan

Nan, may I ask what religion you are (sorry if it should be obvious, I can be a dunce).

 

I totally understand the concern about cynicism (lol, however you spell that). I started teaching ds how to 'read' commercials and regretted it when he started applying that everywhere. It's a useful skill, but it sure does create a bleak look on fellow men (what do YOU want me to buy).

 

For us, these issues are dealt with Biblically. Love God first, love your neighbors as yourself. I think, in case you aren't Christian, that the idea of loving fellow humans, because we are the same genus and species, because we do struggle the same way, because we all have similar faults, is a good foundation. From there, tolerance and acceptance within whatever parameters you set, could grow.

 

Ds learned not to show off when he became friends with a terrible show off. We used his friend as an example of how people can turn away friends without knowing it. Then, we talked about how good friends stick with each other and discuss problems.

 

It's all so complicated, though. Trying to make sure they get the right balance of tolerance/acceptance and sound limits for both. Trying to guide them without making them automotons, trying to teach them without washing their little brains, making them independant while still knowing where and when to submit to authority (or at all if that's the way your boat floats).

[Nan in Mass]

Well, it probably is a little more complicated for us, in some ways, and much simpler, in other ways. We are UU. I consider myself Christian, but many here probably don't. I definately teach the golden rule and love God as the two main guidelines for living, as given by our own prophet Jesus. And I spell out all things having to do with manners and politeness and friendship and social relations in terms of do-unto-others. I have very firm ideas about what it right and wrong and I am trying hard to pass those ideas along to my children. But... there is a lot of life that is outside the realm of obviously right and wrong. For those things, I am trying to teach tolerance and considering both sides, while still encouraging my children to adopt our family ways of doing things so they will fit comfortably in the family. This is difficult to do without appearing judgemental. And I believe that it should be left to God to judge people, not us. That leaves me saying, "We don't smoke cigarettes in this family but there are countries where it is the cultural norm, and even here, if you are dirt poor, it can be cheap, immediate comfort." I get stuck saying, "It isn't ok for you but you have to let other people decide if it is ok for them themselves." This is not a strong position to parent from. It would be a lot easier to say, "Smoking is wrong. Nobody should do it." without all the caveats. If you can manage to get the balance right, you wind up with a great adult, but if you get it wrong, you wind up with one that either decides smoking is fine for him, or one that goes around feeling superior to everyone else. I wind up sounding very wishywashy. Ug. I'm trying to hedge my bets GRIN - I'm letting my children's gymnastic coach, who is not hampered by my need to be respectful and polite and tolerant to my children, banging basic manners into them and teaching them to think for themselves and stand up for themselves and not let anybody push them around, and I have some Japanese Buddhist monks, also unhampered (and for surprisingly similar reasons), teaching extreme tolerance, politeness, respect for the perfect soul inside everyone, and bowing to the group concensus when it doesn't go against your morals. We'll see what happens. And that is probably WAY more than you wanted to know. : )

-Nan

[Lovedtodeath]

Nan, I have been struggling with the same things.:001_smile:

[lionfamily1999]

Well, it probably is a little more complicated for us, in some ways, and much simpler, in other ways. We are UU. I consider myself Christian, but many here probably don't. I definately teach the golden rule and love God as the two main guidelines for living, as given by our own prophet Jesus. And I spell out all things having to do with manners and politeness and friendship and social relations in terms of do-unto-others. I have very firm ideas about what it right and wrong and I am trying hard to pass those ideas along to my children. But... there is a lot of life that is outside the realm of obviously right and wrong. For those things, I am trying to teach tolerance and considering both sides, while still encouraging my children to adopt our family ways of doing things so they will fit comfortably in the family. This is difficult to do without appearing judgemental. And I believe that it should be left to God to judge people, not us. That leaves me saying, "We don't smoke cigarettes in this family but there are countries where it is the cultural norm, and even here, if you are dirt poor, it can be cheap, immediate comfort." I get stuck saying, "It isn't ok for you but you have to let other people decide if it is ok for them themselves." This is not a strong position to parent from. It would be a lot easier to say, "Smoking is wrong. Nobody should do it." without all the caveats. If you can manage to get the balance right, you wind up with a great adult, but if you get it wrong, you wind up with one that either decides smoking is fine for him, or one that goes around feeling superior to everyone else. I wind up sounding very wishywashy. Ug. I'm trying to hedge my bets GRIN - I'm letting my children's gymnastic coach, who is not hampered by my need to be respectful and polite and tolerant to my children, banging basic manners into them and teaching them to think for themselves and stand up for themselves and not let anybody push them around, and I have some Japanese Buddhist monks, also unhampered (and for surprisingly similar reasons), teaching extreme tolerance, politeness, respect for the perfect soul inside everyone, and bowing to the group concensus when it doesn't go against your morals. We'll see what happens. And that is probably WAY more than you wanted to know. : )

-Nan

Lol, not at all! I asked :p

 

Personally, I have no qualms with saying, 'because you know better.' I'm not too clear on UU, but if you were to use a Christian basis for teaching these things I think your life would be so much easier ;) . God wants us to love each other, He even says you will know us by our love for each other. With so many of the negative character traits, a lack of love/compassion is the root. I don't believe that there are any really evil character traits, even selfishness has its place. The hard part, for me, is teaching moderation in these things.

 

It's okay to proud of yourself... to an extent.

 

It's fine to know you're right... as long as you don't let that make a fool of yourself.

 

It's such a balancing act. I do agree, it's hard. How do you teach someone to know there's a line, to know that some things are unacceptable, and still teach them to love the person doing it?

 

For that matter, how do you teach your kids to be better people that you (not you, but an in general you) are????

 

That's the crux of it, though, isn't it? We can only give them our knowledge and hope they do better with it than we did.

[Nan in Mass]

We've wandered pretty far from "Why are people pushing children?" LOL. Or maybe we haven't. Some children need more complete answers to these things, while others are more willing to accept "because I say so" or "because the Bible says so" or even, when they are older and deciding what they believe, usually via the I-don't-believe-anything phase, "because God says so". (I've had more luck with "because the world works like that". It is tricky, talking to teens. You are limited to discussing things using only what they know. And sometimes, refusing to discuss them, like using your "because you know better" works best.) But continuing my list: Some children notice more, earlier. And some children are more aware of their own motives and yours, and how influence they themselves are by you. Some just enjoy their icecream cone and others wonder why children in poor places aren't eating icecream. Is there such a thing as a child who doesn't wonder about these things? Or are all children so thoughtful? Or are they thoughtful just until they realize that they are expected not to care and give up, somewhere around third grade SIGH?

 

How do you teach your kids to be better people than you are? I don't know. By finding them examples of people who are very obviously better than you are? Like monks LOL? Or by giving them storybook heros and saints? Or by pointing out your own flaws and how you compensate or work around or are limited by them? Or by pointing out how your own parents' flaws influenced their parenting choices and how you are trying to avoid those things? We do a bit of all of that, in my family. Sometimes it backfires. That worthy person down the street who is trying her best to do her little bit to save the world winds up being scorned by your child for not devoting their whole lives to it rather than honoured for their effort. Sigh. An angry child who knows your weak spots can get revenge very easily. A child can wind up thinking everything wrong with them is your fault. You have to keep going and teach the subtlties and that requires time and energy you may not have, especially if your child leaves the nest early. You are right - it is very difficult to teach so much "to an extent"-ness.

-Nan

Edited March 8, 2010 by Nan in Mass

[stripe]

Has anyone read "Nurtureshock" yet?

...

The book seems alright, but as I HS, most of it is not particularly relevant. :D

I've read it.

 

I honestly don't see why homeschooling would make a lot of the discussions irrelevant -- things like actively discussing skin colors and racism, and various virtues and so forth, and then the issue of one's expectations of how one's children act when they don't agree -- whether they obey, pretend to obey and then ignore, or actively engage the parents in a discussion, for example. But maybe I blocked out the stuff that struck me as irrelevant! ;) You've made me curious to look up the giftedness chapter.

 

The calisthenics thing reminds me of Charlotte Mason as well.

[zaichiki]

How do you teach someone to know there's a line, to know that some things are unacceptable, and still teach them to love the person doing it?

 

Christians can follow Jesus' example (like you said, lionfamily): hate the sin but love the sinner.

 

Nan,

I don't think I feel superior to those who smoke, but I know I'm taking better care of my lungs than they are. :D It's just fact, but it doesn't make me a better person.

[EKS]

 

I honestly don't see why homeschooling would make a lot of the discussions irrelevant -- things like actively discussing skin colors and racism, and various virtues and so forth, and then the issue of one's expectations of how one's children act when they don't agree -- whether they obey, pretend to obey and then ignore, or actively engage the parents in a discussion, for example.

 

I agree. I thought Nurture Shock was very relevant to homeschoolers and also made a great case for homeschooling (unintentionally, of course).

[Laura Corin]

 

Or is everyone here dealing with the ten and below set?

 

 

asta

 

Laura

[Nan in Mass]

I know. As adults, we do this all the time. But I've seen some children misunderstand.

[Laura Corin]

The people of this board/generation are not the first parents to have brilliant children. Nor are they the first people to struggle with/seek out suitable/appropriate activities to nourish the intellect of those children. Is it hard to find high level "stuff" outside of traditional university coursework? Of course it is. Is it impossible? Obviously not - the generations previous to us did it. There are alternatives to simply sending an extremely bright, but very young child to an environment that is a severe chronological mismatch.

 

 

I'm not arguing with the the rest of your points - I'm ambivalent about the idea of early university. However it's a historical mistake to assume that previous generations didn't go to university early. From my reading of the lives of bright Brits, they stayed at public school until they had completed the curriculum then went off to university. Fourteen or sixteen were not unusual ages for university entrance.

 

ETA: as an example, Francis Bacon went to Cambridge at the age of twelve in 1573.

 

Laura

Edited March 8, 2010 by Laura Corin

[elizabeth]

To what do they attribute this? (the ubiquitous "they")

 

 

Girls, I mean.

 

 

a

 

Typical outmoded assumptions regarding temperment and gender. That was but one of her propensities of thought that chapped my hide.

[lionfamily1999]

Christians can follow Jesus' example (like you said, lionfamily): hate the sin but love the sinner.

 

Nan,

I don't think I feel superior to those who smoke, but I know I'm taking better care of my lungs than they are. :D It's just fact, but it doesn't make me a better person.

See, that's what I mean with the "you know better." It's one of those things, that I'm hoping will help him to face peer pressure gracefully. Yes, it sounds like fun and all the other kids are doing, but 'you know better.' ;)

[Nan in Mass]

Ok, not wanting to get too philosophical, and not wanting you to mistake this for a rhetorical question to which I already have the answer because I honestly want to know - what is the difference between knowing better and being a better person? Isn't that a large part of what makes one person feel superior to another? I've been avoiding saying something like that, partly because my own parents didn't say that and I vaguely remember being grateful, partly because I am somewhat allergic to the word "better" connected to people, and partly because it seemed sort of like a cop-out. It would be simple and step sideways out of the argument, which would be nice sometimes. Maybe it would work. Isn't it a little disrespectful, though? Would you say it to another adult? Then again, perhaps it is actually one of the more polite ways to point out that the other person isn't thinking correctly, which is exactly what I need, something that leaves other people out of it. I guess I'm just trying to figure out if it really does leave other people out of it. Something that I learned a little late in the teenage years (when my youngest was half way through) was that it is very useful to have ways of refusing to argue while still making it clear that you disagree with them. Your answer does that. Hmm...

-Nan

[lionfamily1999]

Ok, not wanting to get too philosophical, and not wanting you to mistake this for a rhetorical question to which I already have the answer because I honestly want to know - what is the difference between knowing better and being a better person?

 

I can't think how to explain outside of an example. Let's say Andrew (my ds) is with his friends and they decide to throw rocks at someone's dog. The other parents and I find out what the boys were doing.

 

The other boys do not get into any trouble, and Andrew protests his punishment, because they were all doing it. My response would be, "you know better."

 

In other words, I don't know what those kids or their parents know, but I do know that Andrew knows you do not hurt or taunt animals, period. Now, it doesn't mean he is a better person than them (and that is part of the distinction I want him to understand), what it means is, he's already been taught that this behavior is wrong and he should have acted accordingly.

 

Isn't that a large part of what makes one person feel superior to another?

 

That's why I stress that he knows better. I think, the difference is, if someone knows that x is wrong, then they are responsible for having done x, because they knew that x was wrong. If someone that isn't aware that x is wrong does it, it could have been out of ignorance. Rather than assuming that everyone knows x is wrong, I expect my son to take the consequences based on his knowledge.

 

I don't think that knowledge makes anyone better or worse than anyone else, but I've always felt that people doing things they know are wrong are (imo) worse than someone that does it out of ignorance of right and wrong...

 

Does that make any sense at all?? I don't see someone that has knowledge as better or worse than someone who is ignorant, except when one chooses to ignore what they know (which I consider much worse than simple ignorance).

 

I've been avoiding saying something like that, partly because my own parents didn't say that and I vaguely remember being grateful, partly because I am somewhat allergic to the word "better" connected to people, and partly because it seemed sort of like a cop-out.

See and I would say that behaving in a way that is contrary to what you know is right and then blaming it on anything other than your own... what's the word... laziness or whatever is a cop-out. This is not you know better than they do, it's you know better than to do that.

 

It would be simple and step sideways out of the argument, which would be nice sometimes. Maybe it would work. Isn't it a little disrespectful, though? Would you say it to another adult?

Actually, I have... For the same reasons... When my nephew put his head through a wall riding a matress down the steps in his house... with his dad... I whipped that line right out. I don't find it disrespectful, but maybe I set my standards a little high. O/T, one of the reasons I have very little respect for Thomas Jefferson is because, after reading what he had to write on slavery, all I could think about was... You knew better, you knew it was wrong and you did it anyway, you perpetuated it.

Then again, perhaps it is actually one of the more polite ways to point out that the other person isn't thinking correctly, which is exactly what I need, something that leaves other people out of it. I guess I'm just trying to figure out if it really does leave other people out of it. Something that I learned a little late in the teenage years (when my youngest was half way through) was that it is very useful to have ways of refusing to argue while still making it clear that you disagree with them. Your answer does that. Hmm...

-Nan

Thinking on it, I've told my mother numerous times, you know better :lol:

 

It simply, imo, means... Whatever happened did not need to take place. You knew better than to think that whatever it was would turn out well.

[mcconnellboys]

You're making perfect sense. You know I'm getting ready to send my oldest, complete with all his auditory/sensory processing issues, off to a college, somewhere, too. It's a big, scary world out there and it gets a whole lot scarier as they venture into it more and more alone. I think whether kids are considered "gifted", "twice gifted", "average", or "special needs", etc. is irrelevant. They will all encounter the broad span of life's issues and they will all react to those in ways that we may not have managed to gauge or prepare for..... I find these days that prayer without cessation is my solace, LOL...... (but I still try to work in learning moments every chance I get, too.....)

[Charles Wallace]

I hope I'm not being presumptious here, but you might be interested in reading Spark: The Revolutionary New Science of Exercise and the Brain by John Ratey, a clinical associate professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School. In the first few chapters he discusses how exercise affects the ability to learn, particularly that it creates a cascade of chemical reactions in the body that then affect the brain. Schools that have implemented these ideas are seeing significant improvements in test scores and, as a bonus, behavior problems as well.

 

The whole process is fascinating and if anyone is interested, I'll link some of Ratey's articles:

 

http://www.johnratey.com/newsite/Articles.html

 

Ratey's blog:

 

http://johnratey.typepad.com/blog/

 

Thank you!

[Nan in Mass]

That makes sense. I wasn't picturing that sort of situation. I don't think mine tried that as an excuse very often, probably because I totally over-reacted the first few times they did. Sigh. And I guess I can picture myself saying it to my college-aged sons if they did something stupid. My family says, "What did you think was going to happen?" without waiting for an answer when people do something idiotic. Or if it is about someone else, we say, "What on earth were they thinking?" and then everyone tries to think of situations in which one could possibly think that was a good idea. The standard adult answer, if pushed, is, "Well it seemed like a good idea at the time." or "I wasn't." All of which boils down to about the same thing as your statement. Thank you for explaining. An occasion will probably arise when it will be useful with my youngest. Big sigh. By the way, I totally agree about Thomas Jefferson. There was a Nat. Geo. article awhile back, I think, that made me decide he was pretty spineless.

-nan

[lionfamily1999]

I think that, in this case "you know better" and "what were you thinking" mean the exact same thing ;)

[asta]

I'm not arguing with the the rest of your points - I'm ambivalent about the idea of early university. However it's a historical mistake to assume that previous generations didn't go to university early. From my reading of the lives of bright Brits, they stayed at public school until they had completed the curriculum then went off to university. Fourteen or sixteen were not unusual ages for university entrance.

 

ETA: as an example, Francis Bacon went to Cambridge at the age of twelve in 1573.

 

Laura

 

I actually wasn't thinking about the time periods previous to the 20th century, when, pretty much all of us agree, what is now 'equivalent' to a modern high school education would have merely been primary school. Heck, even the first part of the 20th century had a considerably more advanced primary and high school curricula than we do today - "college" was something that the privileged few did, not the masses - children had to have a more solid grounding in most things (grammar, trig, algebra, sciences) if they wanted to work a decent paying job.

 

Beyond that, even the basic farm required a great deal of science and mathematics to run smoothly, whether those subjects were 'book learnt' or simply 'acquired'.

 

I was discussing children of the 60s, 70s and 80s.

 

And as a final point (not to you Laura, just in general), all along, I haven't been talking about children doing college level work - my son does that (not a brag, a reality). I have been referring to literally sending children away to college. Pack them up and send them to college. Dorm. Meal plan. Roommate. Heck, even taking individual classes on some of the campuses I have visited would, IMO, be exposing a kid to essentially the same, inappropriate environment.

 

I know there are exceptions. There are exceptions to everything. My own sister started classes at the local CC at 15. But that little CC isn't so little any longer. Now it is huge. Her kids are PG, and she would never let them take classes at the uni where she works, except for a specialty summer program (like the Stanford one). Now, is that to say people who do are wrong? Not my call. Neither of her kids have suffered academically. They live in a house with two profs. They're both NMS. They're nice kids.

 

I don't have the answer. I don't think anyone has the answer for anyone else.

 

 

a

[Donna]

I do. The accelerated board found a solution for this, a set of workbooks of increasingly harder "new math". If you look on the accelerated board a few months back, you should find it. If you can't, let me know and I'll see if I can find the thread. There is a set of math books from Russia that people are using to stall for time between elementary math and algebra, also. I haven't personally seen either of them, but I read the threads because I could have used something like that. People use a program called something like Micon (it uses rods), also, to enrich math at your duaghter's age. All I had, other than stuff I made up myself (we played with bases, chisombop, and an abacus, among other things), was a book of rod puzzles that went something like:

 

Those sound great for a child who likes manipulatives. Unfortunately mine does not...would rather work math in her head. We tried Miquon and she always asked me why they wanted her to use those rods when she already knew the answer. We are going to dig a little deeper into math doing some Life of Fred or something else for awhile rather than jump into Algebra quickly so I will look into the other books you suggested.

[Nan in Mass]

Yup. And I think it is because I am dealing with lots of theoretical rather than actual situations now, discussing things with my youngest, that "you know better" sounded dubious. Your examples cleared that up. I tend to get embroiled in arguments about why one shouldn't feel inwardly scornful and superior about smoking in connection to the older Irish neighbor or your brother's Ukrainian friend, or judgemental about the family member who went back to smoking when getting through a tough spot, while at the same time not wanting to appear to condone smoking for my son in any way and encouraging him, sort of (knowing I shouldn't but bending to the practicalities of parenting, which seems to require quite a lot of uncomfortable judging) to be judgemental about the friend who took it up just because it looked cool. "You know better" actually covers that situation quite nicely, if a bit ambiguously. Ambiguous, since I am on shaky moral grounds judging the friend, is good. Unfortunately, my children extend the argument onto those shaky grounds pretty frequently, at which point I am reduced to saying something totally weak like, "Parenting puts one in the unfortunate position of having to judge people for teaching purposes." Sigh. Anyway, the "you know better so it isn't ok for you" is a useful distinction, one that I implied frequently but didn't think to use overtly, somehow. It seems obvious, now LOL. Where were you ten or fifteen years ago when I began having to deal with such things LOL? Fortunately, mine understood the distinction between the letter of the law and the intent or I would have been in big trouble. Anyway, thank you very much.

-Nan

[lionfamily1999]

Sure thing :D

 

Fifteen years ago I was one of those irritating teens. I had a tendency to see in either black and white or oceans of endless gray. Drove my mother nuts :lol:

[Nan in Mass]

It was the 'new math' books that I initially thought of for you. Let me know if you can't find the thread. A search of 'snuggle math' might turn it up.

[Nan in Mass]

I think I'm still stuck that way. Luckily, my children seem to do better LOL.

[stripe]

It was the 'new math' books that I initially thought of for you. Let me know if you can't find the thread. A search of 'snuggle math' might turn it up.

Is it the thread by Reya from last year?

http://www.welltrainedmind.com/forums/showthread.php?t=88230

 

I also found this thread about math acceleration.

http://www.welltrainedmind.com/forums/showthread.php?t=136979

 

I can't quite figure out what books are being referred to, though.

[zaichiki]

When it comes to smoking, I think most people (the smokers included) "know better." I think saying "you know better" implies that the other person chooses to smoke because they don't know better.

 

In our family, some members choose to smoke in spite of knowing that it's bad for them. Nicotene is an addiction. Plain and simple. Smoking is a choice, too. So, I tell my kids that they are making a better choice for their lungs by not smoking than said family member is making. It doesn't make them better people, but it does make them have healthier lungs. I do explain about addiction during these conversations.

 

I think many people choose to do things that I don't want my children doing despite "knowing better." A good place to start in these conversations with my kids is natural consequences. I *will* tell them that the choice is no good and I will tell them why. We *all* make choices we know are wrong sometimes, so if my kids would happen to feel superior (which I haven't seen) about making a certain choice, I would be happy to point out times when they haven't always made good choices.

 

Yup. And I think it is because I am dealing with lots of theoretical rather than actual situations now, discussing things with my youngest, that "you know better" sounded dubious. Your examples cleared that up. I tend to get embroiled in arguments about why one shouldn't feel inwardly scornful and superior about smoking in connection to the older Irish neighbor or your brother's Ukrainian friend, or judgemental about the family member who went back to smoking when getting through a tough spot, while at the same time not wanting to appear to condone smoking for my son in any way and encouraging him, sort of (knowing I shouldn't but bending to the practicalities of parenting, which seems to require quite a lot of uncomfortable judging) to be judgemental about the friend who took it up just because it looked cool. "You know better" actually covers that situation quite nicely, if a bit ambiguously. Ambiguous, since I am on shaky moral grounds judging the friend, is good. Unfortunately, my children extend the argument onto those shaky grounds pretty frequently, at which point I am reduced to saying something totally weak like, "Parenting puts one in the unfortunate position of having to judge people for teaching purposes." Sigh. Anyway, the "you know better so it isn't ok for you" is a useful distinction, one that I implied frequently but didn't think to use overtly, somehow. It seems obvious, now LOL. Where were you ten or fifteen years ago when I began having to deal with such things LOL? Fortunately, mine understood the distinction between the letter of the law and the intent or I would have been in big trouble. Anyway, thank you very much.

-Nan

[TravelingChris]

My dd went to cc at age 15 and while she was the youngest in the class, no one knew for many weeks. SHe took an honors psychology class. She had no problems with it. Yes, it was a large campus but I dropped her off and picked her up. When I couldn't do that directly, she would go to the library and I would get her from there. What was inappropriate? Nothing. Now I am aware that there were classes that had disturbing themes like the homeschooled girl who ended up in a literature class where the teacher was morbid and basically advocating death. No, not a mystery class but a class that glorified dying. I saw the psychology book before she enrolled in the class.

 

Everyone here makes different rules on how much they shelter their children. Mine aren't sheltered as much about events and cultural norms than many others since I watch news, they read the yahoo headlines, and we discuss things. So they know about wars and crimes and other issues but they haven't become overly mature because of this. In my family, both with the parents and now the kids, we don't start trying to have boyfriends or girlfirends until we are in our later teens (16 or older). I think my dh had his first date at age 18 and met me later that year. I also started at age 18. My son had a girlfriend at age 17. My older dd is 16 and isn't interested yet. But that doesn't mean that they can't take advantage of learning advanced material in college before then. If you have issues with colleges, dorms, etc., shelter your children. For us, we did what we thought was best for our children.