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

[Charles Wallace]

 

Believe me, I KNOW my children are children. But I also know my children well enough that they would feel they were being punished, or tortured if they were forced to do what others deem "age appropriate."

 

Well, and at least in my opinion, I truly fail to see how allowing your child to rise as high as s/he can, is able to, and wishes to is in any way detrimental to him or to her.

 

And as far as being a kid, I'll never forget being at a conference for gifted kids and seeing a bunch of kids -- all of whom were working at five or six grades ahead of their chronological age -- get into a massive, screaming, gleeful pillow fight and chase each other around the room like crazy fools. Oh, and they thought calculus was cool.:D

[Charles Wallace]

Yes, everyone is gifted, just not academically. An aptitude for art, music, dance, sports, working with children or animals, mechanics, carpentry, sales... all are gifts. Schools test for (and reward) only academics, so that's what "counts". It doesn't mean the others are any less valuable if recognized and nurtured.

 

With all due respect for this well-meant -- but misguided -- idea, I must respectfully disagree.

 

No.

Not all children are gifted.

 

All children are special. All children are precious. All children are worthy of being treated with respect and human dignity.

 

However, not all children are gifted in some way, just as not all children are learning-disabled in some way. All children may have a talent relative to their other talents -- like for example, I can play basketball much, much better than I can play football...but given that I am rather short and small-handed, to say I have a "gift" for basketball would be really rather absurd. Perhaps I could beat a four-foot-tall person with a broken leg...if I had a head start. Relative talent does not equal "gift." Gift is not relative to the self, but relative to the norm of a population.

 

Though not all children HAVE gifts, all children ARE gifts.

[zaichiki]

Social and emotional maturity can vary just as much as intellectual capacity.

 

Bingo!

[Charles Wallace]

And this is where I disagree. (not with you mcconnell, with the concept)

 

No matter how intelligent a child is, chronologically, they are still a child. A person of 14 may have the intellect of a 45 year old, but still have only been on the planet fourteen years.

 

In my mind, at that point, intelligence is irrelevant: a parent must step in and say NO! Here are some interesting things for you to read, but you are NOT going to Harvard, you're going to Disney with the rest of the family (or to the beach, or camping, or building a nature trail or whatever).

 

 

 

With all due respect, I find this a harmful attitude. I know of one child of my acquaintance who specifically wanted to go to Boston just in order to go to Harvard specifically -- and who would have absolutely despised Disneyland.

 

What if the child's genuine interests and true desires don't include Dora the Explorer? What if that child is, as someone else put it, a dodecahedron in a square peg world? Would it not make far more sense to a) acknowledge that this is true and b) work with it?

 

From what I can see, the genuine harm parents do to their children is not in treating them as if they were gifted when they are: it is in forcing their children to be something they are not. Just as it is ethically wrong to force a child to be "a prodigy" when they are just a perfectly wonderful, perfectly normal child, so to is it also equally wrong -- and for the same reasons -- to force a gifted child to act "normal."

 

You're brilliant? Got it. You live on planet earth. In society. You need to know how to relate to it. And that includes other 14 year olds, not just your "intellectual equals". You don't have any intellectual equals? Then you need to learn how to relate to people who aren't. And not in a condescending manner.

 

{before someone flames me, I'm not directing this post at anyone specific, except maybe my own family members}

 

A person's intellectual difference can often be so extreme that every minute being "on planet earth...in society" can feel like one gigantic masquerade, a lie lived daily. It's not a matter of "need[ing] to learn how to relate to people." Many people with autism find it difficult to relate to people, but we (reasonably and properly) understand that many of them can do so only to a particular degree because the manner in which their minds function is not typical. Somehow, we cannot accept that the same situation may be true of gifted individuals. Can almost anyone learn rudimentary politeness and common courtesy? Surely -- and should be expected to, or expected to try. However, this is a far cry from finding true friends, true peers, or relating to others on any more than an absurdly superficial level.

 

It's regrettable that you reject the "walk in the other person's shoes" argument. Speaking for myself, at least, many of my firmly-held opinions underwent some fairly radical changes when I experienced the situation for myself. It was the difference between Google Maps and...well, being there.

[Charles Wallace]

Obviously not. As I said earlier, I was never trying to make the point that there aren't people who fall on both intellectual extremes, only that the "gifted" label has been so distorted it is essentially meaningless. I've heard/read lots of parents who say, "Well, I've never had my child tested, but I'm sure he/she is gifted." And then there's the fact it's been turned into an entire industry.

 

I am certainly not arguing that there are no highly intelligent children out there, but when I hear someone say that their darling three year old is gifted and couldn't possibly be burdened by attending a normal preschool, I do have to resist the urge to roll my eyes.

 

 

Thank you, Mergath -- I think we actually are very much in agreement. Personally, I despise the label and also believe it is over-used.

 

I'd also be lying if I said that I've never rolled my eyes at someone else's claims about their lovely, wonderful, normal child being gifted. Thinking specifically of one person in my acquaintance, I've held out a little corner of "the benefit of the doubt" simply because I'm not the parent and maybe when no one else is around, the child is just unbelievably advanced. In my experience, I have not witnessed it, though.

 

I wish there could be another, more accurate label. "Asynchronous development" doesn't exactly roll off the tongue.

[Dmmetler]

Having said that, there is a point at which acceleration is untenable due to age for a given child. This is why we're HSing next year-because DD's school felt that the only way they could manage to meet her academic needs was to do yet more acceleration, and DD already gets SO frustrated with being physically less adept than her classmates as a 4 turning 5 yr old in a room of children 1-2 years older. Adding another year (or two, as was suggested) of age difference wouldn't really make a difference academically, except possibly in math where there would be some concepts and labeling of concepts that's new, but it would make PE and recess a nightmare.

 

I can easily see a teenager for whom early college entry would be just as bad as putting a 5 yr old into a traditional 3rd grade, despite it being a better academic fit. Conversely, I can also imagine a 5 yr old with a different personality than my DD who would do fine in a traditional 3rd grade.

 

I'm hoping and praying that WTM will have enough lateral "play" to keep DD busy exploring the world ancient and contemporary, and that she won't need to move forward quite as fast as she would in a more limited curriculum. I've got a long list of books for us to explore. And if anyone has any suggestions for broadening elementary math, as opposed to going through it at light speed, please let me know.

[Nan in Mass]

That's why I said some of the emotional problems. Sigh. It certainly seems like there are plenty of ways to damage children, any children. I also know someone with a particularly low intelligence, and he, too, is aware that he is different and wonders why some people shun him and wonders if he will ever find a place he fits.

 

I agree it is about balance and that the balance is different for everyone so it is hard to discuss it. I agonize over finding that balance, even for my 22yo, even though my children aren't that bright. It is very difficult. I can't imagine having to make decisions with (or inspite of) a very bright or brilliant one.

 

-Nan

[Sahamamama]

My husband grew up with his ENTIRE family telling him over and over that he was a genius. When he got to Berkeley, he flunked out (as in, got kicked out) because all he did was ride his bike and play tennis. Then his father got him into medical school overseas, and he failed that, too. Then he came back to the US, got his own apartment, worked full-time, took a few classes (that he paid for), and started to grow up. But he was still immature when I met him -- he was 33 -- and has HAD to come a long way in a short time, in order to handle the responsibilities of marriage, children, college (he finished), career, bills, and a home. He has grown up, though, and I am proud of him for it. :001_wub:

 

But back to the question, what good is "genius," if it's not applied? :confused: In our home, we tell our girls that they are capable of learning and are expected to do what it takes learn -- spend time on task (but for them it's only a little time at this point). We assign them regular, daily chores, such as emptying the trash baskets and folding laundry and drying dishes and picking up toys (they are 3, 3, and 5, so we're just getting started). They are all bright, perhaps exceptionally so, but there is more to it than that!

 

There's a difference between being "gifted" and being "taught." I'd bet that many, many home educating parents begin to see their children as "exceptional" because they have taught their young children something meaningful (e.g., how to read, memory work, how to write a sentence) at an early age. It's probably okay to teach an eager child the rudiments of phonics at age three, but just because that child is TAUGHT -- and begins to read -- does NOT mean that child is GIFTED, in the sense of possessing an exceptional intellect. That child IS gifted, in the sense that someone cared enough to teach him to read and gave him the gift of reading, but a four year old who reads chapter books because he's been TAUGHT is not the same an intellectually gifted child, IMO.

 

My five year old read clear through Little House in the Big Woods and Little House on the Prairie when she was just four years old, but not because she's a genius. I love her dearly, and she is bright, but I don't think she's a genius. I live with everyone in this household, including myself, and I don't think any of us are! :lol:

 

FWIW, I think it's the rare 15 or 16 year old who is ready to head off to college. When I was in college, many years ago, we had a student (Rebecca) who had homeschooled and was there at age 16 (just like SWB did it). She was very studious and serious, and in a (strange) way, she was sweet, but also an absolute misfit. And I think her "otherness" at school made her defensive, from my limited observations....

 

There's so much to DO in this world, why rush through schooling? Maturity is a vital component of "getting an education."

 

It's like a crock pot, folks. You put the ingredients in, put the lid on, and set it on low -- but you've got to give it time! :D

Edited March 7, 2010 by Sahamamama

[Barb_]

FWIW, I think it's the rare 15 or 16 year old who is ready to head off to college. When I was in college, many years ago, we had a student (Rebecca) who had homeschooled and was there at age 16 (just like SWB did it). She was very studious and serious, and in a (strange) way, she was sweet, but also an absolute misfit.

 

Heading off to college and taking college classes while living at home are two very different situations. I don't believe anyone on this thread has argued for sending a younger teen to live away from home on a college campus. Not that it isn't done, but this this story really muddies the debate on this particular thread.

 

Barb

[Renee in NC]

Heading off to college and taking college classes while living at home are two very different situations. I don't believe anyone on this thread has argued for sending a younger teen to live away from home on a college campus. Not that it isn't done, but this this story really muddies the debate on this particular thread.

 

Barb

 

:iagree:

 

Also, there are early college situations out there set up specifically for young, gifted teens. It is different than "going off to college" yet provides opportunities for those who may not have access to a university or (decent) community college locally.

[Mergath]

There's a difference between being "gifted" and being "taught." I'd bet that many, many home educating parents begin to see their children as "exceptional" because they have taught their young children something meaningful (e.g., how to read, memory work, how to write a sentence) at an early age. It's probably okay to teach an eager child the rudiments of phonics at age three, but just because that child is TAUGHT -- and begins to read -- does NOT mean that child is GIFTED, in the sense of possessing an exceptional intellect. That child IS gifted, in the sense that someone cared enough to teach him to read and gave him the gift of reading, but a four year old who reads chapter books because he's been TAUGHT is not the same an intellectually gifted child, IMO.

:iagree: This is exactly how I feel. This perfectly sums up the situation.

[elizabeth]

Heading off to college and taking college classes while living at home are two very different situations. I don't believe anyone on this thread has argued for sending a younger teen to live away from home on a college campus. Not that it isn't done, but this this story really muddies the debate on this particular thread.

 

Barb

Quite true. I cannot begin to tell you how grossly inappropriate U of Iowa was for living on campus as a young , young lady. Fortunately on parents weekend my parents saw a young woman and her boyfriend going into a bathtub room together . Like in towels. At Burge dormitory. My RN mom quickly became obsessed with the concept of sterilization (of the tub, not me) and Pops had the intelligence to call an old med school buddy who owned an old house cut into apartments where I was promptly dispatched. I was too young, it was not workable, so I moved home and attended full time eventually moving onto campus. There were no mixed gender dorms or co bathing at the Jesuit university. Just drunk hacky sack tournaments. I have the shoulder dislocations to prove it. Gifted student my foot!!Far better than the" STD factory" at U of Iowa for this lady. I honestly have never seen my mothers face look quite like that ever again. Priceless. Poor dear she wanted to lecture the young couple heading into the bathtub area about safe sex practices and birth control. Thank God my father stopped her. The shame of it all.:lol: The upside of that experience is that of course I can factor that into guiding dd away from too much , too soon. We all do the best we can with what we know and I figure any mistakes I will make are still better more reasoned judgments than those dd would make for herself.

[Corraleno]

There's so much to DO in this world, why rush through schooling? Maturity is a vital component of "getting an education."

It's like a crock pot, folks. You put the ingredients in, put the lid on, and set it on low -- but you've got to give it time! :D

The problem is that for many gifted kids it's not "rushing." Telling them to "slow down" is like telling a hummingbird to slow down and fly like a robin ~ they are moving at the speed they are meant to move, and if you artificially force them to "slow down" you are preventing them from doing what is natural for them. Would people tell a student with severe learning disabilities to just "hurry up and act normal"???

 

There is a huge difference between pushing a child harder and faster than they want to go (which I think everyone agrees is a bad thing) and allowing a gifted child to go at their own pace, even if that pace is much much faster than what most people are capable of. The fact that so many people confuse those two things is a great source of frustration for parents of gifted kids ~ not to mention frustrating the kids themselves, who are frequently held back by teachers & administrators who don't understand the difference.

 

Jackie

[Sahamamama]

Heading off to college and taking college classes while living at home are two very different situations. I don't believe anyone on this thread has argued for sending a younger teen to live away from home on a college campus. Not that it isn't done, but this this story really muddies the debate on this particular thread.

 

Barb

 

I didn't say "live" there, I said "head off to" in the sense of taking classes. While there are a few colleges for young students, most colleges enroll students 18 and up. IMO, a 15 yo on a typical college campus is vulnerable, perhaps has less life experience, and is younger (by a few years?) than the majority of the students.

 

Sorry to muddy your debate.

[Sahamamama]

The problem is that for many gifted kids it's not "rushing." Telling them to "slow down" is like telling a hummingbird to slow down and fly like a robin ~ they are moving at the speed they are meant to move, and if you artificially force them to "slow down" you are preventing them from doing what is natural for them. Would people tell a student with severe learning disabilities to just "hurry up and act normal"???

 

Jackie

 

I agree with this for truly gifted students, but not for those whose parents simply pushed them through a course of study faster than average.

[Corraleno]

I didn't say "live" there, I said "head off to" in the sense of taking classes. While there are a few colleges for young students, most colleges enroll students 18 and up. IMO, a 15 yo on a typical college campus is vulnerable, perhaps has less life experience, and is younger (by a few years?) than the majority of the students.

 

Many of the gifted kids I know are more mature than many "normal" college kids. A lot of college freshmen act just like high schoolers ~ but worse, since they no longer have the legal & parental limits of under-18s. OTOH, many gifted kids think that kind of behavior is just as stupid in college as it was in HS. I was totally ready for college at 16, and I suspect my DD will be as well (when I asked her what she wanted for her 7th birthday last year she said "Boobies and a driver's license"). :lol:

 

Jackie

[Barb_]

I didn't say "live" there, I said "head off to" in the sense of taking classes. While there are a few colleges for young students, most colleges enroll students 18 and up. IMO, a 15 yo on a typical college campus is vulnerable, perhaps has less life experience, and is younger (by a few years?) than the majority of the students.

 

Oh. Well. Then I misunderstood your post, and now I just disagree with you. Really, a 14yo high school freshman is considerably more vulnerable on a high school campus with 18-20yo seniors who make it their business to prey on the newcomers. My daughter felt safe in college where socially she was generally overlooked at ages 14-15. By age 16, she carried herself like a seasoned college student and was mistaken for 19-20. At that point young men began asking her out, but by then they were only 2-4 years older. And she generally turned them down anyway :)

 

Barb

Edited March 7, 2010 by Barb F. PA in AZ

[Barb_]

(when I asked her what she wanted for her 7th birthday last year she said "Boobies and a driver's license"). :lol:

 

Jackie

 

:D Don't they all??

[Barb_]

My husband grew up with his ENTIRE family telling him over and over that he was a genius. When he got to Berkeley, he flunked out (as in, got kicked out) because all he did was ride his bike and play tennis. Then his father got him into medical school overseas, and he failed that, too....

There's so much to DO in this world, why rush through schooling? Maturity is a vital component of "getting an education."

 

It's ironic that you are arguing that maturity is a process best not rushed, but in the story about your husband, he failed to mature in spite of spending the usual number of years on his K-12 schooling. Maybe if he had been encouraged to work at his own level of challenge and begin his college coursework early, the story would have been different? Who knows? You may even look at this differently as your own children grow because you know what they say about apples and trees.

 

Barb

Edited March 7, 2010 by Barb F. PA in AZ

[Lovedtodeath]

I can easily see a teenager for whom early college entry would be just as bad as putting a 5 yr old into a traditional 3rd grade, despite it being a better academic fit. Conversely, I can also imagine a 5 yr old with a different personality than my DD who would do fine in a traditional 3rd grade.

 

I'm hoping and praying that WTM will have enough lateral "play" to keep DD busy exploring the world ancient and contemporary, and that she won't need to move forward quite as fast as she would in a more limited curriculum. I've got a long list of books for us to explore. And if anyone has any suggestions for broadening elementary math, as opposed to going through it at light speed, please let me know.

One can take college courses and/or receive college credits without "going to" college!

 

Can I get an Amen??? My favorite year in school was 5th grade ,I met another" quick study" so we were grouped together. After two grade skips in kindy and 1st , the teacher for 5th was kind enough to put a stack of spelling curriculum covering many levels, a self paced SRA reading program , math books for the next couple years and was gracious enough to leave us alone. Thank you Mrs Heuer !!!That was the only time I had a teacher get out of my way so I could progress at my pace until college and it was miserable. It is sad that many teachers have no experience or education with gifted/accelerated learners. They all say the same thing ,"I cannot teach this child differently from the whole class there is not time." That is the point, sweetheart, they do not need instruction for a long, long time....likely when they become specialists in their studies.

:iagree::iagree:Why not let your kids do college courses on their own instead of wasting their time going nowhere being held back in high school. UGH!

[RanchGirl]

All I've done is start a lively thread and keep poking at it.

 

Cheers,

 

 

asta

 

Why? Do you have spare time? I don't see the point in trying to "poke" people for a reaction or make blanket statements about things that are really best left to individualized parental decisions.

 

One of the advantages of homeschooling is that I can easily accelerate the academics to meet their intellectual needs, while finding situations that meet their social needs, and any other needs, all at the right level for each of them as individuals.

 

Accelerated academics does not equal pushing the kid too hard, or causing stress or cancer. It would be stressful, boring, and utterly soul-sucking to both of my sons to be forced to work below their level. It would cause behavioral issues and destroy their love of learning. Fortunately I'm their mom, so I get to decide, and I can customize their education to their needs as I see them. Unless given evidence to the contrary and asked for my opinion, I'll just assume all other homeschooling parents are doing the same!

 

A lot of these issues (health, immaturity, work ethic, etc., may have nothing to do with "giftedness" or accelerated academics.) As an example, Sahamamama mentioned her husband who was told repeatedly that he was a genius... that reminds me of the research on types of praise and how being told "you're a genius" can make a child stop working hard (I just read the book NurtureShock today which talks about research on this topic and other issues, some related to the giftedness label). Please don't misunderstand me, I don't know her husband or his family or feel in any way qualified to judge what might have caused or contributed to his issues, I'm just saying there are a lot of factors and we can't jump to conclusions or try to determine the appropriate academic level for someone else's child.

[asta]

Why? Do you have spare time? I don't see the point in trying to "poke" people for a reaction or make blanket statements about things that are really best left to individualized parental decisions.

 

 

No more time than anyone else who has responded. Or started spin-offs on other boards.

 

When you are a HG adult of a TE child, a lot of the schoolwork just "gets done" dontchaknow? It leaves time for other things. Like mom asking questions on teh internets, and kid playing his favorite video game. Or participating in a "murder mystery" dinner party with his friends. Or being the local semi-professional bagpiper (not pro - doesn't want to do the whole tax thing).

 

Besides, when both you and your kid are ASD, you tend to over-focus on things. :001_smile:

 

I guess statistics was the wrong word. Those particular 4 people lived in different places. I've met others. Correlation not implying causation and all of that... just an interesting anecdote.

 

Have a great Sunday everyone!

 

 

(PS: I was asking about the ages because I wanted to know who I might be able to PM with questions on a been there/done that basis - I'm sorry I missed your initial post, Barb, I'm in the middle of a medication change for my seizures.)

[Barb_]

Besides, when both you and your kid are ASD, you tend to over-focus on things. :001_smile:

.....

(PS: I was asking about the ages because I wanted to know who I might be able to PM with questions on a been there/done that basis - I'm sorry I missed your initial post, Barb, I'm in the middle of a medication change for my seizures.)

 

And gifted coupled with ASD gives you plenty of time to over-focus on things :D

 

As for the other, forgive me. I misunderstood your question as snark, but I see now none was intended.

 

Barb

[Nan in Mass]

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: If you put me in a train with two greens and one other rod, I make a blue, and if you put me together with one other rod bigger than red, we are bigger than orange. What am I? This example won't work - I have long since packed the rods away and can't remember the colours. My children never did that much with them, anyway. They were simple algebra problems, without the symbols. People like the Singapore Intensive Practice books, and the Singapore Challenging Word Problem books, too. There also are some nice books like The Number Devil which she can read.

HTH

-Nan

[Nan in Mass]

About the driver's licenses - no. In general, amongst my chidren's friends, the brighter ones are very, very reluctant to drive because they can imagine the dire consequences of getting distracted for a second, the potential for a life-long guilt burden or life-long physical burden. And they can imagine the dire consequences of other people getting distracted for a second and have a very dim view of the general population and more especially their fellow students and very especially jo shmo over there who revs his engine and cranes his head out the window at the girls on his way out of the high school parking lot and then races with his friend's car when they get to the straight bit. They've heard him boast about how drunk he got Saturday night. And they know they are going to be driving on the same road at the same time. Besides GRIN, they like having a chauffeur. It allows them to use the car ride as down time. I ferry a bunch of teens between 15 and 18 around. They hop in the car, pull their laptops out of their backpacks, and start sharing the latest funny pictures they've found or look up the rules involving the latest game strategy they thought up during a boring class or whatever. They are pretty happy being driven. As I keep saying, though, mine aren't brilliant.

-Nan

[Sahamamama]

It's ironic that you are arguing that maturity is a process best not rushed, but in the story about your husband, he failed to mature in spite of spending the usual number of years on his K-12 schooling. Maybe if he had been encouraged to work at his own level of challenge and begin his college coursework early, the story would have been different? Who knows? You may even look at this differently as your own children grow because you know what they say about apples and trees.

 

Barb

 

My point in the story about my husband was that he failed to mature because his family didn't place the emphasis on developing his maturity, but on boasting about his supposed genius (he's not a genius, BTW). ;)Telling him over and over that he was a genius didn't help him live a fulfilling life, but put him on a frustrating course of wondering why it didn't all come easily to him. My point was that if a family fixates on "genius" (as my husband's family did), to the exclusion of promoting basic maturity, it could backfire. And you're right -- not only did he not mature after K-12, but he didn't mature for years afterward, well into his thirties. His attitude was, "It should all just come to me, after all, I'm a GENIUS!" :tongue_smilie:

 

Obviously I'm not a genius, since I'm having a hard time figuring out what you disagree with in my first post. I didn't say, "I think that a 15 year old attending college is wrong." I said that IMO it's a rare -- not non-existent -- 15 or 16 year old who is ready for college in this country. It might not be rare overseas (where the culture supports it), or rare in some families (where acceleration is the norm), or rare in certain university towns (where the average IQ might be higher than the national average). Who knows?

 

But here, in this decidedly non-intellectual town, I look all around me and see 15 year olds with no other interests than (1) hanging out and (2) playing video games. They never read. They never study. Their responses to questions are mumbled monosyllables. They never DO anything. I can't imagine any of them doing well in 5th grade, let alone college, but your (exceptional) daughter did well there. IMO, her course of action is to be commended. IME, it is also extremely rare.

 

I feel as though you interpreted my post to mean I think it's wrong to attend college early, but I never meant nor said that. My point was that there might be more to consider in acceleration (at any level, even preschool) than the student's intelligence. We are dealing with that here, despite the young ages of our children. For instance, we have already been told by the school system that they have "no place" for our oldest daughter for Kindergarten in September. Huh? Can they even say that? :001_huh:

I do feel that early college readiness is uncommon (at least in the US), but not impossible to achieve. It may even be desirable for some students; in fact, for some I imagine it's the absolute only way to continue learning and growing. Check back in with us in 2020, and we'll probably have a daughter (15) in college, LOL! :D

 

While "early" college entry may be a blessing for some gifted/motivated students, IMO it shouldn't be the GOAL of all homeschooling parents -- as in, "Gotta get them into college at 15, early entrance means success." That should not be our mantra, but it may end up being our reality. OTOH, I agree with SWB, who states that there are other things bright, early HS graduates can do before entering college at early ages.

 

My personal story? When I was in fifth grade, school stopped making sense. I literally walked out the door and went home one day. After that "episode," I fought for the opportunity to learn at home, or with a tutor -- or to simply spend my school day in the library! But as far as my parents and the school were concerned, this was impossible -- it just wasn't done, or so they said. Looking back, I see what was lost, I see why school became a prison for me. It does lock us in, or it can. Homeschooling would have been a perfect fit for me, but alas, it didn't happen. The freedom of homeschooling is that parents of a child (at any level) can make the choices they believe are in their child's best interest.

 

I'm sorry if my post(s) offended you. Can we be at peace?

[Sahamamama]

As an example, Sahamamama mentioned her husband who was told repeatedly that he was a genius. I don't know her husband or his family...

 

Consider yourself fortunate! :lol:

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

I believe that all children should be complimented for hard work and not for being smart. I think that alleviates potential problems with being told that they are smart. I also think children should be appropriately challenged, but not pushed to do things that they are not ready for IMHO.

 

I do actually think that many children could be ready for college level work after 10th grade if they have a good, solid education which many homeschoolers are able to provide:) I truly believe that my grandfather who only received an eighth grade education in the 1920's had the equivalent of a high school degree today. I do suspect that education has been dumbed in our schools compared to 80-100 years ago:( I could be wrong, but after seeing old textbooks and reading various articles I believe that this may be the case. I also believe that the last 2 years of high school can be a waste for many children and that they would be better offer going to college or to vocational school IMHO. I think we have prolonged childhood in many respects.

 

 

My 2 cents:)

[Charles Wallace]

The problem is that for many gifted kids it's not "rushing." Telling them to "slow down" is like telling a hummingbird to slow down and fly like a robin ~ they are moving at the speed they are meant to move, and if you artificially force them to "slow down" you are preventing them from doing what is natural for them. Would people tell a student with severe learning disabilities to just "hurry up and act normal"???

 

There is a huge difference between pushing a child harder and faster than they want to go (which I think everyone agrees is a bad thing) and allowing a gifted child to go at their own pace, even if that pace is much much faster than what most people are capable of. The fact that so many people confuse those two things is a great source of frustration for parents of gifted kids ~ not to mention frustrating the kids themselves, who are frequently held back by teachers & administrators who don't understand the difference.

 

Jackie

 

Well said!

[MissKNG]

The problem is that for many gifted kids it's not "rushing." Telling them to "slow down" is like telling a hummingbird to slow down and fly like a robin ~ they are moving at the speed they are meant to move, and if you artificially force them to "slow down" you are preventing them from doing what is natural for them. Would people tell a student with severe learning disabilities to just "hurry up and act normal"???

 

There is a huge difference between pushing a child harder and faster than they want to go (which I think everyone agrees is a bad thing) and allowing a gifted child to go at their own pace, even if that pace is much much faster than what most people are capable of. The fact that so many people confuse those two things is a great source of frustration for parents of gifted kids ~ not to mention frustrating the kids themselves, who are frequently held back by teachers & administrators who don't understand the difference.

 

Jackie

 

:iagree::iagree::iagree::iagree::iagree:

 

(especially the bold stuff!!)

 

And it's especially frustrating if your child is younger.

[Charles Wallace]

I'd also like to question the validity of an assumption several posters are making here, the one between "gifted" and "well-educated."

 

The assumption so far has been that gifted is more of an inherent quality of potential intelligence or ability which exists whether or not it has been cultivated or challenged, while educated (or in its negative form, as "pushed") implies that the child has no inherent ability beyond the average, but has received training only and therefore appears to be more advanced compared to his peers.

 

To some limited extent, this may be true. A child who enters kindergarten knowing her ABCs may seem "gifted" relative to the child who hasn't, but obviously this difference gets cleared up within a year or so...or by the well-known cliché of third grade.

 

This may make it seem as if the same idea is true for the 13- or 14-year-old who can do calculus: that she or he has just been trained well, and that another thirteen- or fourteen-year-old, if also taught calculus, would do as well.

 

However, speaking as a teacher myself, please allow me to make a distinction between giftedness and training.

 

I teach many high school students who come in unable to write a simple sentence without making errors so egregious they should have been addressed literally in first or second grade: notions such as "Capitalize proper names, including your own," or "End sentences with punctuation of some kind" seem relatively alien to them.

 

Now, obviously I discuss these issues. I correct students' papers and require that the students redo them. I explain the problem and why it is a problem. However, there are some students who just simply do not grasp the concept no matter how many times it is explained to them. I have students who, even after we have been regularly using and discussing semicolons for months, still just throw them in randomly like decoration on an ill-planned Christmas tree, using them where even a comma would not be appropriate. Bottom line, they just do not get it. At least for now, although I hold out hopes that this will change, no repetition, examples, graphics, explanations, practice, lecture, student editing, or discussion can communicate the idea or make it stay.

 

On the other hand, I have students who need to be shown a concept one time, maybe twice, before they understand it. I have students whose ability to retain information is far superior to that of others, enabling them to make necessary connections between (for example) at the beginning of the course and what we are currently reading. Other students I teach have simply forgotten we ever learned The Odyssey, on which we spent a month.

 

I humbly submit that many of these kids who are ready for calculus at thirteen, college courses at twelve, and the like, are not just better-educated than their peers (although that is certainly the case), but because they are more intelligent. They are able to remember information they have been taught, and therefore they are able to proceed in their studies without endless repetition of concepts.

 

Though I'm sure there are "hothousers" out there who attempt to force-feed their children information, I'm also just as sure that their methods do no more than push a child to his or her potential...but not one jot or tittle beyond that potential. A child's mind can hold only what it can hold. 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.

 

Thanks for listening to my ROTD (Rant of the Day)

</rant out>

[Lovedtodeath]

And to that, Charles Wallace, I say, "Huzzah!"

[cougarmom4]

It's probably okay to teach an eager child the rudiments of phonics at age three, but just because that child is TAUGHT -- and begins to read -- does NOT mean that child is GIFTED, in the sense of possessing an exceptional intellect.

 

And what about the children you don't have to teach at all? What if they simply start reading...at age 3-4? How can you explain away their exceptional intellect? Do you still deny that these kids might be 'gifted'?

[Renee in NC]

And what about the children you don't have to teach at all? What if they simply start reading...at age 3-4? How can you explain away their exceptional intellect? Do you still deny that these kids might be 'gifted'?

 

They *might* be but early reading in and of itself does *not* equal giftedness. Neither does early math or early writing equal gifted. IQ scores at very young ages are often not considered as valid as scores from later testing.

[elizabeth]

Early reading not implying giftedness is a statement that I think needs qualification. Reading picture books at that age is" wonderful" and gets accolades and social acceptance from family and teachers. If you can read all the Harry Potter books or the Narnia series at 5 you might as well be a leper. There is no way that is not conclusively, obviously gifted. The level of vocabulary, ability to focus and use of phonics at that age is uncanny. And isolating beyond what you can imagine. Here is an excellent resource on every test imaginable, the best time to test , who should administer, and so on ad infinitum. http://www.hoagiesgifted.org/testing.htm

Many if not all the tests used today were not designed to identify gifted students and are grossly inappropriate for capturing genius as the celings are too low for most if not all of these tests. Stanford Binet is the only test that I know of that will capture an IQ higher than 145. Oddly enough that test was designed for identifying levels of mental disability as well.

http://www.gifteddevelopment.com/PDF_files/a10.pdf This is a great article for the use of proper tests to give an accurate picture of IQ. The schools here identify by ITBS scores. I kid you not. There is little to no correlation and certainly these tests were not designed for that purpose at all. The schools love to use them since they can essentially deem them to mean whatever the teacher or administrator needs them to mean. Example if they want to avoid mentioning mediocre levels across the board of one grade they will say that they district is over 50% PROFICIENT. That confuses people as that merely indicates that 51% scored above 30% on the test. It sounds like 50% performed very much at the average. They use the tests to lie and artificially bloat the actual status of the district.

[stripe]

Early reading not implying giftedness is a statement that I think needs qualification. Reading picture books at that age is" wonderful" and gets accolades and social acceptance from family and teachers. If you can read all the Harry Potter books or the Narnia series at 5 you might as well be a leper. There is no way that is not conclusively, obviously gifted.

I read an article about children who have some disorder, so that they read at an unusually young age, but have major other mental delays and problems. They are not geniuses.

 

I'll try to find some reference to this and post later.

[nmoira]

 

I read an article about children who have some disorder, so that they read at an unusually young age, but have major other mental delays and problems.

It's called hyperlexia. If you define reading as encompassing both decoding and comprehension skills, they're not really reading... at least not at anywhere near the level they are decoding. Most hyperlexic kids are on th autism spectrum.

[myfunnybunch]

I read an article about children who have some disorder, so that they read at an unusually young age, but have major other mental delays and problems. They are not geniuses.

 

It's called hyperlexia. It's often associated with autism-spectrum disorders. Typically, children with this disorder are not truly reading. They are merely able to decode the words without comprehension.

 

Early "reading" in hyperlexic children is different from early reading in a gifted child. A hyperlexic child might be able to sit down and read Harry Potter out loud to you, but will not understand the story or be able to use the words from the story in other contexts.

 

Cat

[radiobrain]

It's called hyperlexia. It's often associated with autism-spectrum disorders. Typically, children with this disorder are not truly reading. They are merely able to decode the words without comprehension.

 

Early "reading" in hyperlexic children is different from early reading in a gifted child. A hyperlexic child might be able to sit down and read Harry Potter out loud to you, but will not understand the story or be able to use the words from the story in other contexts.

 

Cat

 

I have never heard of this.

 

I was one of those odd little birds who taught herself to read at 2...and comprehend, understand punctuation, inflection and meaning. My parents have no idea how that happened. It was at least a high school level. Part of it I'm sure was an exceptional memory and a certain amount of logic and seeing patterns, and being able to decipher potential meanings from context. It didn't hurt that both my mother and father (and brothers) were hyper-intelligent/ talented. FYI, I couldn't teach my boys to read, as I had no idea how to, I just "knew" things.

 

I was identified when I was 8 or so (as the school I went to was full of "bright kids", they just let me in a year early. It was very difficult fitting in and I dumbed myself down pretty quickly. I have never fit in.

 

I am the classic gifted under-achiever. I could have gone to college at 15, but by then I didn't care. I never worked very hard, unless I wanted to. So, having that type of brain really means very little.. if you don't utilize it. I always said that I hated being as smart as I was, as I was smart enough to know I wasn't SMART enough... but too smart to be particularly happy. That doesn't make sense the way I would like, but oh well. :tongue_smilie:

 

I find the hyperlexic label intriguing. I can see where it could fall into the autism spectrum (just like amazing math ability, etc...) but is not ever always the case.

[lionfamily1999]

And to that, Charles Wallace, I say, "Huzzah!"

:iagree:

The problem is that for many gifted kids it's not "rushing." Telling them to "slow down" is like telling a hummingbird to slow down and fly like a robin ~ they are moving at the speed they are meant to move, and if you artificially force them to "slow down" you are preventing them from doing what is natural for them. Would people tell a student with severe learning disabilities to just "hurry up and act normal"???

 

There is a huge difference between pushing a child harder and faster than they want to go (which I think everyone agrees is a bad thing) and allowing a gifted child to go at their own pace, even if that pace is much much faster than what most people are capable of. The fact that so many people confuse those two things is a great source of frustration for parents of gifted kids ~ not to mention frustrating the kids themselves, who are frequently held back by teachers & administrators who don't understand the difference.

 

Jackie

:iagree: Well said.

[Corraleno]

I always said that I hated being as smart as I was, as I was smart enough to know I wasn't SMART enough... but too smart to be particularly happy.

 

That was me. Totally. It's like the curse of the highly gifted ~ being acutely aware of our limitations compared to PG people, but too smart to just "blend in" and not be affected by the idiocy of daily life. Life is so much easier for my PG DH, just puttering along in his own little world oblivious to everything else, LOL.

 

I used to feel like if I couldn't be PG (and change the world), then I'd rather just be "normal." And now, thanks to pregnancy, sleep deprivation, and middle age, I have my wish! :lol:

 

Jackie

[Sahamamama]

I'd also like to question the validity of an assumption several posters are making here, the one between "gifted" and "well-educated." The assumption so far has been that gifted is more of an inherent quality of potential intelligence or ability which exists whether or not it has been cultivated or challenged, while educated (or in its negative form, as "pushed") implies that the child has no inherent ability beyond the average, but has received training only and therefore appears to be more advanced compared to his peers.

 

To some limited extent, this may be true. A child who enters kindergarten knowing her ABCs may seem "gifted" relative to the child who hasn't, but obviously this difference gets cleared up within a year or so...or by the well-known cliché of third grade.

 

This is part of what I was getting at in my first post -- that a young child who has been taught something beyond the norm is not necessarily gifted, but has had the blessing of explanations, conversations, experiences, and direct teaching. For example, my just-turned five year old can read (she could right after she turned three). She reads with great expression and understanding. She asks wonderful questions and makes amazing connections about what she reads. She hears a new word, asks for a definition, hears it once, and remembers it forever (and uses it appropriately). When we are out in public, she picks up a chapter book, a birthday card, or a menu... and reads. People STARE and GASP and express SHOCK. "What's this? She reads? How old is she?"

 

The first few times this happened, I was surprised at people's reactions to a little reading child! :001_huh: I've even had to protect her from some inappropriate comments from strangers in Walmart. :tongue_smilie:"Why aren't you in school today?" And she politely says, "I'm only three years old. I don't go to school yet." And that person actually told her she was lying, because three year olds don't read! :banghead:

 

Don't people think that, perhaps, little kids can be taught to read? In our home we think it's normal (i.e., to be expected) that she reads, because we taught her to read, just as we taught her to speak and sing and dress and eat. She is bright, I don't doubt that, but profoundly gifted? I don't know, honestly. But she is ahead of many of her peers, and we chalk it up to her having been taught/read to/intentionally parented. Why do people therefore assume that this child is "gifted?"

 

I might really be dealing with a gifted child, I know that. I might be afraid of what that means, for her, for us, for her siblings (who seem the same way, but in other directions). But I also see something else that's "different" about my children, compared to some others around me:

 

Teaching.

 

Clear, daily, incremental, loving, gentle (I hope) teaching. Giving them something meaningful at an early age, offering more than TV/videos. Reading to them, talking with them, being intentional about early learning. I don't spend all day "doing school" with 3, 3, and 5 year olds! But they grow because we "work the soil, water, fertilize, and expose to sunshine." In other words, there's input, which I think directly impacts the output.

 

The children next door to us are 3, 6, and 8. The 8 year old seems to be the best of the lot, and I think that going to public school has been good for her -- it's probably the only time anyone says anything to her besides "G*d d@amn!t! Get your @$$ in here!" The 6 year old is so stunted in her development, she can barely speak. The 3 year old is one step up from feral. When these children arrive at K, where does the poor teacher begin?

 

I called the school system here and spoke with the Kindergarten registrar about my daughter, wondering about enrollment options in September. After finding out what this child is currently doing, the registrar said, "We don't let K'ers skip a grade, and we don't evaluate until the middle of first grade. We don't have Gifted and Talented until third grade, so, considering everything you've said about her, we really don't have any place for your child."

 

So, IMO, homeschooling (even if it's at an "advanced" level) is not "pushing" or "forcing" her, it's rescuing her from boredom and frustration.

[Sahamamama]

And what about the children you don't have to teach at all? What if they simply start reading...at age 3-4? How can you explain away their exceptional intellect? Do you still deny that these kids might be 'gifted'?

 

No, you miss my point. I'm saying that, because the "outside world's" expectation of a 4 or 5 year old is that he will NOT be reading, if we teach a 3 or 4 year old to do it, everyone says, "He's a genius." But he may not be a genius, just an average little kid with a teaching parent (or other teacher).

 

A three year old who "gets it" without being taught IS a genius.

[Sahamamama]

Early reading not implying giftedness is a statement that I think needs qualification. Reading picture books at that age is" wonderful" and gets accolades and social acceptance from family and teachers. If you can read all the Harry Potter books or the Narnia series at 5 you might as well be a leper. There is no way that is not conclusively, obviously gifted. The level of vocabulary, ability to focus and use of phonics at that age is uncanny. And isolating beyond what you can imagine. Here is an excellent resource on every test imaginable, the best time to test , who should administer, and so on ad infinitum. http://www.hoagiesgifted.org/testing.htm

 

 

Elizabeth, this is my daughter. Could you please read my previous posts on this thread and let me know what you think about her? Is she gifted, and if so, to what extent? And, if so, what do we DO about it!?!?! Thanks.

[DarlaS]

Asta...you are smart enough to know that anecdotes aren't statistics.

 

Barb

 

Except for my dad, everyone I can think of who has died in my family in the last couple of decades has died of cancer--and there are several survivors as well. It's cancer that's prevalent. None were gifted as far as I know.

[Melissa in Australia]

 

So as a parent, I can see the appeal of teaching a kid who's pretty bright to be driven. Or to drive them. To make them the second category of smart work horse. But to me - it's not something I want to do early. I will teach smart study skills. I will teach habits and independence and time management. I will - in high school - have strict standards on these things so the kids are ready for college. I have seen how study skills and work habits can translate to success - and I want that for my kids. In a healthy way. And when they are ready. It's a building process, and we'll do it step by step.

:iagree:. this is one of the greatest posts I have read.

I completely agree with you. hence, I drive my children. Now I see my bright very focused but not a genius ds nearly16 start to push himself. but boy it has taken an awful lot of pushing uphill from me.

[Capt_Uhura]

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.

[mcconnellboys]

I have a friend who has one who was in gifted ed and another who is autistic. Can you imagine how hard it is to have them at both ends of the spectrum? And then some larger families have all points in between, too....

 

And the reason I agreed with what Asta said about kids learning to live in the real world and get along with the rest of humanity is that this is really the only problem I see with the child I mentioned who is otherwise right where they need to be in college work, etc. This child has never had any level of tolerance for others their own age. Now, perhaps they will end up living in a world where that won't matter. Or perhaps this intolerance will just extend to most of those around them once they enter the adult world of work. I feel very uncertain about how this person is going to cope with mainstream people they encounter on a daily basis without a parent to run interference, etc....... I sort of fear that they will self-destruct at some point because they simply cannot tolerate those who are on par with them in everything at all times.....

[DarlaS]

In general, amongst my chidren's friends, the brighter ones are very, very reluctant to drive because they can imagine the dire consequences of getting distracted for a second, the potential for a life-long guilt burden or life-long physical burden.

 

That would be my 16 yo. He has his learner's permit, but I've got to poke and prod to get him behind the wheel. No delusions of immortality with this teen--and yes, he is and always has been quite obviously gifted (It didn't just magically go way when he turned 10. :tongue_smilie:).

[Charles Wallace]

They *might* be but early reading in and of itself does *not* equal giftedness. Neither does early math or early writing equal gifted. IQ scores at very young ages are often not considered as valid as scores from later testing.

 

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.