I just read a depressing article in the 2009 -2010 Education and Enrichment Guide from Bay Area Parent (BAP). For those of you not in the Bay area, BAP is a ubiquitous free parenting magazine. It's a major information source for day care and school listings.

The issue in question contains an article called Learning to Read, Reading to Learn (page 24). It starts off by talking about 2-4 year olds who learn to read. They talked to a couple of teachers from Spring Hill School in Santa Cruz, CA, which supposedly understands and nurtures gifted kids. One teacher talked about "magic readers" who enter kindergarten with "this phenomenal capabilty of reading." At first I thought, "Great!"

Then I kept reading:

"But here's the thing: as remarkable as their precociousness is, it typically fades as the years pass and their peers catch up with them --- usually by grade 4. "

Then it gets very special:

"And what starts out as a distinct advantage is usually relegated to a personal milestone. The child who learns to walk at 9 months isn't going to grow up to be a better walker or hiker or runner in the field than the child who didn't walk until he was 13 months. Such is the case with the early reader. 'By the time they're in fourth grade, the other kids have caught up to them and often even superceded them.' says Trish Melehan, who for many years taught kindergarten and fourth grade at Spring Hill."

This is depressing on so many levels: it has an ignorant quote from an apparent expert <ahem> with "many years" experience at a school described as being for "the advanced and gifted." The quote is in a ubiquitous free magazine. And BAP doesn't have an online forum for commenting on its articles.

You can see the article at http://www.flashedition.com/publication/?m=2676&l=1. You'll have to enter an email address, but a bogus one will work if you don't want to get on their mailing list!

FWIW, I'm about to send a mail (and a copy of A Nation Deceived) to the publisher of BAP. Her name is Gilda Fracchia and her email address is gilda.fracchia@parenthood.com. Maybe if a few people write to her, they'll publish another, more accurate article.

The email address of a person called "Local Editor" is jill.wolfson@parenthood.com and the article's author is sara.solovitch@parenthood.com.

Argh,

Val

I have mixed feelings about the article. It clearly didn't present gifted children accurately. On the other hand, the initial quote was from someone who teaches at a school for the gifted and advanced. So I took the quote to mean "among the gifted, an early reader isn't necessarily more gifted than a gifted child that doesn't read early". Among that population, you can't pick the early readers from not by 4th grade. And as the parent of a HG+ child that didn't really read before kindergarten, but shocked us by the end of the year, I could say that is true. I've met families in the GT community with children my son's age that read at 2 or 3 who DS9 has caught up with or surpassed.

However, the non-GT community is going to read this wrong and think EVERY child will catch up and be on a level playing field at 4th grade, which is obviously NOT true. I think the GT school's comments are completely out of context. Generally the message is good - kids (GT or ND) don't necessarily need to read early to be successful. I don't think they needed to target GT kids to get this message across! Definitely worth a note to the author. Thanks for posting this!

I think it would have been less bad if she'd been saying that, but the quote about early reading as a milestone makes me think that she was talking about all kids.

Either way, your note about people believing that the statement applies universally is spot-on.

How come no one ever says this stuff about gifted athletes?

Val

... I interviewed this school for Wolf. Let's just say that his needs mattered MUCH less to them than our income. They also did not seem to believe what I said he could do. I very much got the "Oh she's a pushy mom" feeling from them. I did not have a very positive reaction to the experience, so I *personally* wouldn't put much faith in anything that comes from that school.

The story is not about gifted kids. It's just saying that whether a child learns to read early or not does not have long-term consequences in their education. I agree with that.

I feel like early reading is such a tricky topic because there are so many different issues mixed up in it and everyone seems to read with their own slant. I've yet to see any article address all the issues in an honest, reasonable way, differentiating between taught and self-taught early reading, and between ND, MG, and HG kids, and acknowledging that generalities do not apply to every individual child. When I see articles like this one, it does trouble me because I know that people are going to come away with a wide variety of different ideas--some accurate and some totally, bizarrely wrong.

I think the contradictions are what disturb me the most. It seems the overall theme is that early reading doesn't matter; that parents who say their kids are early readers are often wrong or lying, or, worse, pushy; that other skills, like emotional development and pencil-holding are more important for academic success; and that you can encourage your child to be an early reader by __________. Um...wait, I thought it didn't matter?

Ouch. It's such a bummer when you think you've found a great school, only to be let down like that.

So sorry.

I think what bothers me the most is watching a silly idea like "the other kids all catch up by [insert grade]" get perpetuated right in front of my eyes like that. How obvious can the reality of the situation be? I mean, a kid enters kindergarten reading at a third grade level and hasn't apparently improved by third grade and no one thinks it odd that she hasn't learned anything in three years? No one thinks that maybe, just maybe, forcing her to put her finger on the letter B and sound out words like c-a-t mightn't be a problem?

Val

It seems to me that there's another way to interpret the data that the kids who read early are surpassed in 3rd or 4th grade. Were these kids given sufficient academic challenge early on? Did they learn "how to learn" like the other kids did? In my opinion, if not, then they're at a disadvantage starting in 3rd or 4th grade when the curriculum becomes more challenging and they don't know how to deal with that.

"And what starts out as a distinct advantage is usually relegated to a personal milestone. The child who learns to walk at 9 months isn't going to grow up to be a better walker or hiker or runner in the field than the child who didn't walk until he was 13 months. Such is the case with the early reader. 'By the time they're in fourth grade, the other kids have caught up to them and often even superceded them.' says Trish Melehan, who for many years taught kindergarten and fourth grade at Spring Hill."

I read this to mean that by fourth grade there was no advantage to the kids who learned to read at 2 over those who learned to read at 6. Obviously, some kids will be reading better than others, but it's not necessarily the ones that learned to read early who will be ahead.

Inserting my own personal bias against teaching babies to read and toddlers phonics ... but it is big business to prep kids for kindergarten. Not surprising that schools are not impressed by parent claims and take a wait and see attitude.

I agree with some of the other posters that the problem here seems to be the failure to differentiate between gifted and normally developing kids. I've read somewhere (wish I could remember where) that the gap between gifted and normally developing kids only widens over time, and I've definitely seen this with my son. He read easy readers at 2 with no formal instruction and is now reading 5th and 6th grade material fluently with comprehension at age 4. As a result of his early reading and advanced comprehension, he entered kindergarten with an expansive knowledge base that also gives him a huge advantage in things like science and social studies. His teacher has commented that he makes great contributions to class discussions and that his classmates learn from him. Unless you took all books away from him for a few years, I honestly don't see how his classmates could catch up at this point, given his huge head start. For example, I doubt any of the other kids in his kindergarten class (who are all older than him) have read Greek myths, while he's already committed dozens of Greek heroes and stories to memory and refers to them in unrelated contexts. By the time his classmates get around to the same stories years from now, DS4 will presumably have long since moved on to other things.

Maybe normally developing kids who read early don't comprehend or retain the information they're reading the way gifted kids do? Or maybe they can read, but don't have the same passion for the knowledge imparted by reading that many gifted kids show? Otherwise, I don't see how there can't be some lasting advantage.

I think there's a subtle point many parents will miss when they read "their peers catch up with them-usually by grade 4." Most parents will probably think of peers as age-mates instead of intellectual-mates. If the child is just as bright as the early reader then I agree with her statement. Unfortunately, many people will miss this distinction and it's more fodder for the early reader=pushy parent assumption.

Another part of the article that concerns me is this quote by Keplinger (Palo Alto School District - Parent Education)
While I agree with the importance of those things, I'm afraid the statement will be used as justification to deny letting asynchronous gifted children work at their appropriate levels. The "no protein unless you eat your broccoli" analogy comes to mind.

I also agree with Ms. Friz about the advantage of an extensive knowledge base that early readers can develop. I think of that knowledge base as providing hooks on which to hang new knowledge. If there isn't a hook to hang the new knowledge, it may not take.

I have to disagree with the walking analogy. Almost all top athletes showed enormous physical talents at an early age. Sehorn and Tillman are prime examples. Both men's mothers have extensively documented this. Both mothers also pushed their sons and sacrificed for them.

Here is an example.

"When when Jason [Sehorn] was a toddler, Nancy told people that he was going to be an Olympic star. When he was four, she put him on a large girl's bicycle and couldn't get over how he shifted his little body from left to right as he pumped the pedals, saying, "I can do this, I can do this, I can do this." Nancy bought Jason a nine-dollar skateboard when he was six and watched in awe as he glided along the street."

Tillman was doing ab rollers before he could walk. I've read his biography and it is stunning what he did at an early age.

So I would say the teacher has no empirical evidence to back up what she was saying. The analogy is wrong, too.

I have to disagree here as well. Mr W is learning patience and fine motor skills because he wants to learn more - playing with the keyboard, waiting for screens to change, sharing time on the TV with us, sharing reading time with us, learning how to use the remote, spending time reading on his own at daycare while other kids do their thing, and then changing his focus to do other things when he is engrossed in his toys. He also helps around the house.

If he was an ND kid, he would not play with all these things or encounter conflicts or develop helping skils like this until later - so he is learning other life skills at an earlier age.

So, again, I have to disagree with the "experts."

They do not see gitedness as connected to other things - they focus on one skill - and not on how this skill lifts up others. Their model of child development is flawed.

Hi - I'm new to this forum, but I just had to comment to agree with Val. My feeling is that not giving early readers more challenging material in school might have a great deal to do with them losing their edge.

I'm in a frustrated mood right now because my first-grade son's teacher is stifling his advanced interests and skills by requesting that he not write about, say, the periodic table or neutron stars but rather what he did yesterday. He was an early, self-taught reader and is still three years or so ahead of his age peers in fluency and comprehension. His wide reading means he has a good grasp of all kinds of more advanced subjects. The GATE program at this school doesn't kick in until 4th grade and I don't think we should have to wait another three years before the school will help foster my son's special abilities. He's ready NOW. Grrr.

Thanks for listening.

I agree with the critics here, especially that the model of child development as a one-size-fits-all concept is flawed.

I don't really understand why a child can't learn to read until s/he's reached a certain level of "emotional growth." Questions:

1. How is emotional growth defined?

2. Who defines the appropriate level of "emotional growth" required for reading?

3. How is it measured?

4. Do we hold people back until they reach the required level?

Poking holes in vague statements like the one above is trivial. Yet too many educators stick to them and don't want to listen to criticism.

I had a terrible time persuading DS9's 2nd grade teacher that using him to teach other kids was bad for him. She saw the situation only from her perspective: "I was taught to use my best students." The idea was that the best students tutor struggling students while the teacher works with other kids.

She totally failed to see the practice from DS9's perspective: he wasn't allowed to learn new things or do his 5th grade math problems because he had to tutor someone. I tried explaining it to her this way, but she kept going back to what she'd been taught. I eventually wrote a cease-and-desist letter to the principal.

Val

Did you ask her, all nice and smiley, WHY?

If it was a single assignment to write about what he did yesterday, followed by everyone reading their "essays" aloud, her mandate makes sense. But if she's just trying to get the kids to practice writing, it doesn't make sense.

Have you tried writing to her and requesting a conference?

Argh. Sorry.

Val

Hi, Val -- no, not yet... my son just gave me the news yesterday. The assignment is a daily journal, for writing practice. When he writes about his day, it's usually something like "I played outside. I had fun." When he writes about what he's interested in, it's more like, "Atoms are too tiny to see. The parts of an atom are: protons, neutrons, electrons. Protons and neutrons are in the very center of the atom..." etc. So, he is getting much more practice and the quality is so much better when he's inspired. He even writes more neatly!

So, my next step is to talk to his teacher. I guess I also need to get him tested or something... I am just getting started with this educational advocacy thing... glad I found this forum... I will check out the resources here.

Well, then he can write about what he thought about.

DS6 can write about whatever he wants in his daily journal in K. The purpose is to practice writing and to learn new words. Maybe your son's teacher just never thought about the fact that such a narrowly defined assignment wouldn't work for everyone. I do wish they didn't have to draw a picture with each entry since ds gets distracted by having to do the 2 tasks and he just needs to focus on the writing.

OO-OOh. Good one.

Val

It's been a while since I read this. May not be appropriate for kids, but it IS appropriate in the context of a GT kid awakening to their gifts, then having them squashed. Many think that its an allegory on special ed, but its also an allegory on the development of unusual abilities.

Maybe he can read it and write on it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flowers_for_Algernon

ha... excellent... thanks!

I actually agree that reading can be just a milestone, but certainly not that it always is (or even usually is!). This is why Ruf levels never make any sense to me because they depend so much on early milestones that are dependent themselves on oodles of inputs, many which seem only vaguely related to giftedness. I can't imagine *any* early milestone being universal for HG kids. I can't even find any "universal" in my own house with multiple different kids. I accept that some kids aren't interested in reading, some may not have visual control developed enough to read early, and some may not have access to books and Sesame Street or Blue's Clues. Some kids like things like puzzles more and develop in ridiculously advanced ways but not necessarily text related.

But . . . . . for one of my early readers, others catching him by 4th grade cracks me up. He was junior high level in K, past high school by early 2nd grade and the gap widens daily. Another HG kid learned to read at 2 without instruction because he likes to crack codes. He learned time and money, math, etc., for the same reasons very, very early. He's a gifted learner, but I expect many MG kids will read better by junior high. He tests way above grade level, but so do lots of kids who learned to read at 5 or 6. DD learned to read in school and now reads considerably above grade level. I just don't see how early means better in walking or reading or math or anything. For some kids, it indicates some serious ability. In some kids, it's just speedy decoding or parental pushing or rich environment or great decoding.

I'd be inclined to think the same thing is true of athletes and thought that kind of thing was generally accepted. I'd guess most Olympic gymnasts walked before average age, but most kids who walk at 9 months don't end up to be Olympic gymnasts and others do catch up. That doesn't really mean much since it doesn't tell you that your kid walking at 7 months will be a fabulous gymnast any more than reading at 2 predicts a PhD or Nobel.

Kids seem to develop at different rates. I find where they end up far more interesting than how they start, and I suspect many late bloomers develop at astonishing rates once they get going. My kids learned to walk at different times but they all walk well now and the same is true for reading.

Great post! Totally agree.

I agree that any one or two or even several milestones reached early mean nothing in and of themselves. I think LOTS of milestones reached early can be an indicator of GTness.

I think Ruf helped me personally because she offers concrete groups of milestones that work together to indicate just how "serious" the giftedness is. If the milestones indicate level 4, that's a different scenario than if they indicate level 1 or 2. I thought I had a level 2 kid; the milestones said he was a level 4 kid. That opened my eyes, and they needed to be opened.

I don't think her levels are the final word on giftedness, anymore than I think one test is the final word on giftedness. But I think milestones are one more tool that can be useful in seeing kids as completely as possible so that their needs can be met. More tools are better than fewer.

The danger I see in milestones is if they lead people to think that a given child is *not* gifted because s/he didn't do everything early. That's problematic.

As for the article, at least they gave the kids an extra year. Usually they say everyone catches up by 3rd grade...

TOTALLY agree! As someone who flew under the GT radar until late high school/college, I have a special place in my heart for HG+ kids that are underachieving. My 2 kids (1 HG+, other TBD) have little natural work ethic. They expect everything to just fall in their laps. DS works comfortably 3-6 years ahead of grade level with prodding from me a couple hours a day, could easily do more, but would much rather re-read comic books. He does a little dramatic play every time I expose him to a new math concept, and is doing it without effort 5 minutes later. I shudder to think where he would be right now had he not been IDed in his PS kindergarten class. He is much better than when we first started HS.

My son started reading at 2, was reading fluently on a first grade level at 3, was reading fluently on a third grade level when he started kindergarten, and after vision therapy during kindergarten was reading on a fifth grade level. Now in second grade he reads on a solid middle school level overall and at an adult level in areas of interest.

I fail to see how his more average peers are going to catch up with him by fourth grade.

They must be doing something wrong at Spring Hill School if their precocious readers start to fall behind by grade four.

LOL! That's my kindergarten days to a T...and so true generally. If people are "catching up" to early readers, something's gone wrong.