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.