Socially, though, at this age the older kids may well shut your child out on grounds of size/appearance/voice/apparent maturity, regardless of intellectual capabilities. You can't assume they'll be generous and inclusive, and that's also hard to force.
The corollary is that you also can't assume the opposite without a trial.
Soapbox alert! (The remainder of this post is not directed at DeeDee...)
Tone at the top counts for a lot in group dynamics, particularly involving children. Exclusion and rejection need not be inevitable for young gifted children, the disabled, those belonging to minorities, etc if leaders of activities truly believe in, model, and enforce an attitude of equality among participants.
Frankly, I see our society paying these values of inclusion and tolerance lip service. When we don't like how someone fits in our group on the basis of a subset of arbitrary characteristics, like age, we create a separate group for them so they can be "separate but equal". But what message does that send to the child, and to the participants allowed in the group? It says that we don't need to yield to others. The ego is paramount. It says subtly that your value as a person is constrained by how others perceive and value you, because you are only desirable to the group if and only if your participation requires zero concessions (even financially costless social ones) on their part.
So, Marnie, I guess I join you with this gutteral "uuugh!" of exasperation!
