Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums General Discussion Unnecessary angst over early reading?

I am wondering if Ruf's LOG and their emphasis on early reading (what I personally view as overemphasis) has started to create unnecessary angst and perhaps hothousing of reading skills among the toddler/pre-school parent set. Or do you think this has always existed. It just seems like recently I keep coming across posts, conversations, emails, etc. where people feel like if their children are not reading by age [fill in the blank] they can't possibly be gifted, and that bums me out, because first, I think pushing isn't a good thing (of course I am all for child lead learning) and because I think there are plenty of gifted kids of all levels who don't fit into her LOG list.

I really like Dr. Ruf, but I am growing increasingly skeptical of the LOG early signs (not the fact that LOG exist) as well as the need to figure out at such an early age just where a child falls on the scale.

What do you think?

PS - this is intended to be a polite conversation about an interesting topic that I worry causes some parents to stress.

Cat

I don't think Ruf's LOG is causing the unnecessary angst, but it isn't helping. For whatever reason, when I read that section, it made sense to me this way: It isn't that reading is the only qualifier for giftedness, it's that reading is a very complicated skill, and a child who figures it out on their own at age 2 or 3 or 4 didn't just learn 'by accident.'

My son is PG by Davidson standards, but not an early reader. I think some kid's just don't have the physical coordination to get their eye muscles tracking that early. But my son was a 'deep thinker' and the Ruf book got me to believe that it wasn't just 'by accident.'

A friend of mine told me at the time, 'well, you like to talk, so it's to be expected that DS5 likes to talk too.' It didn't even occur to the friend that what was remarkable was the level of abstract though in what my child was saying. To her, it was all just 'baby babble.'

Ruf's perspective was much more valuable that that. When I first read her book, I had been thinking 'well, my child is ahead at talking, but other kids will catch up later while he is consentrating on developing in other ways.' Even in first grade, the teacher was saying he had an 'attitude problem' (not those exact words, but that's what it boiled down to) and when I asked if just possibly it was because the academic fit wasn't right for him, she rolled her eyes at me and assured me that that wasn't the problem.

So as long as teachers are willing to tell parents of 6 year olds that their child has an 'attitude problem' I think it's great that there is a hand-dandy book availible with checklists for parents to read while they are waiting for those testing dates to get nearby.

Do I agree that parent's should try to resist the temptation to loose perspective about it - yup! I'd love a big stamp for the book that says - if you recognize your child in any of these levels, then you are probably correct. If this book doesn't fit your kid - disregard it!

Love and More Love,
Grinity

IMHO- a child who learns to read very early (I'm going to say early as 3 or earlier) on his/her own and without heavy hothousing, is very likely to test gifted later. But that does not exclude a child who does NOT learn to read early from being gifted. I think Ruf overemphasizes it because it's an "eye-popper" if your 2 year old is reading in the grocery cart. It's the kind of easily identifiable thing that jumps out to parents and other people.

My now DYS 8 year old learned to read in BOB books at 4 1/2. He was reading chapter books 6 months later when he started K. By 1st grade, he was reading at a 6th grade level. By the beginning of 3rd (with a mid-year skip in there) he was reading at a high school level.

I also tend to disregard Ruf's signs for him because he was a heavily medicated preemie who basically looked like a loaf of bread until about 6 mo. old when he came off the medication. His timeline was all his own. But he went from barely making noises to speaking paragraphs at 14 mo.

I also think that some things are over-emphasized in the way that Ruf's Levels are presented, although I agree that the whole concept is very useful to get people thinking about the large differences between individual gifted people. I've picked up on some increased emphasis on early learning on discussion boards, and think that Ruf's Levels are part of the reason, but only part. Other factors may include:

1. Increased exposure to printed material means kids are likely to read earlier. It's partly just a cultural effect driven by the Internet, TV with more printed words than in the past, etc.

2. Educational toys and media are now geared towards reading in greater measure than in the past. This can have effects including causing kids to read earlier on their own, as well as encouraging parents to think more about reading (encouraging it and simply noticing it).

3. Some educational programs, like the Your Baby Can Read and various flavors of "create your own little Einstein" DVDs, etc., tack on an emphasis on reading early, sometimes with the explicit goal of jacking up intelligence.

4. Parents may compare their child's milestones to their own reading experiences growing up. If they remember accurately, cultural effects may cause a difference to be noticed with their own children, but they may attribute it to an intelligence difference. If they're the sort of eager parents who "err on the side of early" in assessing their kids and remembering milestones, and they don't think of themselves as being anything special, they might be even more likely to think that they have an extremely unusual reader.

5. There's almost certainly a good deal of confusion on the part of laypeople on how much early reading actually figures into the overall ability for abstract thought. Ditto on how much milestones really matter in the end (here I think that Ruf's Levels may have had a stronger impact on the parents of children who are considered to be gifted).

6. Gifted kids are more likely to read even earlier and at higher levels compared to their age peers.

7. Angst-ridden parents at the local playground will compare notes. Now the mix of notes includes those on reading in ever-greater measure.

I could go on, but you get the idea. I think that at least here in America, due to the onslaught of promotional materials aimed at increasing intelligence and early performance, a focus on hothousing and intelligence in general, and what I call the "IQ cult" is on the increase. To some extent Ruf's Levels have tapped into this phenomenon and become part of it, but it's not all due to Dr. Ruf.

I recently learned of Ruf's LOG and was curious to see where my son landed in it. We are first-time parents, and have had very limited exposure to young children, so didn't know that his speaking in four and five word sentences was unusual at two.

I understand her LOG is saying most of the indicators need to be present for a child to later be identified with that I.Q. level. Reading was just one out of many skills researched.

As for hot housing, I'm thinking that definitely goes on. It seems like parents do more Red Shirting and pushing their kids into things like Gymboree, Little League, etc., also.

Angst? I don't know if the majority who hot house their children do so because of that emotion. I think it's overall competitiveness in adults today to have the cutest, most athletic, brightest child in their circle of friends. Very much like having the latest technology, nicest house & car, and designer clothing.

The makers of Baby Einstein and Your Baby Can Read have capitalized on that greediness for superiority. They saw a market and filled it.

I don't believe you can make a child gifted who isn't...regardless of what the ads say.

Here's a good overview of Ruf's Levels:
http://www.nagc.org/uploadedFiles/PHP/PHP_Articles/Gifted%20or%20Highly%20Gifted.pdf

Here's where I read about it: NAGCBritain.org

Great points, I appreciate hearing your thoughts.

One point: "I don't believe you can make a child gifted who isn't...regardless of what the ads say."

I agree with this in part, but we certainly do know that having good pre-natal health, childhood nutrition, being read to, and having a stimulating and verbally rich environment makes a huge difference for young kids and their IQ - so while I would agree that you prob. can't make a kid gifted, you can def. increase their IQ (although heck knows you don't need Baby Einstein to do so). (I didn't mean for this to veer into a nature vs. nurture debate, so hopefully this won't be taken that way.)

Just to add from one of those early reading angst parents... Having one kid in middle school and a youngster coming up...reading level seems to be an indicator when entering school and can make life a bit easier that one is not a pushy parent if the child can clearly show early reading......

I don't hothouse but I do feel an urgency that the little one can have a way of showing her ability that is easily identifieable by who ever I need it to be identified by when the time comes....

My middle schooler's SAT scores have talked many more miles and opened up many more doors than anything else has from the school personnel. They understood those numbers.

I think early reading is similar...it is something that the elementary teachers understand as advanced...more so than say an IQ level and what that really means.

Sorry if this is repetitive, just not sure how clearly it comes across what I am trying to say.

When I first read Ruf's levels, I actually didn't notice an emphasis on early reading but that may because I was looking for things my daughter WASN'T doing in order to convince myself she wasn't gifted. My DD5 taught herself to read by 2.5 so that aspect of development was clearly in one of RUF's high LOG, but then there were other things that she wasn't doing at the same level so I noticed those more, and didn't just make the assumption that she was gifted or any particular level based on reading ability alone.

My three year old is just at the sounding out of very simple words level at almost three and a half, more than a year "behind" my firstborn who really skipped sounding out words and just seemed to know them all by some strange magic, but I am not feverishly trying to hothouse her to "catch up" since I know the first was just wired for language / reading in ways my second one isn't though she is very bright and verbal. I think of my second as very normal, but I really don't know what is normal for these ages.

I have a mother who keeps asking me to tutor her five year old in reading skills based on seeing how my girls read. How's that for hothousing?



.