|
0 members (),
110
guests, and
14
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
|
|
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
31
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 2,498
Member
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 2,498 |
I doubt that parent would be as likely to pick up that book, you know? Everything Pass the Potatoes has said, and what Kriston said about identifying 2E kids, speaks strongly to my experience. The parent's picking up that book and putting it down again isn't the worst of it. Can you imagine the scenario of school staff reading that book and using it to exclude kids who don't meet the milestones from the "gifted" label? Arming the school with this kind of information that doesn't include the caveats PtheP mentioned leaves the 2E gifted with even more hurdles to overcome in negotiating the school identification process. I'm all for meticulous research that includes not just the typical gifted (I know, ha ha) but also the outliers. DeeDee
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 687
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 687 |
This might cheer you up, PTP: Perhaps because her program doesn't have much more information than her list of milestones did, it seems she's removed the list from her website. Thanks for sharing that gem No5no5. I appreciate that.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,134
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,134 |
I guess, I'm surprised by this. This is completely anecdotal but I do have some friends whose kids had delays... none of them went in the direction of giftedness (at least that I know of). I'm curious... what made you think to pick up books on giftedness/Einstein syndrome? Was there giftedness in your family or where there some signs that might have been but weren't something as obvious as what Ruf discusses (stuff like early talking/reading etc.)? I guess, if DD had had delays in the beginning it's not something I would've thought of (then again, I knew very little about giftedness before having DD). Just from another prospective. I never knew DS was GT until the end of kindergarten, at which time I started reading books. I got Ruf from the library shortly thereafter. And keep in mind, my child did hit the ceiling of a screener at school, but has never been fully tested by an expert. So had I JUST picked up the Ruf book with my selective memory and hard grading, I would have pegged my kid level 1 or 2. Lucky for me I have that GT OCD syndrome, that forced me to read 20 books and spend hours researching this topic on the web. Honestly, I haven't even been comfortable calling my kid approaching PG until the past year where he pretty consistently hit some very high scores on achievement levels a few times (at age 9). And we run a pretty laid back homeschool in these parts.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,085
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,085 |
The second issue does touch on whether "they all even out." I don't think they do, but I don't think relative positions are fixed at 6 months or 6 years either. Katelyn'sM om, from your descriptions of your DD, if we lined up 100 kids at 12 months, my DS would have shown development in the bottom 5% and your DD would clearly be at the top. If we looked at them again at 2 years for just verbal development, my DS wouldn't be quite so low and your DD would still be amazing. By the time my DS took an IQ test at 6, it is impossible to score higher than he did verbally (without looking at extended scores), so he's changed relative positions a LOT. I believe that your DD will still be precocious and advanced at 4 or 8 or 12 or 20, but she might not have the same exact relative position since other kids are late-bloomers or slow to get started or on a different trajectory altogether. They don't all even out because someone is always in the 99th percentile on whatever measure! But I'm not sure that's always the kid one would have predicted from looking at 1 yo or 3 yo or 10 yo or 15 yo. I guess I see the asynchrony that most agree is common in HG kids as extending to development too. Just as a kid with capacity for abstract math can forget his lunch box nearly daily, another kid with incredible verbal capacity receptively can have relative delays in expressive capacity, or delays in motor development but not abstract concept formation, or just be a bit lazy in exploring his environment, or have a cautious personality that leads to observation rather than efforts at doing, etc. Ultimately, I see Ruf's work as operating from a fixed theory of intelligence and I don't share that assumption. I think early milestones don't work because they assume that one snapshot in time predicts what kids look like at another snapshot in time. Watching my own kids develop, they do it so unevenly that their relative positions compared to other kids seem quite fluid. One of my kids suddenly made a giant leap in chess this year after a year or two of fairly lackluster development. Some kids work harder. Some have inadequate nutrition that hampers brain growth. Some learn more through self-motivated activity and develop their brains through cultural advantages, choosing to go to math camp, or ferocious learning to keep up with an older sib or share an interest of a parent. The nervous system continues to develop and change (and, sadly at my age, weaken  ) over time in ways that don't seem fixed to me. An IQ test gives a one-day estimate that relies on performance of particular tasks as a substitute for what we think is intelligence and then assigns relative rank for performance on those tasks. It seems to me that those ranks would be subject to change over time, so it's hard for me to think that a kid could *be* a level 3 as an ongoing label starting literally from birth. Isn't that a little like saying that the best runner was the one that ran first as a toddler rather than evaluating this as an ongoing process? Wow lots of posts to read since this morning. Gratified: I don't disagree with you, in that there are late bloomers and Ruf doesn't really account for this with her levels of giftedness. I have never argued against this reasoning but only offer that her study has some truth because I happen to have one of those infants/toddlers that matches up to her lists. I could almost use the book as a checklist for everything we were experiencing and because of that along with the stories the parents shared I finally had my wake up call. Before that I really had no idea what to make of it and was literally looking up issues on the spectrum freaking out and wondering if this is why my child was so abnormal in comparison to what I see and read. Milestones were a joke for me. I remember looking at them when DD was only 2 weeks old and laughing out loud at the absurdity of the lists because she had mastered all the milestones up to 3 months. I figured they were useless information and must be for the parents who had seriously delayed infants so they wouldn't worry. Sounds awful but is really what I thought. My grandmother was the one who kept pointing out how smart DD was and I kept rolling my eyes thinking of course you think that ... she is your great-grandbaby. So it wasn't until running a search on autism and a few others that I stumbled upon gifted which led me to this site. And when someone suggested Ruf's book I ordered it and read it and finally found some logic to what I saw. Do I think she has all of the answers? No and I completely agree that she overlooks a huge component in the gifted community: 2E, but I appreciate that she includes the infancy and toddler information. Before realizing that gifted is a term that doesn't start with school programs (yep that is what I thought it was for) we were set to send DD to local public school. We now realize that would not be in her best interest and absolutely love the school we discovered and she is very happy and growing there. Now would I jump to the conclusion that you seem to have that my DD will flatten out? No, I don't. She will soon be 4 and her verbal skills are still growing. Her abilities are that of an adult. Even adding a second language hasn't slowed that down. We still see a vast difference in her verbal and that of a typical 4 or 5 year old. But she isn't only gifted in verbal. She is advanced across the board and we have all heard the bragging parents claims and what they focus on as 'brilliant' but I don't look at the typical tell tale signs. My focus is more on her sense of humor and quick wit; crazy imagination and over the top cognitive skills. These are the things that impress me and for me anyway ... are signs of giftedness. But your right about kids who start late and grow leaps and bounds and will end up with the same IQ range as someone like my DD who showed signs from the start. I fully believe that every child is different and this means they all develop at their own pace.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 6,145
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 6,145 |
There is no book that can adequately "diagnose" all gifted kids as gifted. Ruf's book resonated with enough of us--warts and all--that I get very nervous when people start sounding like they want to throw out the baby with the bathwater.
I'm not persuaded that the milestone list does more harm than good, but it worries me that it might. As the mom of one child who fit Ruf's levels (DS9) and one HG+/2E kid who does not (DS6), I can't really imagine reading one book, saying "well, that's not it," and giving up. The stuff DS6 is doing is too weird. I'd need more of an answer than that. So I have trouble imagining that anyone would really give up that easily. But I also realize that my experience and approach are not everyone's.
I don't think we need to assume that all newbies are idiots though. Sometimes it sounds like that's what's happening on this topic, and I don't think we have to do that. Nothing will work for everyone. This works for some people. It's one tool among many. Anyone who blindly follows the first book they pick up on this topic is in trouble no matter which book they pick!
I'm less sure that the website is a useful tool. I think I'm not 100% sure what the point is. It seems like the marketing is too aggressive, and I don't like that. As a babystep tool to help newbies, that might be okay--not ideal, but a starting point. But given the marketing, I fear it's just a moneymaker, and I don't like that. Psychologists are entitled to make a living, but there's a line there between getting the word out and exploiting people who don't know any better. I worry that the website might cross that line.
Kriston
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 146
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 146 |
Quite interesting. I read her book last fall after considering it for few months. It did not help me much. I guess I'm too perfectionist to place DD on any level. She seems clearly more than 2 but not 5. Lot of Dr. Rufs level are based on things that are not very clear like: What kind of books (soft, board, normal) she means, what kind of puzzles and familiar or new puzzles? What does she mean adult level complexity in speech (at 3 DD speaks very well two languages but I obviously speak better at 30 so does that mean it is not adult level if I'm better) What does playing with shape sorter mean? DD played with one at 6mo when she got it as a gift but I don't think she could do it yet. What if you don't have a tv or believe that babies should not watch any. I basically had issues with most of the milestones as they are not clear to me. I could give different answers depending on what I decide she means (or how gifted I think DD is ). Maybe her theses would give clearer descriptions and seem more scientific from the methods point of view.
I checked the website and it said you can use the test for very advanced 3 year olds without saying what it means.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 2,172
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 2,172 |
I don't think we need to assume that all newbies are idiots though. Sometimes it sounds like that's what's happening on this topic, and I don't think we have to do that. Nothing will work for everyone. This works for some people. It's one tool among many. Anyone who blindly follows the first book they pick up on this topic is in trouble no matter which book they pick! This has been an interesting conversation all - thanks! In re to this comment, I may be the outlier here, but I am coming from the perspective of living in an area where an outrageous # of kids are identified as gifted. Basically anyone who tests advanced on grade level reading or math achievement tests will likely be ided as gifted at some point if the parent so desires. I am, therefore, more concerned with people utilizing a checklist like this as "proof" that their children are gifted without further testing. I've seen some kids for whom the label has become an albatross around their necks and has led to emotional challenges when they are trying to be someone they are not. I imagine that it would create some degree of internal dichotomy when you are believing that everything you encounter is related to your experience of being a gifted individual when that may not actually be the case. It would be like telling my kids that, when they run into social problems, when they are bored or unhappy in school, etc., that it is related to their being autistic. They aren't autistic. My oldest could possibly be construed as having Asperger's by someone who really doesn't know what that looks like and I could likely have convinced her that she did when she was younger, but it wouldn't do her any good in the long run other than to cause internal discord. Gifted has a more positive connotation. I'm just concerned that parents seeking reasons for their kids normal bright kid behaviors might use a tool of this sort to convince themselves and/or their kids of things that are not true for that child.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 6,145
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 6,145 |
Do you think this particular checklist would do that?
If anything, it seems to me that it would steer away some gifted kids, not make people think kids are gifted who are not. But maybe my memory of the checklist is flawed. (It has been several years...)
Kriston
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 2,172
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 2,172 |
Do you think this particular checklist would do that?
If anything, it seems to me that it would steer away some gifted kids, not make people think kids are gifted who are not. But maybe my memory of the checklist is flawed. (It has been several years...) I could see either happening. A parent of a gifted late bloomer or one who doesn't fit neatly into her lists could be steered away, perhaps. A parent of a normal bright average child who has been led to believe that her child is gifted by the schools b/c the child reads above grade level, for example, could also misinterpret or misrecall early childhood milestones to fit in with the inaccurate perspective she already has. It's been a while since I've seen this checklist as well, but I do recall that some of the items are very subjective: liking TV, reading chapter books, playing with shape sorters. As others have said, are we talking about a child who sucked on the shape sorter blocks and "played" with them or a child who was sorting hexagons into the correct holes? Are we talking about a child who watched Sesame Street like many other kids or a child who had some other unusual response to TV? Chapter books? A parent whose child loves to read and who reads well might call her 6 y/o reading Junie B. Jones the same as the child reading high level chapter books whereas I would call my 6 y/o reading The Call of the Wild her reading chapter books.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 687
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 687 |
I don't think we need to assume that all newbies are idiots though. Sometimes it sounds like that's what's happening on this topic, and I don't think we have to do that. Nothing will work for everyone. This works for some people. It's one tool among many. Anyone who blindly follows the first book they pick up on this topic is in trouble no matter which book they pick! I didn't hear anyone suggest newbies are idiots. I haven't heard anything remotely like that. I sure don't think I'm an idiot, but I can very well remember what it feels like to be an overwhelmed parent of a complex 2E kid. It wasn't a matter of blindly following anything. Instead it was ab out being in a place of being worried, confused, terrified and reaching out for answers. I don't like to think of parents in that position being told for $45 they can get a report telling them how smart their child is. It is being presented as science and it is far from it.
|
|
|
|
|
