Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums GT Research Ruf's book question

I am reading Ruf's book and find it confusing. There seems to be so much overlap and I am confused how she really defines a level.

Reading, I am thinking that DD3 is a level 3 but then I see her whip through a maze in her activity book and I read that this is a level 4 or level 5 thing. And other things make me think level 4.

I could put check marks all over the place. And when I take into her inquisitiveness, about obscure details, then I put her level 5.

I really didn't record many of the fine details early on-- too sleep deprived through the first 2 years. But I know we noted that her verbal skills were strong and her vocabulary was well over 2000 by 2. And at 14 months she knew rhomboid because there was this weird peg shape puzzle at the playcenter. Probably doesn't know rhomboid now.

So I can check off so many things, but the big identifiers are the non-linear weird things that come out with random frequency, or her strange inquistiveness about the outlying details, but I do not understand how to quantify that on her scale.

Am I just suppose to read and say "that is interesting"?

Ren

I think the preschool skills are really hard to quantify and depend on the child. The levels really have more to do with how quickly a child masters something after being introduced to it. There's an item in the level 3 list that says

"Most spontaneously read with or w/o previous instruction before kindergarten"

Well, what defines instruction? If you are reading to your child for an hour or two a day, isn't that instruction? Or you play phonics games and teach your child the ABC's, isn't that instruction? And how does the child that gets 30 minutes of reading a day compare to the child getting hours? But on the other hand, if your child is raised in a home speaking and reading English, they aren't one day just going to break out and read Spanish regardless of GT level if there is no exposure.

Before kindergarten, my DS maybe would have been labelled a level 1 or 2 based on the Ruf lists as they are. But would now in first grade be labelled level 3 or 4. We did not "hot house" at all. We mostly read at bedtime, but let him explore on his own. But if the Ruf levels had items on visual spatial things like following directions to construct lego sets for 12+ year olds - hey, we'd be level 5! Or ability to grasp and explain conceptual math. Or maybe the ability to ask too many complex questions in less than 24 hours. He could not read at the start of kindergarten, to my knowledge, but I don't ever remember handing him an early reader and him struggling with it. He reads very long and complex chapter books now independantly, that my 5th grade niece wouldn't approach. So, even though we never observed him reading before kindergarten, he clearly has it in him to be an advanced reader.

So I do think the content of the lists is somewhat subjective and perhaps just a guideline that may or may not be accurate for your child! YMMV!

Thank you, after all the forum comments about Ruf's, I thought I should review.

I think the thing that is noticeable is the relative judgement she makes. Like when DD3 was tested recently, the psychologist mentioned she self corrected when it got harder and she wasn't bored. She said that 3 year olds don't self correct and that told her more than the test results.

Like now understanding she is non-linear and what that means and what comes out of her mouth is different than an auditory learner. Though because her father is such a highly gifted auditory learner, she has some of that, the memorization is amazing.

So then I find web pages that relate non-linear is found in the exceptionally and profoundly gifted.

It is not that I want to put a fixed number on it. But it is strange. You think OK, she is bright, am I overemphasizing some event, then that "what did you just say?" moment happens again and you don't want to be caught where you don't provide the right learning environment for her.

Good thing I am starting to work again next week, less time to obsess.

Ren

Wren - I think that is a perfect example of some that is not on the Ruf's list but is clearly something that is beyond age level! It is also not something that necessarily every parent would notice if their child was doing it.

And I also obsess way too much too since finding out DS is HG. About our 2nd child too. Before I would obsess too, but perhaps about different things. Good luck starting back to work!

"This is interesting" is pretty much what I think about the book. It was the first gt related book I read and as such it did a wonderful job for me. It clearly showed that there were huge difference between gt levels, but it also showed that you couldn't clearly separate the children and say "this one is level x and that's it"

I found the parents comments and the examples the best part of the book. What a relief it was to see that others had kids just like I did. As for the milestones I think you need to take it with a grain of salt. It helps to look at them and see what's considered advanced, but not much beyond that. Yeah kid who started reading at the age 2 is for sure gifted, but he may be as gifted as another one who waits till K to start reading. She also doesn't consider 2E kids. You cannot just leave them out of the picture. The more I read about gt kids the less I believe in her categorizing by milestones even though DS5 wasn't that hard to place there (some 3, mostly level 4)

When I look at my two sons, my younger one would do much better on the milestone list than my older one, but I actually think my older one is more gifted. I may be wrong on that of course.

Like somebody else said it also depends on the definition of many of the milestones. I was so glad I didn't have to fill out the DYS milestone list because I was rather struggling with what some of them really meant. By my definition DS5 started writing words before he started reading, but that would probably look rather silly on the questionary.

Some of her comments were very useful though, such as fast progression from sounding words to chapter books usually meant that the child was gifted.

Like I said nice first read about gt issues, but don't put too much weight on it.

Well, I'll speak up for Ruf, since hers was the book that was most helpful for getting me over my PG-specific GT denial with DS6.

For DS6's whole life, I thought that he was MG, since that was what DH and I were as kids. Sure, he did some pretty amazing stuff with reading and puzzles and patterns, but I just figured all MG kids were like that. Denial, denial, denial...

Then I saw his WJ3 test scores from K and freaked! They were a full standard deviation higher than I expected them to be across the board! I had a moment of "How cool!" and then several days of "OMG!!! What does this mean? Was this a fluke? How can I tell? Help!"

Ruf's book--and especially her approach toward LOGs and her specific examples and lists of traits--helped me to get over my denial and see the reality of my son's abilities. Her lists aren't perfect, certainly, and it would be handy if they were less fluid and reliant on parent memory. But I have yet to see someone build that particular "better mousetrap." Since GT kids are not one-size-fits-all, I'm not sure there *is* any way to be more specific and less fluid. Test scores? With tests not designed to test the tail? (Especially since part of what I was trying to do personally was to figure out if further testing was even warranted!) School IDing? We all know how bad teachers and adminstrators can be at even acknowledging the existence of LOGs! So what else is there?

It seems to me that a list of traits like this is about the only thing that's going to be at all useful for a parent trying to figure this LOG stuff out. Ruf's lists are far from perfect, but they're very helpful for someone who is unable/unwilling/afraid to see just how GT her child is. When I finally sat down with DS6's baby book in front of me instead of just working from memory, it was very clear that he is not a level 3 (as I kept supposing he was), but is at least a level 4, and is a level 5 kid when it comes to the things he loves to do. There was no doubt about it when I took the time to really check.

Certainly Ruf does a better job of establishing the difference between level 1 or 2 and level 5 than between, say, a 3 or 4 and a level 5 kid. But in fairness, that top end is hard for all of us to distinguish. Still, I do think there's a real difference between those levels, and I'm glad she tried to find some way to muddle them apart.

I guess what I'm arguing is that test scores aren't always a good enough tool for us (and are really expensive!), especially at the start of this journey, so what else could we use? Ruf's lists and levels are an imperfect tool, but they validate parental observation, and I think that's laudable. We parents *are* the experts when it comes to our own kids. And hopefully Ruf's work will provide a starting place for the work of others to build upon, perhaps finding some tool for distinguishing PG kids that is less flawed.

Yup. DS6 had a bad math day today, and I found myself thinking, "Is this kid really smart enough for Davidson?"

Never mind that the math problems he WROTE FOR HIMSELF to complete involved finding the lowest common denominator and converting a fraction to a decimal...

Um, take a step back there, Insane-o-mom! His former class of 1st graders are maybe adding one-digit numbers by now. A little perspective, please!

I am a Ruf supporter also. Aside from �Guiding the Gifted Child�, her book has had the greatest impact on my understanding of our children.

I agree there could be additional milestones listed, such as �use of eating utensils� and �neatness while feeding themselves� such as Dottie had mentioned some time back. I think that may be another valid indicator and I�m sure there are plenty more.

As an example of how I use the listings, I know that my daughter used a spoon and fork quite well at a very early age. I am able to remember exactly how old she was when her skill was pointed out to us by numerous people during the week of my brother-in-law�s wedding in the early summer, while I was pregnant with DS. It wasn�t a new skill at the time, but I can definitely state that she could feed herself yogurt, Jell-O and fruit without spilling a drop some time before 21 months old. We lived in many different places when the kids were infants to pre-school age, so it may be easier for me to remember what they did when and where.

IMO, Ruf does differentiate very well between different progressive skills, such as, receptive versus expressive language; rote counting versus letter or number identification; word recognition on signs versus reading beginner books. I personally don�t find the lists at all subjective. My suggestion is to start with level five and work backwards. Find a level where you can answer 75% of the bullets with a "check", and that is a general starting point. From there, read the anecdotes of what other children of that level did at various ages to further tweak the presumed level for your child. I would guess this might help parents of half the GT population narrow down their child�s LOG.

I consider these listings as a means to identify gifted children who do develop certain skills and abilities early, rather than exclude those who have not met the listed milestones by a certain age.

Good point, delbows!

First of all this is so true, I call it establishing a base camp, not measuring the peak of the mountian. Most of us 'don't get out' enough to really understand what normal development looks like. Teacher-ID isn't foolproof, nor is Local testing (ours discribed DS as bright, and perhaps bored, but didn't suggest that his behavior was anything to do with poor educational fit, but was sending us off to look at NVLD, since his profile was spiky), nor is testing with a Gifted experienced testing,although it's much better, and yet these children continue to have special educational needs, that depending on personality, can be visible in various uncomfortable ways if they are not met.

I think the book is quite specific about what qualifies as reading, for example. And although she doesn't directly address 2E, there was that example where she pointed the parents towards addressing vision problems because the reading was so far below the other skills. I wish I had been around that kind of thinking way back when, when DS was crying because he could read at age 3. Everyone else thought that I had lost my mind to be upset that he was upset - of maybe they thought I was 'trying to get attention' - who knows? But I dare any of you to imagine telling your closest friends and relatives that you are worried bacause your 3 year old is upset that he can't read!


I certainly expected my son to be bright, like the rest of my family members, I just didn't understand that being bright was possibly anything but a positive thing even though I remember being bored and feeling like an alien during elementary school. I just assumed that was some stray experience that was a personal failing - which was the way everyone acted.

I think this is a landmark attempt to show the variety of human behavior. I do think a lot of kids who don't show up on the scales are much brighter than their parents would place them. I also think that Ruf is quite clear that the "ESTIMATED Levels III through V are 'fluid.' I take this to mean that if I had homeschooled my level III and gotten him the help he needed with his vision development he could well be doing Level V behaviors by now. I think that that is true, AND I'm ok with that! He has learned valuable life lessons by the path he has taken, and certianly environment can be expected to have some effect on these kids, yes? But it isn't the kind of environment one can really control - if a Level V best friend who was a good social companion happend to move in next door to us when DS was in Kindy, that would have meant more then any other thing I could have done.

The main point is that reading any of the normal milestone development books can lead one to conclude that the authors of those books are misguided, or trying to make us feel good. The people who put the age suggestions on the game boxes - they must be wrong too! Those IQ test? They aren't designed for the tail, and they are too easy anyway! The gifted programs in schools - they are way, way too easy! How about those other parents at the state gifted association - isn't it embarrassing when they brag about their kids, because our kids are doing so much more? Let's face it folks - our brains are in business to tell us that 'everything is fine' and 'no one home but us fish.' I think it's a better choice to say, "Ok, our kids have unusual needs, the rest of the world isn't out to dissapoint us, or cheat us, they just don't see kids who are level III or up every day, or every year, or every 5 years."

What would it take for me to but you in a new mental conception of LOG, today?


Too me it's a relief to read a milestone list that my son doesn't leave in the dust! At least my job of finding a reasonable fit isn't as large as it is for some of you. But I have to deal with the fallout of so many years of misunderstanding, which many of you won't.

So, the links on the web are great for keeping track of these babies. The book is great of analysing the various parts of the early tasks. Overall the behaviors themselve vary amoung children, widely, but if this book seems like it is talking directly to you - well then it's going to be useful!

If you are a linear thinker, and looking for you child to exactly line up, but you child is more like mine, not reading at three, but wanting one more chapter of "the phantom tollboth" - this book isn't going to help, so give it away, or save it for the next kid.

If you are a non-linear thinker, and can read between the lines, then I think it can be useful, and is useful with a spiky child. OK, so we told him about Santa at age 3, but he also knew that his grandparents were lying about there being 'no more' ice cream treats - it's the same type of reasoning. Ok, he's not teaching himself to read, but the book says that there isn't anything magic about reading, it says that figuring out the system of reading is what is remarkable, and my kid is figuring out other complicated systems at this young age (like sexism, and classism) - We grown ups bring many different learning styles to the picture, so different books will 'speak' to us differently.

I'm hoping that there will be prospective studies on early milestones with 1000s of participants, but I don't think they will every be able to give everyone a label that says what their fate will be. There is really only one kind of person, but each person can have different needs. These various kinds of assesment are just a way to find out what you child might need now, and what they might need in the near future. LOL - Reminds me of the talent searches, CTY said: "Take this test and see where your child should start on our afterschool online classes." I called them up and said these are his scores, where should he start? They said, Oh, with scores that high, we really don't know. Why don't you try one and see how it works? Is that the story of my life or what?

((panting, slowly getting off soapbox, hoping there is something there that will make sense))
Love and More Love,
Grinity