http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27573965/

Very cute video follow up on a child who can read English and Spanish at 2. What I thought was hysterical is that the child is putting together a large jigsaw puzzle during the entire interview and nobody mentions it. She clearly has verbal AND spatial gifts!! Kids are truly amazing.

Wow, this child is so gifted! This is exactly what my DD5 was doing at this age (my daughters reading was a bit more extentive and her voice was clearer, but along the same lines), it's amazing to see another child doing the same thing. It's not because of the sign language, it may be she has a photographic memory like my daughter, so they memorize everything put in front of them and have an amazing understanding of phonics, math, and just a endless interest for knowledge.

That is so cool! She really is amazing and it's so great she has parents who are uniquely geared towards nurturing that ability! You're right, the puzzle work is pretty impressive as well. Also, it's amazing how she so easily transitions over to reading; boy, my ds would still be disgruntled if you tried to drag him away from a puzzle even at the age of 8.

I noticed she is saying a more english 'H' when she pronounces Hola, so they'll have to work on that spanish accent

Oh, it's Elizabeth Barrett! We had a good discussion here at GI back when she was in the media spotlight as the 17 month old "reading baby". Some people were very nasty about the whole thing- even on boards like this designed for parents of gifted kids.

Thanks for the link, lanfan. I think she's a cool kid and it's nice to see what she's doing currently.

I don't think I was one of the nasty ones (I hope not! ), but I recall being skeptical because of the press the family attracted. My big question with publicity surrounding a PG child is always "What are your reasons for putting your child in the news? Why are you publicizing the child in this way? How is this good for your child?" Too often in such cases, there's no good answer.

The reason the family offers for going public--to meet other PG kids and their families--makes sense. (It wouldn't be the approach I'd use, certainly, but at least it's a reason I can understand and support.) They do seem to be working for the good of their child. As long as that's what's happening, I have no criticisms to offer.

I think this is a better portrait of the child than we got before. It seems like the interviewer was pretty sympathetic/supportive. That helps.

I just found that thread on Elizabeth Barrett and re-read it. It was 2 pages and I didn't see anything but pleasant and supportive comments.

I do remember another post that I think was started by Ania about a boy whose father had a website devoted to him, was that the thread to which you were referring?

Oh, I see. That makes sense, I was reading it wrong. But we did get have some very differing opinions about a brilliant young man on this board awhile ago.

I have a personal thought that it's unwise to share so much personal info about a child in this day and age.

I can be blunt, be never intended to be unkind.

I must admit I was grabbed by the headline and got a kick out of the kid without even thinking about the fact that I was one out hundreds of thousands of people watching the video. It does give the whole thing a kind of circus freak feeling. I still think she's cute though.

Yes, I was leery of even watching the video but once I did I thought well she is pretty darn cute! and obviously highly intelligent. They kept it short and sweet.

I am more skeptical than before. I don't understand why they would put her on the TV again. I don't think the reasons they used for doing so last time can be applied to this interview.

Like others said the not so good comments were on other sites not here.

I agree, it's been well done so far and the child is massively adorable!

I think if there is a news flash everytime she does something new or they start following her life it might get a bit weird.

My screen name is telling in that I'm a very private person and I guard my children's privacy even more closely than my own.

That obviously colors the lense through which I view these issues.

Sorry if I was unclear. THIS board discussed her, but I was referring to another gifted board where things got very ugly. Elizabeth's dad wandered into the conversation, and he was quite upset by some of the comments.

I read an article recently about a gifted young woman who scored in the 80th percentile on the SAT (at age 12) and is planning to apply to Yale at 13. Her mother said she started reading at age four, and her early development sounded gifted but not near as far out as many of the kids on this board. It's weird to think that any one of us could be getting press for our kids just being who they are...

That is absolutely my take, Lorel. It just doesn't seem newsworthy.

And putting a child in the spotlight for just being who they are seems a tad too exploitative to my taste, unless there's some larger (and noble!) goal in mind. IMHO...

Excellent points everyone. I'm sorry I brought her into the conversation and feel badly and as though I dehumanized her.

Yes, I guess the weird thing to me is the implication that there aren't other kids who do similar things.

No, no! I don't think you did anything wrong--she's amazing and cute, too! I don't think you dehumanized her.

I agree--I don't think you did a thing wrong, lanfan. No worries! Really! <reassuring pat on the shoulder>

I have to say I went out to the link before reading the rest of the posts but find what I am about to say echoes a lot of what has been discussed for the most part.

1. Absolutely adorable kid, but I really do not understand the need to put her in front of the media. They are setting themselves up for some serious issues later on and I cringe at the thought of having my child made into a circus act. I do have to admit that the interviews were done in a tasteful manner and okay you might argue the looking for like-minded children but I and everyone else was able to do so without involving the media. In this same thought process, if their argument was looking for advise or similar children than I would assume that they had not come across the gifted blogs, but by what I read they clearly had if the father was posting to some strings back during the first interview.

2. level of giftedness - my question since I read someone refer to her as clearly PG+. All we have seen on the interviews is the reading factor and of course the puzzle that no one was talking about. Does anyone know if she is mathematical as well? Because correct me if I am wrong here, but my understanding is to be level 5 a child has to have developed in both categories. HG+ and EG+ are the kids that show strengths in reading or math, but not necessarily both, right?

That's not how I understand it. It's more about intensity and drive. I believe it is possible to be PG in one area.

Remember, too, that many kid develop asynchronously, having "math spurts," for example, when they're ready for them. At ages 5 and 6, DS7 was not what I would have called terribly mathy. But he did some 2+ years of math in about 4 months last year, and suddenly, he was years ahead in math, too. He just hadn't been all that interested before, but suddenly, he was ready and he was interested, and BOOM!

She may just be on a language kick right now.

The very highest level kids are well-rounded and have intensity and drive and I think Ruf puts those as her level 5 kids. I think what Kriston says is very important, though, and that is that much of what all kids do comes in spurts. At 2, there haven't been many opportunities for spurts yet. It will take some time before one can say if a kid is or isn't mathy.

This is where I go back to what I am going to start spouting as the 'bible' since everyone refers to it ... yep Ruf. pg 163 children designated as level 4 b/c they didn't manfest abilities across all of the domains. I understand what you are saying Kriston about PG in one area but that still totals to level 4 overall according to my understanding of Ruf's definition.

As I write this I realize I am starting to beat the dead horse into the ground and its hoofs are sticking out, but I am trying to fully grasp the levels and this child was an example for me to try to do just that. And again we are getting the cliff notes on her... as far as we know she might be rote counting and counting, knows her shapes, colors etc., but since her reading is so off the charts that is what the media is focusing on. But for the sake of this argument let's say she is only into reading and has not mastered the other domains ... if that is the case than she would be PG+ in that area but a level 4 overall.

Oh sure two posts while I was writing... that will show me. Mental note type faster or think in shorter more concise thoughts!

Katelyn'sMom, I love Ruf and her book has really helped me stay grounded through all this. Her outlines and observations are incredibly helpful.

But, there are some really important things to keep in mind. First, her observations were retrospective. She did not look at all kids that were reading at 2 and then follow them forward to see where they ended up. She took kids that were clearly gifted at school age and looked backward. Therefore to apply her data forward is probably not completely fair.

Second, there is a qualitative approach to her work that I found really useful, but at the same time, inherently not quantifiable. I think that the kids she worked with had certain qualities that were hard to define (by scores or developmental ability) that were responsible for much of their placement. If you are a numbers person and want one to one corelation between test score or developmental milestones and Ruf level, you are going to get frustrated. As a counselor, I have great respect for the "gut feeling" of another professional, but I understand it is not always going to be possible to quantify that.

So unless you work with her or one of her students, I would take any placement you get from Ruf's book as just that "rough."

I agree with acs 100%, and I put Ruf up there as one of the two most important books for my development as a parent of a GT child (or two) that I read.

I think her book is good for giving us an *idea* of what ND is and what PG is and what the levels in between are, but strict lines between the levels are hard/impossible to draw--especially when kids can even float between them!--and aren't very useful for anyone. Does it really matter if my son is PG or EG or even HG, if the local schools won't give him what he needs?

I'd say no!

I'm with Dottie that HG+ is the way to go, and I'm with the Davidson Institute in defining HG+/PG as those kids who are beyond the capability of our tools to measure. (To paraphrase badly...)

To use the often mentioned (and often criticized) example of Mozart, would we say he wasn't PG because he was "only" GT in music? Even though he was composing at age 3 or whatever? That seems like a silly restriction to me...

Our local PG group has been in touch with Elizabeth's mom, Katy. The individual who has communicated with Katy has experience with her daughter being in the national spotlight and is aware of the positives and negatives of the situation. Therefore I believe that Katy and Michael have access to good counsel on the matter. Though I have not spoken to them personally about the matter, it may have been that the Today show simply asked to do a follow-up piece. It was under the title, "Where are they now."

Let's be supportive of Katy and Michael. They are just beginning this crazy journey and as we all know there is so much to learn along the way.