DS is still really young but he continues to be the cute little knowledge sucking dementor that he was a year ago when I started looking for answers. He was and still is quite different from his age matched peers in terms of cognitive ability and the gap just seems to be getting bigger. I've learned to embrace it. I'm a big proponent of child directed play and learning so what he knows is because he wants to know it and not because I've ever pushed anything on him.

As I am now on a nationwide job search I have a lot of control over where we end up as a family and what types of educational opportunities will be available to DS (and DS on the way!) I spend a lot of time contemplating how much of DS's cognitive abilities are innate and how much of what I'm seeing is living in an enriched environment? I know there is probably no real answer to that question but if anyone has any insight I would love to hear it.I have a sample size of 1 so I really have no clue!

DS has a September birthday so I spend time thinking about what his abilities really are as I look into educational policies for different states. In some states he will automatically start Kindergarten the year he turns 5, other states have options for early entry to school, and then some states (like where we currently live) seem to be completely inflexible about the age cut off.

I don't want us to get stuck in a state with no options for starting school at 5 if that is what he really needs but I also don't want to be "that mom" who thinks her kid is something he isn't. My son is 2 and he seems to be 2-3 years ahead cognitively and socially at this point. (Emotionally and physically the kid is totally 2! That's about as fun as sticking forks in my eyes.)

Any advice on how I can tease out what is innate ability and what is enriched environment?

Here's something to consider: how much does it matter how much is innate vs. environment if he's already 2-3 years ahead of his peers?

I think you've already identified one key thing to look for: flexibility in start ages. It would appear that at a minimum, you'll need the ability to start him just before he turns five (turning five Sept. that year). Beyond that, I would suggest looking for places where there are many educational options, some of them very flexible (great Montessori schools, gifted education not based on the more work model, but on depth and breadth)... and where there are solid afterschool/weekend/summer enrichment choices.

Good luck. We have relocated once with a PG child and now have two children, with the younger being more "compliant" but likely also HG/PG?. Our relocations seem much more complicated than others I know... because we can't just assume the "good" public schools will be a fit.

I have heard about the "leveling out" of students in the 3rd and 4th grade and I do worry that if I start him at 5 he will hit upper elementary and have some problems. Honestly though, I'm happy as long as my son is happy.

The big cities with more options are so expensive and my salary will be about the same no matter where we go. Moving with kids is much harder than I ever anticipated.

We've had some threads on that leveling out thing... I don't know that there's a great deal of evidence on it. And there's a school of thought that some of that leveling out is due to forcing the advanced kids to sit through material they already know versus moving on to new content. Same stuff for everyone... voila! They all level out... or check out.

You are right, it is harder to move with kids. Especially kids like ours! Have you considered cities of around 600-800,000 people? Big enough to have some resources but not so big that everything is expensive and hard to navigate. We have been lucky (sort of) in that we're in an area of about 400k population that is within an hour or so of a university that hosts gifted weekend and summer events. Maybe flip the lens and look for strong pockets of gifted activities then draw a map from there.

I had the same feeling about being "that mom" so I put DD into kindergarten at the age she was supposed to go even though I could have had her tested for early entrance. So then what ended up happening is that when she started K she was 2-3 years ahead of the other kids for math and reading and we did a full grade acceleration. It would have been far better to have her start early than do an extra year of preschool.

She did end up testing really high, above the 99th percentile, when we had IQ testing right around the time she turned 8.

But I still wonder about the effects of "enriched environment". We have tons of books, I talked to them about phonics and numbers when they were preschool age, I avoid letting the kids veg in front of the TV watching mindless things, I take them to museums, we play games, etc. so it's impossible to sort out even with somewhat older kids.

You can kind of see what is "real" ability if you give them something that they have no experience with, how quickly do they figure it out? When DS was one (not even 1 1/2) we had one of those tupperware shape sorters that looks like a ball with 10 shapes and DS would pick up the pieces one by one, analyze them for a couple seconds, then flip the ball around and around looking for the match. Meanwhile other kids his age had literally no interest in doing that, they would just throw the pieces around or put them in their mouths. It was obvious his ability wasn't just from "exposure", he was clearly fascinated by certain things. He was also obsessed with carseat or high chair buckles as an infant and would analyze the mechanisms, latching and unlatching, etc. If we went out in public and some stranger had a different car seat with a baby, he would make a beeline for it so he could figure out how their buckle worked.

It's important to be realistic about your child's abilities, but don't worry too much about being "that mom". If you end up being wrong, and your child does eventually "level out" it's not going to be the end of the world. Since I don't know ultimately how my kids are going to turn out, I advocate for what they need "right now" and keep try to keep quiet in terms of making statements like "She's going to be an engineer!" or "She's so smart!"

Blackcat brings up a good point about looking at how/how quickly your child picks up concepts or figures things out. We are noticing this with YDS5. All it took was reading him one story about silent letters and he immediately started listing words that have silent letters and pointing them out in stories (words he hadn't seen in that way before). Meanwhile, in the third month of K, they are still learning letter sounds. He was curious about an acronym yesterday and I explained what they were. Now he spots them and calls them out. Etc.

We also have had an "enriched" environment, so that, to me, explains things like their extensive vocabularies (the younger one used substantial correctly yesterday). It doesn't explain how quickly they pick up math concepts or their frighteningly accurate memories.

I haven't had time to read the other replies, but will give you my quick answer: don't overthink the environment aspect, just go with your gut feeling.

I also wouldn't place an overwhelming importance on the school opportunities vs the other opportunities a move to any given location gives your family. School is a part of life, but so are other things which matter to everyone, including profoundly gifted children. Quality of life is huge (and depends on many different things, specific to your family - weather, environment, opportunities for after-school and weekend *fun*, proximity of extended family, just being in a place that makes *you* happy, opportunities to be involved and make a difference in your community, and of course, work opportunities).

If your child is profoundly gifted, you're most likely not going to find a school that's a best fit anywhere (except perhaps Reno ;))... but you giving them the best of their childhood in terms of what *you* value, what is *fun* for you, having opportunities for expanding how they see the world etc - those are all things that can take place almost anywhere (jmo).

Best wishes as you think things through!

polarbear

ps - re knowing what is innate vs enriched environment - as I said above, go with your gut feeling. Just in general, I think that you can see innate vs enriched if you're looking *beyond* when did my child learn to start reading and writing and adding and subtracting etc. Chances are a child who starts reading early is a bright child who will do well in school, but I haven't seen that necessarily correlate with propounded giftedness. Of the kids I've known, there are as many HG+ kids who didn't start reading early as there are kids who started reading early and then didn't make so many leaps and strides in school that they were way far ahead once everyone else had learned how to read. I'm *not* talking about kids all "evening out", just noticed with a lot of the children I have known, early reading doesn't correlate necessarily with different levels of giftedness.

Agree that it is much harder to move with kids! Second the idea that picking a place with many options is good. We found that the most optimal solution changed over time and that sometimes switching schools was necessary. We also found that schools change over time and thus the "fit" of a school or district may change too. With private schools we found that the director/principal and the board of directors make a huge difference in the school culture and if the school has high turnover (or turnover while your DC is enrolled) the attitude and resources can change very quickly.

We did find that a Montessori school that was strong in academics, had certified teachers, and included toddlers through elementary was the best fit for our early bloomer. It is important to note that Montessori is not a trademarked name and many "montessori" schools are radically different from each other. The second Montessori school we tried was not as good a fit despite having similar credentials.

This site has people from all over and, when you have narrowed it down, I'm sure people can give great info on specific places.

It is my son's rate of learning that makes my jaw drop. He found a counting 1-50 book at the library and I sent it with him to his sitter because I didn't have time to read it to him. A couple days later on the way home from Ikea he was counting 1-50 in the backseat, then he figured out 50-59 on his own. (I haven't told him there is a 60 yet!) When I asked the sitter about the book she said she read it once while the babies were napping. At that time DS wasn't even 2.

This is part of why I struggle with how many years ahead he is of his peers and what school will be like for him. Skills show up almost over night. Our home is all about child directed play and play based learning so I have never sat him to intentionally introduce an academic skill. He is only 2 so he really doesn't need to count to 100, kwim? I have no idea how far ahead he would be if I intentionally instructed him. It goes against my parenting philosophy so I don't.

Didn't I read somewhere (where I cannot remember) that the impact of environment actually increases over time?

Also, so far, mine have not leveled out. At all. In fact, if anything, the gulf may be getting wider. I think that this concern is something of a myth perpetuated by public schools who want to justify not having programs before 3rd grade.

If you are worried about your own assessment of your child's abilities, pursue testing. Best thing we ever did. I wasn't sure whether I was imagining it either.

Best of luck!

All the kids where I live (an expat community) have a wonderfully enriched environment. Lots of very educated parents, many of whom have one stay-at-home parent with lots of time because of restrictions on employment here (and very cheap household help).

I've seen kids both "level out" from age 2 to 5 (i.e. stay advanced but lose the apparent advantage), and my own 5yo get further and further ahead.

Looking back, the difference is how quickly the child learns. A very bright child will learn something early if you repeat it often enough. The outliers learn it when you show them once.

Sounds like you have an outlier, but it's hard to really tell (I feel the same way about my 2yo honestly). About educational opportunities, I agree with polar bear about looking at a location more for the whole family and finding the best fit educationally. Not all gifted boys are ready for early entrance maturity wise, so it may not be a good option anyways. We're relocating in a year or two, and while good schooling for our clearly gifted 5yo is high on the list, family life ranks first.

I agree, I personally wouldn't base my home purely around my kids' educational needs although it would be a biggish factor. That said, we live in a city with a 1.5-million pop and I couldn't go any smaller than that - I love having decent museums, art galleries, public events, visiting speakers etc, for our own sakes as well as the kids'. I wouldn't uproot and move suburbs for a school zone. We've already had one kid through the school system and now know very well that it's a blip in the grand scheme of things. I'd rather stay in the house we love and spend on a private school instead.

As for the innate/enriched chicken and egg situation, I think the giftedness comes first. Yes our house is an very enriched environment but it wouldn't be unless we were all already pretty smart and interested, kids included. My kids get smarter than me around age 11, after that it's them hothousing me

Innate ability and enrichment are an interaction, in the technical, math/stats sense of the word. If you look at this graph , imagine the top line is high innate ability and the bottom line is low innate ability, and the x-axis is amount of enrichment. The y-axis is performance on whatever measure.

Innate ability benefits kids in all environments; and enriched environment benefits kids of all abilities; but kids with high ability benefit more from enrichment (the slope of the line is steeper).

Intuitively, one would expect enrichment to act as a kind of coefficient on LOG to produce a level of achievement, right? All the way to negative enrichment (e.g. holding someone down in a class several sigma below their ability) lowering achievement.

I wasn't aware of this and find it quite surprising, actually. Do you have a link to something that talks about this fact?

No direct data, but it's kind of a general principle. It's like asking, if a person is really strong, is it because they have naturally big muscles, or because they've done a lot of weight training? Well, it's the interaction of the two.

A person with a naturally slight build just won't be able to benefit much from weight training. A person with a robust build may be fairly weak with no training, but with good training they can get REALLY strong.

Put it another way, with little environmental opportunity, perhaps to the point of neglect, a person with natural talent and a person with little talent will look quite similar. It's when environmental opportunity is added to the mix that the differences between the two really show up.

As another example, consider someone who is naturally musically talented. With no musical training, they really won't look much different from someone with no musical talent. But with training, the talented person can go far and the untalented person can't.

Story time with my DS used to be an hour plus a night when he was 2-3. I think he benefited from this enrichment, but how many wiggly 2 year olds are going to sit still while you read "Lion, Witch and the Wardrobe" etc? Probably not a lot. So I agree that enrichment helps all, but will help some a lot more than others. A sunflower will grow taller than a daisy if both are well cared for (both are nice and wonderful though).

Agreed, enrichment has limits. Yes, my kids have a fairly enriched environment but what they do with it is hugely influenced by their personalities and abilities.

This is not a rigorous study but I've taken other kids to the museum along with my kids with highly variable results as one example. Most kids don't want to read all of the information or ask a million questions about every single thing they see while they are there. Heck even my DD isn't as intense as DS when it comes to this stuff and she's pretty far on the right end of the bell curve as well.

Go with your gut, I really underestimated both of my kids for a long time partly because there are a lot of other smart kids around and partly because I knew they were smart but figured they were not THAT smart. If I was moving and all else was even (job/housing/etc) I'd be looking for a range of schooling options. Even now that I know a lot more about their strengths and weaknesses I honestly can't say what they are going to need in a couple years. My 2e DS would not be a good candidate for a full skip and while DD might be, I don't think it would be enough in most ways either. We need options & flexibility. We're just trying to make the best decision at the time while trying to learn what the possible future options are and keeping those paths open in case we need them later.

Your son is only 2, you have some time to go before you test him. The internet is full of debates on "Nature vs. Nurture". I find this topic very interesting and I personally believe that "Nurture" carries a lot more weight than is normally given credit for. But, that is just a personal belief. I agree with MegMeg that a gifted child will go a long way with enrichment - again using the musically talented child as an example - if such a child had an expert teacher, involved parents, practice time built into their schedules, a lot of encouragement and enrichment from early ages then, the child can go far in developing musical talent. Same can be said for creative writing or math or science - enrichment carries a lot of weight.

As for relocating - I suggest that you look for a place that has many opportunities for enrichment in addition to educational choices. Because, if your child turns out to be very gifted, chances are that no school will be a perfect choice and you may have to provide enrichment on your own time after school. Good luck.

So, to focus on the relocation issue...

While I agree that education isn't the only thing you consider when you move, it is a consideration. So here are some things to think about:

http://www.davidsongifted.org/db/StatePolicy.aspx

This map shows the status of gifted education in each state. It makes sense that a state that both mandates and FUNDS gifted education may have more options. Note that states that mandate but don't fund may only be paying lip service to gifted education (hello, Oregon). Click a state for more information.

http://www.nagc.org/resources-publications/gifted-state

This site has links to each state's department of education and gifted department and laws and details.

https://www.hslda.org/laws/

The education of last resort for highly gifted kids is sometimes homeschooling. This site lists the laws for each state. Some states have more religious homeschooling and some more secular. If this distinction matters to you, then I recommend checking into that as well.

While big cities have more educational options, they may also have districts of high achievement striving that can harm access to gifted specific programming. Basically, some districts are so used to every parent thinking their kid is gifted and special that they are sick of hearing about it. Whereas a smaller flexible school district may be thrilled to have a super bright kid.

Remember, in the end it's the school and the principal and teachers that matter the most. My experience is that some people get it and some don't and the ones that don't probably aren't.

My view is: does it matter? Are you going to change the way you live life to satisfy yourself that what you're witnessing is purely nature? As an intelligent adult, you seek out interesting experiences. Your son does the same.

Don't worry about semantics. Just keep respectfully and sensitively following your son's lead. Children who are eager and enthusiastic learners will not allow otherwise, but you already know that first hand!