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?



.

I don't think it has anything to do with Ruf. If anything, it's the other way round, Ruf has that reading emphasis because so many in the wider world do.

But, I don't like Ruf at all and I think her LOG are pandering to parents of two year olds trolling the internet looking for signs of genius.

The way I understood it is that early reading is an indication of being gifted, but if they don't read early they can still be gifted. I liked the book, mostly because it gave me a better understanding of what was going on with my kids and it wasn't just in my head that my kids were ahead of the pack... they were gifted and had special needs because of it.

As for early reading and angst, the angst we had was not over why our kid could not read early, but rather why he could.* Ruf's book and the concept of LOG were quite helpful to my family. When my kiddo was in fact reading at a very young age, we as parents had bad memories of being extremely underchallenged in school and worried about what to do with our son, who was reading earlier than either of his parents, among other things. Reading all the stories of what kids were doing at different young ages was very comforting, since we finally discovered that we weren't alone. I also found myself in those stories, and realized for the first time that I was gifted (despite having been in gifted pullouts as a kid), and what that meant for me.

Just wanted to pipe in that although her sample size was very small, and her parameters do not fit all kids, my reading of the book was that not all kids would show the early traits, and that if your kid didn't, it doesn't mean they are not gifted. I took out of it that if your kid shows many of the traits listed, there is a greater likelihood that he will fall into a particular LOG, and that there is a lot of crossover in the LOG. I admit my viewpoint is probably a bit skewed, since it matched our experiences in many ways. Not all the markers fit - DS never liked jigsaw puzzles and still believes in Santa (a little bit anyway).

I think the concept of LOG in itself is extremely important, and we learned this first hand since our son now has 2 years of school under his belt. (I know, not a lot of schooling yet.) There was not GT programming in kindy, but we advocated for more advanced work, and when the school tested our DS on their own tests, they agreed that he was unusual and needed more challenging work. The school then agreed that 1st grade would not be enough, and agreed to a grade skip. Skipping first is one of the recommendations in Ruf's book as well, and for us, it worked out great. Second grade in the local school, with GT pullouts and other differentiation, was still not enough. We finally found a good fit mid-year in a school for HG kids where they work one year ahead and at a faster pace.

I am describing our experience simply because we do fall into the group of people whose experiences match Ruf's advice. Going simply by the early milestone LOG guidelines, our son fell into level 4, and Ruf's description about how it would be difficult to have a level 4 kid's needs met in the regular school system have so far proven true. I know that her advice does not ring true for everyone, but that does not mean that your child is not gifted.

*ETA: I am not intending by this post to brag that "my kid did this," but I'm just responding to give a contrasting viewpoint about Ruf's book and LOGs. Feel free to post your opposing views and to let me know if I'm coming across as bragging. I know that many people have had very different experiences with this topic. If there is one book or concept that is helpful to everyone all the time, that would be wonderful, and I'd love to hear about it! The fact is that there are very slim pickins re: books and research on GT kids and especially HG kids. Hopefully there will be more soon.

"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? "


I completely understand. When word got out about DS's subject acceleration I had several moms approach and ask how I "taught" my son so much math, and they cannot comprehend that I didn't "teach" him at all (beyond giving him Life of Fred books, talking to him about basic math concepts, and once showing him how to borrow).

How embarassing!
But does this mom know anything you want taught to your daughters? Maybe this is an attempt at building a friendship?
If the mom is willing to teach your 2 something while you sit with the 5 year old for 20 minutes I think that there might be a lot to be gained on all sides.
Wouldn't it be nice to have someone who you feel comfortable leaving your DDs with if you need to drive your DH to the ER for a broken toe in the middle of the night? This could be the start of that.

And I bet you a dollar that if you paid attention to any 5 year old reading for 20 mintues that you could figure out a small suggestion that would be a big help. You are smart and sensitive - it could happen!

My .02!
Grinity

I agree with what you said, Flower. Even when your child is doing multiplication in his head when he is 3 and asking big, deep life questions and has the memory of an elephant, these signs of higher-level thinking are almost always overlooked by teachers. Show a teacher that a child can read several grades above level, however, and the teacher is much more likely to take notice and look for further clues to a child's readiness level. Heck, when I was a kid in K way back in the 70s, the ONLY kids that got tested for the gifted program were those who were in the top reading group. I had an undiagnosed vision problem at that point and so I was not in the highest reading group. It wasn't until I was in 4th grade that I told my parents that I needed to be tested that the teachers thought of me as a "top" student. So, I think in many ways, teachers "label" students -- whether overtly or subconsciously -- as top or average or below-average students based on their reading level. It's not right, but it does happen. So, in some ways, I can see why parents are anxious to have their child read before entering school, perhaps thinking that it will give them a sort of leg-up. And unfortunately, it very well might. IME, I have seen differences in the way my kids were perceived by teachers based on when they read: DS1 at 5.5, DD at 3, and DS2 at 4, all self-taught.

I don't think LOG is causing necessarily the angst, but their does seem to be huge emphasis on early litercy lately. When I sent my oldest to K, I had no idea he was GT until he scored very high on a group screener and things started to fall into place. I actually thought he was behind because I was not at all academically minded at home with my kids as preschoolers. And many of these kids went to very academic, all day preschools. I just followed my kid's interests.

I do think the Ruf's LOG lists are interesting. My kids are HG+ by every indication now at age 7 and 10. But would have never been IDed by Ruf's lists at ages 2 or 3. Neither were very early readers, but jumped many grade levels within months of being told now they were going to learn to read. My son I worried about at the beginning of K was the most advanced reader in his class by the end of the year by far and the writing was on the wall.

I think someone like Ruf tends to see families who have parent's IDed as GT and these parents introduce their kids to things that someone like me wouldn't have thought too. Her sample size is small and quite homogeneous. On the other hand, both my kids had deep knowledge and problem solving skills as preschoolers. But very little of that knowledge show up on Ruf's lists. I know a number of kids locally that were early readers but had hours of exposure daily, and have now really leveled as 3-5th graders. I know a child with Down's in an early literacy program that gets those kids as early readers before K. I don't think these lists account for exposure and they didn't work well for my kids.

And I don't blame parents for pushing for early literacy at all. I totally agree that it's something you can point to with a teacher that's black and white.

Edited to say - totally agree with mnmom's post!

This is something I have been giving a LOT of thought to. There are lots of things I hear parents of gifted kids saying "they taught themselves" where it is clear that they weren't hothoused exactly but they were provided an awful lot more exposure than other kids were. My kids have not been early readers and did not skip count but do tick pretty much all of RUFs other boxes for RUF level 4s. One of them I would say is a level 4, the other has CAPD and we are waiting for a dyslexia and ADHD assessment so I have no real idea what is going on with her.

Skip counting is one I found interesting because I didn't even know what skip counting was myself until I read about it on the RUF site and had to research it. So I certainly didn't do anything remotely like that with my own kids, just not on my radar. They were doing simple addition on their fingers and toes as 2-3 yr olds though, which came from them asking to add things and my telling them to use their fingers and toes.

The LOGs bother me because the actual IQ scores of the kids seem to be all over the map within the same levels. I realize that tests and kids differ, but I don't understand her actual algorithm. It appears to be "If your kid sounds like these kids, that's his/her level," which seems...unscientific.

My DD tested MG, but looks more like a level 3 if you go by Ruf's milestones and so on. I do think the book is interesting, but more in a "Oh, someone is actually talking about kids who are like my kid!" kind of way. It really seems to be just one person's opinion. The whole picture is so much more complex.

It IS that, for sure, and that's quite interesting in the way that reading these boards is addictively interesting. However, I think th "...and this is the level these kids are at, factually" part is opinion.

Her IQ may be an underestimate, true. She took a short test (the RIAS) and did just average on 1 out of the 4 subtests, which brought her score down. However, I think the other subtests are likely to be accurate, and they were a pretty even profile on the high end of MG. She IS, however, a very driven and "schooly" child.