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

I have to say "that is interesting" to the posts. I am about as non-linear as you get and I found it difficult to read between the lines.

I get there is that intrinsic element but as Dottie points out, if the scores are all over the map, who defines the difference to put a child in level 5 that has much lower scores than a child in level 3? Her bias on their motivation to learn? And if their learning styles are different, what is quantifiable, if the scores don't do that?

There is a little girl, birthdate 3 weeks before DD3, we met on the evaluation for the gifted preschool at Columbia. DD3 birthdate missed the cutoff by almost a month so they wouldn't take her. They did offer a spot to the other girl but they didn't take it, they put her in Montessori instead. Happen to run into them at the Harvard Club Christmas party. This little girl was extraordinarily smart. Her father gave me their contact and I was thinking I would like to try and set up some play dates and see how that works.

Someone mentioned about when their child played with a peer, the differnce or potential difference in development.

So thank you for submitting the idea.

Ren

Interesting post, J, and I see what you're saying. I've certainly had my moments of despairing over ever understanding LOGs and how they apply to my kids.

But if tests aren't enough and lists don't cut it, then I guess I have to ask what *would* cut it? I mean, should we reject the admittedly imperfect tools we do have because they don't work well for all kids? If these tools work for IDing some kids, then it seems to me we should improve the tools, not reject them, as I feel like you're doing.

Maybe we need a broader list to cover the sorts of things your particular kids ARE doing, which is what the proponents of "eating neatly" are really saying, I think. It's less about how these kids eat or the precise month when they read and more about unusual behavior, right? There are obviously some unusual behaviors that your kids are doing/have done to show you that they're more than MG, or you wouldn't have done any of the research you've done or the advocacy you've pursued. Maybe those milestones aren't on the list, but maybe they should be! Or maybe the list of milestones needs to be written in both the specific (which is what helped me) and the general, to funnel those kids with a more unusual profile to be IDd.

And BTW, I think that if reading emerges with spoken language, you've got a pretty early milestone there! Even if you don't know the exact month it happened, it's clearly unusual. I think the precise date doesn't really matter as long as you know that the behavior emerged unusually early, and I don't think Ruf's lists should have scared you off if you had kids reading THAT early! It seems quite obvious to me that there's a really, really GT kid behind that behavior!

I absolutely wish we had better, more definite ways to ID these kids, but until we do, I don't want to throw out the baby with the bathwater. It really is sounding to me that, as delbows indicated, the problem is less with the conception of the checklists and more with the way individuals are applying the lists.

That is a serious problem, but it seems like a more correctable one! Better instructions, a less "This is how it is" tone...but I still think the substance of the lists is valid and useful in SOME form.

K-

Please correct me if I am wrong here because I have not ordered the book yet.

I seem to recall looking at an on-line preview of Exceptionally Gifted Children where Miraca Gross displayed a chart which specifically annotated the age at which each of her study subjects first walked independently. As I said, this was a �look inside� option, so I don�t know the full context but it seemed that the gist of it was that most of her subjects walked independently (much) earlier than usual. I was surprised to see this information because I thought the consensus of experts no longer believe there is any correlation between early walking and IQ.

I don�t believe even Dr. Ruf uses that milestone in her levels.

Data (test scores) are important snap-shots of performance. However, instruction can also enhance performance on these measures, especially multiple choice achievement tests. I think there is more to determining intellectual ability than just a test score or only early milestones.

I find these comments more interesting "between the lines" than Ruf's book.

And I have to agree with gratified3 that fastidiousness at the table doesn't make sense to me. DD3 can use her fork very well, many times she refuses as a challenge.

DD3 is a perfect Ruf example of a baby/toddler that ended interaction and attention, just for the stimulation but then she gives anecdotes about a toddler playing by themselves for hours, absorbed in some activity. How do I spell contraction in terms?

Working as suggested, I figured level 4. Maybe level 3, definitely not lower. The strange thing, when I went through Level 5 list, I could see many things, but the parental anecdotes were a few months ahead of my memory of events. So I don'get her perception of how she created the list. I also agree that physical development has to assist the verbal and early talking astounds me. What I did notice with DD is that when she did hit a milestone, she was away to the races.

I wish she would define the non linear and auditory differnces. I think that would be more interesting.

Ren

I've had the same experience with my kids. DD9 didn't read until she was 4 (almost 5), but then she was reading chapter books within a year. She was talking a lot way before her first birthday, too.

DD6 was much the same as DD9, except she read earlier and walked much earlier (10 months versus 12 for DD9).

DS2 went from crawling to running at 13 months and from barely talking to full sentences at 18 months.

Off to the races is right!

Okay, let me throw my hat in!

DD7-PG didn't walk until 14 months. I see a lot of Ruf's level 4 and 5 stuff with her. She did question Santa by 3. BTW another friend's child who is PG point blank looked at the fireplace and stated, no way Santa was going to fit down that. And I think she was 2, if I remember correctly.

DD5-HG walked at 9 months, running at 10 months, mostly running away!!!!!!
Could read sentences before DD7 but then didn't want to read til 5yr 5mo and has quickly just about caught up to where sister was at this particular age.

So,,,,I don't know.

They're all different.

Incog

But that's not a contradiction. It's just that some kids are extroverts and need stimulation--like your DD--and some kids are introverts and can happily entertain themselves--like my DS. What distinguishes the HG+ child is the *extremity*, the *intensity* of their need for alone time and/or stimulation. Your DD didn't merely like stimulation, she NEEDED it, and LOTS of it, all the time! My DS didn't just like to be alone sometimes, he preferred to entertain himself for HOURS with his puzzles, even though he was just a young toddler and wasn't "supposed" to have that kind of LOOOOOOONG attention span for anything! Neither sort of intensity is the norm for kids!

The developmental paths everyone is describing for their kids are, indeed, all different. (Ruf doesn't argue that all HG+ kids are exactly the same!) But all these developmental paths have two very important things in common: they're all significantly different from the norm, and they all demonstrate an incredible intensity!

What I think Ruf does is to try to make clearer what constitutes "significantly different" and "incredible intensity."

Okay, I will stop jumping in, I promise. Sorry!

K-

P.S. Just as an aside, the neat eating thing works like a charm with DS6--he actually got *booed* at his 1st birthday party because he was perfectly neat about eating his cake! Can you imagine booing a 1yo at his own BD?!?

DS7 did not, would not, and still pretty much won't, play by himself. He constantly wanted to talk and to learn information through conversation, books and tv (tv only after age 2). And I was constantly criticized by friends and teachers for it - e.g., he's too reliant on you, you need to ignore him, he needs to learn to play by himself, I see what the problem is - you're too nice to him, etc. And I, being ignorant as I was, listened to them. He'd just sit there no matter how long it took. And the principal at his last school told me not to google the answers to his questions. He needs to learn how to research by going to the library and looking up the answers. "Kids are getting too much instant gratification; they need to learn patience." (and that was respect to a five year old)

And he never believed in Santa until we rigged a convincing display with evidence a couple of years ago that I still feel guilty about. He asked for the truth right before Christmas this year and I asked if really wanted to know or just believe. He chose believe, but he knows.

Needless to say, I don't know where he fits on Ruf levels, and there is that 2E element...

Krison, I think you'll relate to this. DD5 is like, the pied piper with other children. It's not uncommon to see her running on the playground with, like, 10 children running and skipping along after her. HOWEVER, at some point she gets so overstimulated, she abuptly dismisses all of them!
So she looks like this highly social child, but she also chooses to spend hours in her room with her figurines creating elaborate story lines. Even at 5 she babbles along non-stop, creating different scenarios, voices etc.
Our highly respected Psyd. tester assures me she is NOT crazy, Phew!

Incog

LOL, 'Neato! I do love that!

That's totally me, you're right. I'm highly social...until I'm OVER IT. It's like I run out of social "juice" and have to retire to quiet.

I think this is pretty normal for GT people. I read somewhere (Lisa Rivero's "Homeschooling the Gifted Child," I think) that GT people tend not to fit as neatly into the intro/extrovert boxes: we're VERY social when we're social and we're locking ourselves in our rooms talking to ourselves for hours when we want to be alone.

Still, it's all about the extremes. What's more extreme than BOTH extremely extreme extremes in the same person?

<grin>

So this means, there is no stereotypical high IQ child? And yes, many will hit milestones at these points, but it not exclusive?

Alert, intensity, OK, but I wouldn't have noticed, I thought it was normal. It was the fact that strangers came up to me when she wasn't even 2 months old and commented about her intensity of observing the room.

What I am coming to understand is that DD3 is non-linear, like me, but also has a strong auditory capability like her father. She has to understand the whole picture (like on Elmo's world some small dark mark was on Elmo's door, what is that? That is the kind of thing I seem to ask) Yet her verbal skills were early and extensive, her ability to use language is like her father's.

The psychologist who tested her is a big IQ tester in NYC, so she has seen it all and so I trust her judgement that I have a remarkable child in abilities but it is hard to make that leap. Is it a fear that I will build up too many expectations? And down the road it will be a mistake?

I guess that was looking for the emotinal support I think many of you have gone through.

Ren

Interesting 'neato. Both my kids are like that. When I drop either of them off at school, the kids come running for them. It's especially interesting at my daughter's school. She is one of the youngest in her mixed age preschool class and even the oldest kids love her.

And I think I am that way too. I definitely crave my stimulating adult conversation. But I appreciate my alone time too.

That's how I read the book. These are case studies, not "rules of GTness." And her sample size was too small to say "This is true for all GT kids, no matter what!" She's offering generalizations based on her observations, but the point, I think, as delbows rightly pointed out, is to help parents to see that what we see as "normal" for these kids is NOT normal for most kids.



Yes, exactly! For my part, I thought nothing of my DS saying "BBBBB" when pointing to a "B" at 15 mos., but it totally freaked out the other moms in our Kindermusik class! It was perfectly normal for him, so I was really surprised by their *violent* denial of what was common behavior for him.

Ruf helped me to understand why the moms reacted as they did--DS was doing PG stuff! What was normal for DS was very much not-normal for most people. Aha! The light bulb came on for me.

When you live with these kids, I think GT denial becomes a way of life. Dottie and I (and others) are still struggling with it, despite everything we know and see.

I didn't mention this, and it's another whole can of worms, but I also felt like Ruf's book gave me permission to try other school options for DS. It made it clear to me that in our situation, public school--even in what's considered a "good" school system--wasn't necessarily going to be good for DS. This validated my feelings, gave me permission to skip advocacy, and allowed us to go straight to homeschooling and then a special arrangement with a GT school for part-time attendance next year. I think we saved DS a lot of heartache and me a lot of headache by not swimming upstream in the public school, and I'm not sure I would have been brave enough to do that if it weren't for Ruf's book.

Ruf's take on public schools is controversial. I just know that her take helped us.

Physical development (50% delay at 12 months) couldn't have assisted my son's advanced (50% advanced at 12 months) receptive and expressive language skills. The tester did say this was unusual. Luckily his motor dyspraxia (recently diagnosed) and hypotonia did not affect his speech and his verbal gifts have always stood out among kids his age and even kids several years older.

Well, I'm finally reading the Ruf book, and I was quite surprised by one comment she made. I think it was in the chapter on level 4's or level 5's. She said that a level 5 is equally high across the board and that a lot of level 4 and level 5 has to do with motivation and current circumstances, and that the levels can change over time. To me, this seemed like a strange thing to say in a scholarly book, like she was afraid to come out and take a stand without leaving some serious wiggle room. Isn't the point of having all those characteristics of levels of giftedness to give an alternative to just having hard test data? Isn't it a bit cowardly to come up with the five levels of giftedness and then to say well, it's not set in stone, your children may move from level to level depending upon their current environment and motivation? Are these really 5 levels of giftedness, or are they five levels of current knowledge and motivation? Maybe I misread it, but I found it a surprising comment. And please don't be offended by the word "cowardly," I meant it like wishy-washy, or unsure, or leaving herself an out for those who may disagree with her theory...

I have not read the book but I think that the list of characteristics of GTness are actually mixing Gifted and Talent.

For example, ability to decode abstract symbols is a GT characteristic. Ability to read is the talent.

Development of talents depends a lot on motivation, appropriate environment, etc.

I agree Dottie that it has to be in the way they think. But then I cannot figure out the difference in the levels, it is so subjective. I do see in DD3 that "what did you just say?" moments that really strike you. But I am not objective or knowledgeable enough to figure out if that is level 3 or level 5.

She isn't even 3.5 but she can read when she wants to. And she wants to when she wants to, not when I decide to put a book in front of her. She wants to have control over her abilities. She will do math when she wants to, do puzzles when she wants to. There is internal motivation, sometimes it is very strong, how do I measure that? How did Ruf measure it? She does not disclose her methodology. Doesn't even hint at it. Just provides a checklist that has a lot of overlap.

She says that level 3 can do the elementary curriculum in 2 years, a level 5 in one year. So in this group here, how many PG kids have done the elementary curriculum in 1 year? And moved through high school by the time they are at least 12?

She talks about middle school being kind of a wash for level 3s.

Any comments on how your kids have fared compared to her examples?

Ren

Intrinsic drive and motivation differentiates the level five from the other levels. That had always struck me as *the* major (additionally) Ruf characteristic for level 5, rather than an afterthought.

I think we all agree that nature and nurture each play a part in intelligence. Most of us probably believe that nature has a greater impact, but wouldn�t deny that nurture also plays a role. This motivation is influenced by opportunity, support and personality so it can vary greatly as a child develops. It makes sense to me.

Many of us are at this board for the very reason of seeking support and ideas to help keep our child/en interested and motivated at learning.

I understand the �grade school in two years� argument to mean if it were compacted, a level 4 or 5 could move through it in that time.

Most of us find that there are various different theories of intelligence measure which are more and less difficult to accept. For example, I find the idea of a GAI score to be somewhat controversial. It seems a bit like �rounding up� to me.

As for the Ruf levels, I think that there may be a pretty strong division between parents who �buy it� and defend the theory because their own children did meet the majority of her listed early milestones and those who question the validity because it does not meet their own children�s experience.

"Again, this is MY opinion and not meant to be offensive to anyone who has a different one."
I always forget this disclaimer, but ditto for my posts.

My daughter solidly met all level four milestones to six years. She also *had* the WISC-III full scale of 99.7 and one WIAT sub-test of >99.9, both at 7 years, but does not perform even near that level any longer. She has had a good, but not perfectly tailored education, has non-accommodated receptive and expressive language LDs and is more strongly motivated to fit in with her peer group than to delve into academics beyond her teacher�s expectations.

I guess this is an example of how these level can be rather fluid and why I believe that early identification (whether by Ruf level or IQ) is imperative to best ensure children meet their own highest level of potential.

delbows - great point on the drive and motivation. DS is SO not level 5. He seems to learn effortlessly. But does not forge forward into new material with great confidence and motivation at all. And like your daughter, IS motivated to fit in with his peer group.

I also think the motivation changes for different things. My DS6 was a level 5 when it came to knowing about Transformers, cars, construction equipment, letters and numbers, etc. (depending upon when in his life you were looking). He was a level 4 at other things that were not his then-current obsession. He didn't have the drive to learn everything about everything, but he would have moved heaven and earth to know more about his pet subject.

I believe there's a very fluid line between level 4 and 5, and maybe between 3 and 4 as well.

Thank you for all these posts. I found these more informative than anything else I have read here. Probably because this is what confused me the most. CFK's and delbows comments seem to mirror my own thoughts and it also makes me look back at my own history where I skipped two grades and had subject matter acceleration in addition. But I lost my motivation as friendships and having a society was important to me.

I am hoping that having the specific elementary school geared to the gifted and having enough kids that motivate her will not create the temptation of keeping herself back.

That is the other thing. If Ruf's right about the number of Level 5s out there, there should be a lot of them in NYC, based on population, demographics of HG parents. The gifted elementary school head of admissions didn't seem to think there was that many.

Ren

That's a good point too, Kriston.

DS could write a book on the Spiderwick Chronicles series right now. Or whales. He does have his "topic du jour" which he completely immerses himself in and is highly motivated to learn about. I'm not seeing that kind of motivation in anything "academic". I guess that doesn't mean something won't click someday when they find a true passion.

�The one thing I do agree with completely is that internal motivation eventually determines much about what happens in the upper LOG. I have two kids not far apart on AT, IQ, or school ability. One wants to learn physics at 7 and the other wants to play basketball all day. I suspect they will look very different at 17 and that won't be about anything other than desire and rage to learn.�

J

My son also demonstrates a rage to learn. He really wants to fit in also, but not at the expense of his next science project! We're still working on finding a more accomodating educational environment.

I'm bumping this thread, since it seems timely. Obviously, there is plenty of debate among members of the forum about Ruf's usefulness.

And we're all perfectly okay with that.

Books, websites, even forums like this one, are all tools. Take what works for you and ignore what doesn't. Everything won't work for every person, and that's okay. It's just that simple.

Happy Friday, all!

Well, I stumbled into all this much later, when DS was 10 or so, so I might have felt different if I had a toddler. At the time I read Ruf's book, I found it very helpful. I had become somewhat disillusioned with the IQ numbers which did not seem to capture the whole story for DS. I found reading about individual children, their abilities, passions, and day-to-day activities to be more useful than seeing numbers. When I got to the level 4 kids, I suddenly felt like I'd found my own family--my brothers and my son. Everything I had read so far had been either clinical (IQ numbers) or institutional (how to advocated for your kid), but this was the first book that gave enough real anecdotes about real kids that I could feel a human connection. Imagine fire works and violins playing as I finally found GT chemistry!

I think of the book as a way of describing Ruf's own clinical experience. I guess as a counselor, myself, I appreciate how hard it can be to try to quantify the gut feeling that an experienced clinician gets when we are working with a client. But I have also learned to recognize that the gut is often more right than the so-called objective measures.

I like how you express that acs. That's a lot like how I feel about it, but, I am not so eloquent!

I

Thank you Kriston. And I find acs's comments very useful and I understand the emotional satisfaction achieved by Ruf's book. I too experienced that.

Ruf's book was helpful in understanding that there are differences between gifted children -- particularly how gifted. The reinforced point that a moderately gifted child will behave and respond to traditional education much differently than an exceptionally gifted child.

In my case, after the emotional high of saying "I am not crazy" this is real, there was this feeling of "now what" and I did not get clear direction on where to go, or how to do it. Especially when I read that level 4 & 5 should be able to complete the elementary education curriculum in a year. I did not know what to do with that. And when I put that in the forum, the responses I got back were: "you kind of ignore that" I paraphrase. But did anyone here experience their PG kid doing the elementary curriculum in a year and have them start college at 10 or 12?

I did not get one response that said yes. In my own research, particularly looking at the Giga Society that does have level 5 people their view is that there are only 7 people in the world at that level at any one time. Or are they level 6?

Ruf's book was a very intersting starting point, but just that, as starting point for me.

Ren

Yes, me too, acs. I love quantifiable data, but these are PEOPLE! We're not always quantifiable.

I think that just as a mother's intuition has merit that shouldn't be ignored because "she's not an expert" (BAH!), so also should we pay attention to the observations of a person trained in gifted psychology. Moms aren't always 100% right, but they're usually more right than wrong. Ruf is certainly not 100% right for every child, but there's something there that might be useful for some people.

That's worth having around, even if it isn't perfect, provided we interpret the book as case studies and extrapolations therefrom instead of exclusionary definitions of GTness, and provided there are other tools available for those who need them.

Hi Ren,
I have no doubt about my son's ability to start college, at least, part time now. He's 12 and his ACT scores are higher than the average entering freshman at the nearby college. He has good study skills and is interested in a lot of things. For all practical purposes he had mastered the academic portion of elementary school by 3rd grade or so and any gaps could have been filled in quite easily. so I think Ruf is absolutely right, that kids can finish elementary early and just go right on to HS and college.

But my DS doesn't want to. So it simply isn't a goal for our family. He loves a lot of things about school. He has friends he doesn't want to separated from; he loves orchestra; he participates in extra-curricular sports; and the boy is crazy about dodge ball. He runs for student council every year and is an officer in the schools philanthropic organization. These are all valuable non-academic learning experiences and he is not suffering at all--in fact he loves his life. So we are happy not pushing him to his full potential.

The same IQ/abilities and a different personality and he'd be in college.

So, Ren, I think the issue is that even as you know that your daugher is capable of finishing formal education early, you need to also realize that there is still so much more about her that you don't know yet. I didn't know what kind of school experience my DS would have when he was a pre-schooler. You may find that she is driven to learn at an astonishing pace and blows through elementary school. But her passion may be something different, music or sports or fashion design or playing with friends, and that those take all her time and she is happy to take her time with spelling and math and social studies. You just don't know yet.

I hope this helps!

A timely example is on the forum now: czechdrum's child is highly motivated to plow through schoolwork--far more than she is, she says--and she's guessing he'll be ready for college at 11 or 12.

Please note that kids who are *ready* for college-level work don't always do it. They study subjects more in-depth on their own or they study subjects never covered in elementary school like engineering or ballet or archaeology. Is it college-level work? No, but it's extra time spent on subjects they'd never see in elementary school, and that delays their move to college. Most parents tend to prefer this delay!

Many kids take online college-level courses at home, but do not attend a residential college (or even a community college) at age 10 or 12.

I don't recall anyone saying anything that even sounded like "ignore that" in this thread, though admittedly I didn't go back to reread every post. It sounds like you're wanting to read Ruf's book as if it were a how-to, and that's just not what it is. It's not what it's designed to be. Think *case study*!

There are lots of ways to be *capable* of college-level work without actually going to college.

Oh, and never underestimate the power of a starting point.

Chiming in here with my experience with DS8. He completed all of elementary school topics between the ages of 3-5. Probably more like 2-4, actually. When he was 4 I was spending my evenings learning about the Iliad (for the first time) so that he would have someone to help him set up Playmobil scenes of the Trojan war, as he was already an expert. By 5 he had read all the released Harry Potter books and was in middle school math. So age 5-7 for him was most of grade 6-7-8 topics. At 8 he still does some middle school level work, but mostly it's high school topics. His pace is very quick. I wouldn't be at all surprised if he was taking college courses at 11-12. But if he wanted to take time off from school and travel, volunteer, etc., I would be supportive of that as well.

Just wanted to lend some support to whatever level we're talking about (5?) and that kids like this do exist. Also, as a parent, I'm on the opposite end of the spectrum from hothousing - I'm more of an unschooler type. So, whatever our child learned, he learned because he decided that he wanted to do it and asked for resources.

Tara

If my DS6 continues at the pace he's on--and there's no guarantee that he wil, of course--he could probably finish the elementary school curriculum next year, actually, now that I think of it.

I'm dragging my heels against so much speed, which is why I didn't say that at first. I'm trying to take him deeper, not just faster. But reading Tara's comment made me think of it. If I let him work as fast as he could, he still wouldn't finish all of elementary school in a year--more like 18 months or 2 years--but that's pretty close to one year. And I think he's a level 4 on most academic subjects, not a level 5.

I wouldn't be at all surprised that level 5s could finish elementary school in a year or so.

Thank you for all these comments. There are so few kids finishing undergraduate school by 14 in the NYC metropolitan area, that they are profiled in the news. So if there is one per year, it didn't make Ruf's case and the IQ scores from Giga and Ruf's book didn't line up.

But in these profiles, the kids couldn't be held back from finishing college at 14. The parents usually tried to give them socialization through sports. One girl was a black belt in karate.

I thought this would be a level 5 example. I did not get this kid of profile from Ruf's book description of her level 5s. So I am wondering if there is a level 6 that would be like in the Giga.

I didn't think Ruf's book was a "how to" like I was renovating a kitchen. I may be non-linear but I am an engineer by education and pretty practical in my approach. As an applied engineer who went to Wall St and likes to trade derivative options, even a subjective science like economics has models.

So the bottom line, where I think we all agree, is that Ruf wrote a good layman's guide to the parent who wonders if their child is gifted. And then you figure it out. If you are in NYC, like me, you have gifted options. If you are in Wyoming (where I couldn't find a gas station for 50 miles) you seriously think about homeschooling. Luckily, the Internet and DVDs abound with stuff to supplement.

Now: I have asked about Marica Gross. What books do people recommend that are more practical. And I know bellaonline recomemnded one that I could not find, with four authors. Or maybe I could find it at amazon, but being a library addict didn't want to buy it. If the NYPL doesn't have it or borrow it from some university library, I look for something else.

And what I mean, is specific acceleration issues based on personality profiles. Like Ruf said that homeschooling is not recommended for the extrovert child.

I brought up acceleration is now an concern due to social changes, serious social changes at the middle school level and if you have a 9 year old, mixing with 11 and 12 year olds having oral sex that is a lot to deal with.

Ren

Hey, watch it, I don't live in Wyoming, but compared to Manhattan, I might as well. And I think it's a great place to have a level 4 kid.

We have a lot of dedicated teachers who get genuinely excited about a kid who loves to learn. We don't have a lot of kids going on to college and the teachers love it when they have a student with potential and bend over backwards to help him/her out. So life has been good for us and we haven't even felt the need to full grade accelerate.

A PG ranch kid (who grew up about 100 miles outside of the nearest town) who went to a mediocre high school just graduated from an local liberal arts college and then headed off to England on a Marshall scholarship (she was also first alternate for the Fulbright). PG kids can thrive in a variety of places.

I think there's plenty to worry about between the ages of 4 and 10 without adding oral sex to the mix yet. I'm not saying that you shouldn't plan ahead, but I don't think you have to put the cart before the horse.

What specifically are you looking for in a book, Wren? I could name several that might be useful, but most of the ones I turned to after Ruf were less general and more specific to my particular child's situation: HSing the gifted child, visual-spatial learner stuff, etc. The other general one people frequently like is the Gross book.

Keep in mind, there's not a whole lot of books out there on HG+ kids! GT kids in general, there's some stuff (though not as much as I would like). But HG+ kids? Slim pickings!

Maybe it would help for you to tell us what questions or concerns you have, and perhaps we can recommend something to help you with that problem or question?

I know you mentioned being disappointed with Ruf's work because she offered no help with how to talk to the school about your child. (That's why I mentioned the how-to thing, since it sounded like you wanted something more practical, less about understanding and more about action.) Are you looking for advocacy help?

Ditto that! I think once you figure out that your child is HG+, other parents are by FAR the best help you're going to find. Excellent point, Dottie!

I love this forum!

I had never heard of the Giga Society so I looked it up...and now I know why I'd never heard of them!

They have only 7 members in the world, and none of the tests they use to determine IQ scores are, to my knowledge, given with any regularity in the U.S.:

Test For Genius (Dutch, Eng, French, German)
Nemesis Test (Eng, Dutch)
Final Test, Laatste Test
Test To End All Tests, Test Der Testen
Cooijmans Intelligence Test (Eng, Dutch)
Space, Time and Hyperspace
Association Subtest (LTFG)
Analogies Subtest (LTFG)

I've never even heard of these tests. And a score of 190 or 196 is required (depending upon the test) in order to qualify for the group.

I realize these are people way out in the tippy-tip of the tail, yet I'd still bet money that there are more than 2 people in the U.S. who meet the qualifications for this group; if no one takes the tests, no one would ever know that they qualify. And if these tests aren't administered regularly in other parts of the world, those potential members are being missed, too.

Has anyone else heard of this group before?

Is Giga your watermark for defining PG, Wren? If so, I don't think you're operating within a framework that the rest of us are, or the entire rest of the GT community is, for that matter...

I certainly don't mean to pick a fight, but I think you might be coming at this whole GT thing from a very different place than we are, and it might affect the way we all communicate.

The Gila Society mirrors the DYS qualification requirements&#61514;

http://www.gliasociety.org/

(I just found this while looking up Giga also)

There's a "Female Intelligence Test"? (It's one that Glia allows "if supervised.")

How interesting...

It would seem that many of the Giga members would be Dutch or German, based on the language concentration for the testing.

Tara

They have a list of the members and their countries of origin posted on the website, actually:

Dany Provost, Canada
Evangelos G. Katsioulis, Greece
Paul Johns, UK
Andreas Gunnarsson, Sweden
Rolf Mifflin, USA
Thomas R. A. Wolf, Germany
Scott Durgin, USA

Oh, and the society's founder is Paul Cooijmans, from the Netherlands.

OK, OK, now I had to take a look. Here you go: http://paulcooijmans.lunarpages.com/org/giga.html

I am definitely NOT eligible for membership.

In all seriousness, if you follow through on the links, you will see that they distinguish between childhood and adult level IQ tests. They are clearly interested only in the latter, as they believe the childhood tests (they refer to SB) can't measure the highest level IQs - which is what so many of you have said in your various conversations on this board.

I don't know anything about the organizations for super high IQ. But I am willing to speculate a bit!

I'm sure you are all familiar with Mensa, the society for the top 2% in intelligence. I have been a Mensa member for many years, and I actually met my husband through this group. It's not a bad social scene for a geeky young woman. Mensa made me feel "cool!" Back in my single days, I also registered with one of the marginally higher IQ groups for those in the top 1%. I found that that club's membership was basically just a subset of Mensa members! They had fewer people and less to offer in terms of activities, so I let my membership lapse after that one year. I suspect that there are some high IQ groups that actually offer more than bragging rights, but for most outside of Mensa (which has the numbers to really do a lot) it is probably a challenge just to get enough volunteers to get a newsletter out!

edited: false alarm *whew*

Tara

I didn't where to post here or on my other topic of confused.

First, why I am discussing this I wrote in my last post. Where I thought DD was in the curve and issues of her development.

I thought advocacy was most important in that part of the curve as people in GIGA really don't need it.

Secondly, someone asked about my interest in Non-linear and linear. I think this is a very interesting topic.

Because we can easily provide for the linear. But non-linear is the strategic and analytical side. As basically a non-linear with the typical hearing comprehension issues that Ellen Winner comments on, and DH being the ultimate linear gifted type, with a fact file that rivals Brittanica, I am interested in suppporting DD's non-linear development. (long sentence, sorry)

And it boils down to motivation, or what I think of as hunger.

Here's something to think about. When DH went to Harvard, they used to try and get a broad reach of kids across the country with a set amount from Andover, Exeter and NYC. Now, based on the long term outcomes of success (I think this means end income levels and contribuations to the Endowment --my assumption) they would rather take more kids from NYC than a top achiever from MN.

I think the linear accumlulation is great if you want to become a physician (like DH) or teacher but if you want success as a corporate lawyer or on Wall Street, it is the non-linear development. You have to get the picture, not go step by step.

Anyway, I am going to follow up with Ellen Winner and see who I can find at Columbia. And will post my findings. Grinity, look forward to seeing what you find out.

Shall we start a new topic, based on findings of the GT levels?

Ren

Sorry, I was rushing at the end, at work.

I started motivation, ie hunger as a thought.

Because I think the hunger drives post school success, particularly as we go into the lack of jobs. NYU and Columbia dental and medical schools are 80% Indian and Asian by demographic and I don't mean born here and ethnic background, I mean not born here. Those populations are each 4 times the US and they are gaining material affluence, they want their kids educated and the university system has not been developed. But then they stay here. Job opportunities are getting very scarce. The recent generation is the first statistically to do less well than than the previous in terms of job salaries upon graduation. It is going to get worse.

There was an article I read about gifted and aptitude. And education to train for a job is not the current attitude. People think that you get educated for education sake and the job will come. But the jobs are not coming.

I want DD to be prepared in the best way. And if there are ways to help her, just like telling her now "drugs are bad" so that at 14 is is imprinted in mind, the most I can do to give her options for long term career choices, I want to give her as a parent.

Ren

Well, I would argue that no one knows if they're GIGA status until later in life. Everyone in GIGA started out as a kid with a ravenous hunger to learn and achieve that was fed well throughout their lives. I'm sure every one of them had a family that was extremely supportive of their emotional and academic needs. Not every PG++ child presents the same. Einstein for instance.

I do think there are kids HG+ that fall through the cracks that present as severe emotional problems, underachievers, etc. I think my brother and I were both unidentified HG+ kids that languished through elementary school for certain. I did ok in the end, but could have done better. My brother still struggles with anything that requires more than minimal effort. Lucky for him, he's a person with very strong social skills that get him by and he chose to kill off many of his brain cells in college. We went to a private school that touted itself on being academically challenging.

Your use of MN as an example is interesting. I think it is reasonable to assume that someone who lives on the coast, is making more money due to higher cost of living or greater "hunger", is more likely to send donations to Harvard. It's been featured on the news here and I cannot find a link, but it doesn't really pay for people to pay for Ivy League schools and return here. There is not a significant difference between the salaries of a U of MN grad and a Ivy League grad.

It is good to feed your child's hunger and present them with many opportunties in life. But at the end of the day, it really is all about them and what they want to do and where their interests and motivations lie. We know a couple in our neighborhood - both professors with PhD's and quite brilliant. They have 1 daughter who moved to Alaska and became an electrician. So - you just don't know until you get there! I have no idea what her childhood was like, but I'm sure it's an interesting story. I heard at woman speak at the NAGC conference and her child that read spontaneously at 2, dropped out of high school for a time and debates going to college at all.

Interesting post, kimck.

I definitely think there's more to life than feeling your own brilliance and chasing a high-powered career, if that's not where your heart lies.

It wouldn't be hard to look at my life and say that I'm underachieving, since I'm a SAHM and not out conquering the world as people thought I would when I was young. But I'd be miserable in that sort of life, and I'm happy as a lark in this life. If I get my novel published, I'll pretty much have everything I have ever wanted in life, though this isn't the life I envisioned for myself way-back-when.

<shrug>

I think it all comes back to what we value. If you think your child is "wasting" his/her talents unless he/she is in some high-pressure environment or top of the heap in a highly competitive field, then you may wind up disappointed and with a very rebellious, unhappy child who hates you for never understanding who s/he is.

I have my guesses about what my kids will become when they grow up, but that's just for fun, to see how close DH and I get to what they really wind up doing. My ultimate goal for both my kids is the same as it has been since before they were born: I hope that they grow up to be happy, healthy, well-adjusted, productive members of society, in whatever form that takes for them.

An electrician in Alaska? Sure! Great spot for us to take our retirement trips! A high-powered executive with his finger on the pulse? Yup, if he is able to do that and still find joy and balance in his life. A poet in a cabin in the wilderness? Sure, if that works for him.

I can't imagine anything productive that my kids could become that would disappoint me. I completely agree, kimck, that "at the end of the day, it really is all about them and what they want to do and where their interests and motivations lie."

In the end, it's not my life; it's my child's. They're all different. And thank goodness for that!

First, I used MN just because in DH group there was someone from MN, and there is background story to that which I don't need to address here.

The part some of you might of missed is "options" I want to give DD options. I don't think Alaska is preferred since I think she hates bugs as much as me. I am a natural magnet for mosquitos.

But if it, it is not that exclusive. If she wants to be a coporate lawyer, it is harder.

To give her all the options that is what I wrote. Not that she had to take any of them. My mother brought me up to be a doctor or a dentist, because she saw those that allowed a woman to be in charge. She stressed that I be in a position of decision making. That was a strong lesson. Nothing wrong to not be in a position that isn't decision making, but that wouldn't work for me.

I want to make sure my daughter has options. Am I clear this time?

Ren

It's a good thing I didn't finish typing my original (now deleted) post. I agree w/ everything Kriston wrote, and couldn't have said it better.

My former coworkers think I'm nuts for going to law school only to do public interest work. The debt:income ratio appears irrational to them. Good thing it's my life. Money definitely isn't everything. I want peace and happiness.

Makes sense. Thanks for clarifying.

Kriston-

You brought a tear to my eye. Lovely thoughts!

My goals for my pg seven year old are much shorter term. I want her to be challenged, to enjoy learning, to learn to respect herself and others.

Wren, if you raise your daughter to be a happy, healthy adult, then you don't need to worry about giving her choices. She will be able to create her own. You need to be careful not to over invest in her future. It is her path to take. She is quite young and I doubt that anyone can predict if she will become a member of the GIGA society as an adult. Would it even matter?

Life is not all about power and money. Not long ago I heard a story in the radio.

"A high powered business man visited a small island in Mexico. While there, he purchased several fish form a local fisherman. The business man was very impressed with the quality of the fish and asked the fisherman how many hours he spent fishing. The fisherman answered that he fished a few hours during the day. The business man asked him what he did the rest of the day. "I get up and have breakfast with my family, then go fishing for a couple of hours. I come back and have lunch with my wife and then take a siesta. I go back and fish for a comple more hours and then come back and go to the plaza to have a few drinks with my buddies""

The business man told the fisherman that he had a Harvard Business degree and he could make him a rich man. First, he said, you need to increase the amount of time you fish. With the added income you can buy more boats and hire other people. I can help you export your product. I then can take the company public and in your old age you will be a very wealthy man.

"Then what would I do?", asked the fisherman.

"You can retire in a small island, have breakfast with your wife and kids and take your siesta in the afternoons. You will have the time to spend with your friends in the afternoons..."

The business man was suddently silent.

Love that, bianca!

And challenge and short-term goals, especially with these kids, are VITAL! Thanks for adding that, Dottie and Bianca!

Bianca, that is wonderful. All I ever wanted to do was get married and have kids and stay at home with them. I can remember people in high school getting so mad at me for not having loftier goals and putting my mind to "better use". When I was voted Most Likely to Succeed I had a friend that chewed me out that I didn't deserve that because I wasn't even going to attempt to succeed. But I felt if I got what made me happy then I had succeeded whether it made me rich or famous or not.

So I really enjoyed that story - thanks for sharing!

That was my goal as well in highschool. I was taking all AP classes and wanted to be a stay at home mom.

Looking back, I am so glad that my parents encouraged me to go to Nursing School right out of college and then at the age of 22 I started having kids. Right now I can't imagine being a stay at home mom. I love my job too much.

I must write very badly, everyone seems to take what I write the wrong way.

I never said she had to make money. I said I wanted her to have options.

Though the way she has reacted to new shoes at 14 months and since (I think she is channeling my mother regarding expansive wardrobe needs)she may need a lot of money.

Though where she goes to college may be pressured by DH (first thing he bought her was an infant cap from Harvard. She went to the Harvard/Yale game at 2 months.)

Just joking Kriston that she has to go to Harvard. As long as it isn't Yale.

I do not agree that what she wants to do is OK as long as she is happy. Did you know that in the 1950s people were asked what they wanted from their kids and they said they wanted them to be good members of society (something like that) and they brought their kids up to get educated and get jobs. Parents were asked in the 1970s what they wanted and they said they wanted their kids to be happy. Well the outcome of the former parenting style produced people that said they were happy, because they had jobs and bought homes and could feed their children. The second group produced a lot of misfits that do not have direction, say they are not happy and do not have jobs they think of as permanent.

We went through a stagnation cycle in the late 70s that permanently put our manufacturing sector on shrinkage and this stagnation cycle will see further weakening of the household income as gasoline goes to $5 per gallon, bananas have doubled in price since summer and wheat and sugar prices are going to the moon.

What will make DD happy? Being able to take care of herself as an adult. Just because a kid is PG does not mean they have a career lined up for them. And the message I got at 6 about decision making and career choice set a foundation for me, a mindset. Do not underestimate the life long lessons kids learn at 3, 4, 5, 6.

Ren

Lovely post, Kriston. I am exactly where you are at. My intense career years were great. I didn't have DS until 30. I spent my 20's working 60+ hours a week and travelling overseas. I wouldn't trade it for everything. But our lives now are so full and wonderful and I love being able to be home while our kids are small. It's not for everyone, but it has worked well for us and we have a much more relaxed lifestyle for it. When I think of going back to work I think of pouring my heart into a small non-profit or working in education. So far from where I started my career.

Definitely all kids should have their options wide open. And the children of the parents on this board are obviously particularly lucky in this regard. I do think if a person has great passion, they will succeed and be happy at whatever they choose to do - from electrician to corporate lawyer to parent. You can feed their passions, but not necessarily choose them.

Agreed, kimck. Where we start and where we finish are not just sometimes, but are usually very different, for the majority of people.

I went through the meat-grinder of grad school with plans to be a professor. I wasn't happy in that choice (and the job market in my field stank to high heaven, so there were practical concerns as well), so I left. I worked freelance in business writing, took a position in corporate training and wound up in volunteer training at a non-profit. It was all...meh. At 30, I got married to a man I love deeply and sanely, and we had our first child a couple of years later. I found my work passion--my novel series--shortly after the birth of child #2.

I know what else is out there in the world. I've traveled. I've worked. I know what matters to me and why. I feel strong and smart and appreciated. I am not wealthy, but we have more than enough to meet our needs. I feel challenged. My life is rich.

That's what I want for my kids, too, and I think our little group here is living proof that there are lots of different ways to get there.

I have to agree Kriston. All I wanted to do was be a wife and mother but of course that didn't mean I was going to sit around waiting for some man to come sweep me off my feet and take care of me. LOL! I wound up with 2 college degrees and a good job. I still work part time and I am glad that I can do that because then I get to spend the rest of the time with my kids.

I too want my kids to know what options are out there. I don't think I fully understood all that there was to do out in the world when I was 18. I think I would have like to have been an archaeologist but that didn't seem a viable option at the time though I'm not sure why. I want to make sure that my kids do know what options are out there and I want them to travel and really know what they could do with their lives. But my ultimate goal is for them to find something that makes them happy. And I do think that involves getting a college degree and having lots of options open to them so they can get good jobs.

And Ren it didn't offend me when you said "The second group produced a lot of misfits that do not have direction, say they are not happy and do not have jobs they think of as permanent" but I am a child of the 1970's and I don't consider myself a misfit without direction and I am happy and have been at the same job since graduating college 16 years ago. And the same for the people I know and graduated from school with. So I'm not sure what group you are talking about. ?? Or maybe I misread?

I think I understand all sides of this issue. I, too, want DS to be happy, and I like to think I'd be happy whatever he chooses to do as long as he's happy, but honestly, I don't think I'm big enough to accept whatever he chooses to do. Just hope I'm big enough to keep my big mouth shut whatever he chooses to do, as long as he's happy...

Thank you for all comments. And I am glad we all have our opinions because there is no right way or wrong way if we all want to provide our children with options.

I am reading a paper:

http://www.gifted.uconn.edu/nrcgt/reports/rbdm9308/rbdm9308.pdf

on raising very young gifted children. Kind of an "how to" since I really like a map...

Ren

Thanks for the link Ren!

I think that was so important that I wanted to bring that out again. Our sense of worth brings fulfillment, which gives us real happiness. When we contribute to our community, it increases our sense of worth, "self-esteem" if you prefer that word. So, our happiness comes when we are concerned about others welfare and happiness. Make happiness our personal goal, and it eludes us.
And as all general observations, it does not hold true for everyone. But I thought that was a good observation that Wren made.

Here's a "yes....sort of."

I was visiting the forum looking for some other info, but Ren's question caught my eye and I decided to toss in my 2 cents worth.

I've known a lot of EG & PG kids and families over the years. The son of a friend completed the K-12 curriculum by age 6, and I think most PG kids I've known were at least intellectually capable of finishing the K-5 curriculum by that age. And, at least in my experience, virtually 100% of PG kids are capable of completing K-12 by age 12 if they want to, and quite a few of them do.

But the question about doing elementary in one year ends up being moot for most of our kids because WE, the parents, are usually so slow to recognize that they are not just gifted but way off the charts. Most of us are still either clueless or in denial at that stage. I know in our case that, when our son was six, the thought of having a 7yo ready for 7th grade would have shocked us and scared us silly!

DW and I thought we were meeting his needs by getting him into a full-time gifted elementary. After many tears were shed over how slow and boring school was, especially math, we enrolled him in Stanford's EPGY math program. He did grades 3-8 in 6 months (@15 min/day) and two years of HS algebra in another 6 months (@ ~30min/day).

This finally clued us in that we weren't just dealing with "normal gifted." Then he asked to skip grades 5-8 and go to high school. I did some pretesting and outlined the preparation he needed. We homeschooled for a year (nominally 5th grade). He did a compressed grade 5-8 curriculum with absurd ease and continued through geometry, some other high school content, and a bit of college-level material.

He was accepted at the local math/science magnet high school at age 11. He did fine the first year, with a 1st place in the science fair, a 2nd in the history fair, and pretty good grades in honors and AP courses, but then he took a college course in Symbolic Logic over the summer, led the class, and decided that high school courses were boring. He stuck it out for one more year because WE weren't prepared for him to be in college, but we caved in and let him start at a local university at 13.

This was a kid who would have had a wide mixture of scores on Ruf's levels at age 5. He was quite early with things like lifting his head, walking, speaking, grammar, and vocabulary, but he didn't read independently or do arithmetic until kindergarten. He NEVER showed the generalized passion for learning that seems to characterize most level 5s and many level 4s. Passion for specific subjects, yes. Unhappiness with "slow" instruction, yes. Relentless pressure to learn everything, definitely not! At that age, he preferred drawing, daydreaming, playing games, or just hanging out with older kids or grownups.

Now, COULD he have done (say) the K-5 curriculum in one year? We'll never know, but - excluding handwriting, and assuming either homeschooling by a very motivated parent or a highly compacted program for PG 6yos (!) - I wouldn't want to bet against him. I strongly suspect that he had the ability to do it, but he might not have had the motivation. More to the point, even if such an accelerated program had been available, it would never have occurred to us to put him in it when he was 6.

Anyway, IMHO, Ruf is about right on how fast level 3s, 4s, and 5s can learn the elementary curriculum, especially if they already have a good headstart on reading and arithmetic. The reason they usually don't is that grownups don't give them the chance to try!

Drake

I agree. Well put!

Thanks for the two-cents, Drake. Hope you'll post again!

Thanks for the post Drake! Very enlightening.


This sounds like my DS in preschool, who's overwhelming us now in 1st grade. He was interested and doing some arithmetic before kindergarten. But wildly passionate - no. A little scary to read.

Drake, thank you for a very informative post. Though, in my opinion, it shows how you couldn't hold him back, despite all efforts and concerns. This child was going to push his way into university at a very young age.

One thing that surprises me is that the gifted elementary school did not accomodate his needs. That is what I am expecting from Hunter, that they will do the things you had to do, because they are the professionals in gifted. Especially when they are the magnet gifted school.

The NYC public magnet gifted school does the pullouts and subject acceleration as needed. They told us of a grade 1 child that goes to grade 8 for math.

Ren

It would be interesting to know what the entry criteria for Drake's particular GT school would be and what kind of audience they were targeting?

Hunter with their cut-off and entry process sounds like they are likely to get "very" PG kids. Although, interestingly Drake's son may not have been choosen because he wasn't lighting the world on fire before kindergarten. Nor mine for that matter. And when you are dealing with kids like that you would think and hope they would need to be extremely accomodating and flexible to truly serve that particular student body.

Our GT magnet is somewhat flexible, but the majority of kids are MG, so I get the feeling that you still needing to do major advocacy if your child is more than MG. And if you accelerate, you are still in a class of MG kids perhaps averaging a full standard deviation or more from yourself.

Hunter had a 98 percentile cutoff on the SB this year (do not know if SB4 or 5). Then they do a 2 hour evaluation with each child, in small groups. I have known children who do not get in despite a 99% score.

Once you get to evaluation, they do not look at the scores and choose on behavior during the evaluation.

The public magnet gifted schools now have a 97% cut off on the OlSAT and they stopped the evaluations. Just because you get in the 97th percentile doesn't mean you get in. They are taking the top scorers and filling the spots in the 3 schools.

Ren