This concept of self taught has confused me from the beginning. For example my toddler has read three sight words before I taught her any phonics. She is not self taught. She has a rich environment. A lady with four children was once arguing that her baby was self taught and that she did not provide a rich environment. Hello. Older siblings is an enriched environment automatically. Daycare is an enriched environment. Sunday school is an enriched environment. Cable television is an enriched environment.
Some kids have a hard time learning at an older age with the same exact teaching supplements. Some people learn quicker with less effort. I've seen it argued that gifted kids still put in the effort to learn these things, even if it was earlier or easier. The arguement was in response to, "Gifted kids aren't the good students the students who work hard to learn are the good students."
Which makes me ask, if they learn with less time or effort than other children then I guess you could say they're a quick learner. Should you teach a quick learner more? If so, what? If so, what is the practical difference between quick learner, high achiever, and gifted student? And don't tell me because they feel and think things more deeply. I mean if you have any one of these as a young'un shouldn't you teach them more stuff more deeply, or more simply said just teach them more? If your child is reading at any age, don't hold them back. Provide scaffolding so they can master more skills at an appropriate to them pace. Too bad it's tricky to balance this with learning to navigate the educational offerings available. They wouldn't spend so much on test prep and testing if they (the other they) would just offer a more good education for whoever wants to take it.
