As an aside, this board sometimes has a lot of negative posts about "hothousing" (xoxosmom, I'm not referring to your post here, but to ones I've seen over the past couple years). I think these posts can be a little unfair and can lead to the misconception that if a child is truly gifted or highly gifted, s/he'll learn everything without help (and that non-gifted kids need to be taught).
This isn't true at all. If it were, there would be no need to send gifted kids to school at all (or homeschool them) and places like the Davidson Academy etc. wouldn't exist. Everyone, no matter how brilliant, needs instruction from someone who is more knowledgeable about a subject. Two of my kids adore science, and beg me to teach them about it. My eldest says that learning is more fun when I'm helping him. Does this mean they aren't gifted?
Also, over-emphasizing the statement that "my child teaches himself" can undermine arguments for getting accomodations in school (overworked teachers can use this as an reason to deny help, saying that "if he can teach himself, my primary duty has to be to the others, who can't teach themselves.").
Sorry, not trying to offend anyone, but this, umm, hothousing stuff, kind of bothers me. It can be divisive.
Val
IMO, there is a difference between following a child's lead, etc. and "hothousing". Hothousing is when the parent actively drills information into the child because they want the child to know/do X early. I don't believe that any parent on this board does this, at least I haven't read any posts that have made me think this. I do think that it's the practice of Hothousing that gives parents like those on this board a bad name.
I haven't found the topic of hothousing to be divisive, then again I haven't found anyone who thinks hothousing is a good thing. Nor do I believe that children (GT or ND) learn in a vaccuum. I do stand by my conviction that if a parent has to drill a child on formal (sit down style)reading lessons for over 2 years so the parent can say "Janey started reading at age 4 because I taught her!" and not because the child had any interest in the subject then that *is* an example of hot housing and it *is* a negative thing. Offering tools and guidance, answering questions and yes even providing lessons based on the
child's interests and abilities are wonderful things. The former, notsomuch, IMO.
Admittedly, I have trouble considering a child gifted or even advanced if a parent drilled a child daily for years on X skill before the child was mentally/physically able to make the needed connections to utilize the skill, because the
parent wanted the child to learn it. Of course a GT kid can spend years digging deeply into a subject. I have just never come across one that needs
years of drilling to be able to *utilize* (not internalize but more along the lines of rote regurgitation)the basic tenents of a topic.
I also believe that being able to discuss topics that have the potential to be divisive is a way to help test foundations. In fact discussing hothousing helped me to learn that *I* was not hothousing my children. I had been worried, after a few accusations from acquaintences that I was damaging my kids by hothousing them that I retracted almost fully from offering them guidance, tools for learning etc. I got to the point that I withdrew from playing with them, too. I was worried that I would "turn it into a learning lesson" (another accusation) by using descriptive words. "Please hand me the *red* block" vs. "Please hand me the block" or "Can I have some cards?" vs. "Can I have 3 cards?" etc. I finally realized the insanity of it and found that my foundation had been tested and strengthened and that I was doing what my children *needed* and what fit *them* all along.
BTW, I do agree that over-emphasizing the self-sufficency of a child when it comes to learning can make it harder to gain accomodations in a school setting.
