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-
