Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums Learning Environments Research based education

My 2nd DD has just finished preschool (at last it's over!) and I am considering writing a letter to the school regarding both the pros and cons of her time there. I don't want to be one of "those" parents, but on the other hand if no-one speaks up how will they know? As a result I have been thinking a lot about what we liked, what we didn't, what I think should be changed or considered, and why.

I know that the preschool considers that it implements best practice as per current research on early learning. The school to which the preschool is attached also tells me that they have an usually high number of both bright and gifted kids, and so far that does seem to be true. So the questions on my mind are - if they have so many bright to gifted kids (and a fair number highly so), why is the preschool so poor at picking them and is there any research on best practice in early childhood education for the gifted?

I am guessing the programs preschool are using are aimed at the middle AND that preschool is of the thinking that if 1 yr of play based preschool is good then 2 years is better. I on the other hand think that playbased preschool probably is a good thing for a gifted child up to a point, but more is not better!

So does anyone know whether there is any research into ideal early learning for gifted kids?

You could look at the work of Louise Porter in Australia and Margaret Sutherland in the United Kingdom. Joan Franklin Smutny is excellent too but perhaps her work deals with slightly older children. What age is pre-school in Australia?

Thanks Kiwi! I have heard of Louise Porter I will have another look at her work.

I have Louise Porter's book on young gifted children but I haven't finished reading it yet, I think education wasthe next chapter so I will let you know if I find anything thast might be useful.

I do wonder wether anything useful would be done in the research because of the huje variations both in 'gifted children' and in 'play-based learning'(Some use playbased learning to be not introducing any academic content at all, while others consider even Montessori to be 'play-based' - its very variable).

Thanks GM!

I wouldn't bother wasting time writing a letter. Actually, the research is NOT in your favor regarding preschool. Part of my psych degree involved doing a practicum at Stanford's Bing Nursery school, which is all play based. At the time, people were paying $10,000 in preschool tuition there. We had to review all of the research that said play based was the way to go. Of course, probably most of that research is based on neurotypical kids!

We ended up going with Montessori for preschool. Here's my review:

http://teachingmybabytoread.blog.com/2011/06/16/montessori/

Mum3 -
I'll wager that lots of our kids would love play-based learning up to age 10 if a few circumstances were in place: (Not sure where to place this age limit, but I know that I drool over Deep Springs College, work not play, but...you get the idea!)

1) our children had 'true peers' to play with, that is, the children were matched not only by age, but by LOG. In remote area, where matching LOG isn't possible, that children be given the option of multiage groups where they are the youngest ones.

2) That the play materials be a match for our children's actual development, not their 'age-assumed' development. 'Jr' Chemistry sets, wood working, crochet, knitting socks, gardening, and board games. Think back 150 years to what 5 year olds did - pretty high level stuff by today's standards.

3) That the teachers knew quite a bit about both the subject matter at hand, so could bring in 'learning ideas' during the play, and about what kids of this LOG enjoy. Therefore story-time read aloud selections might be from "Wizard of Oz Sequels."

4) That there was a recognition that learning that other kids consider 'work' might be considered 'just fun' for these kids.

5) The day is short enough that kids can do their 'real learning' at home, or time is built into the day for each child to work at their own level. It might mean that 'lunch hour mentors' drop by the school to give 'one to one' attention on each child's favorite topic.

Would I win this bet?

(I'd say to write the letter for your own peace of mind, then post it here and we'll help you figure out if any of it can be shared. You want to be sure you don't lose the lessons you've run, and someday, someone may show up looking for ideas on how to run a LOG-appropriate preschool.)

Love and More Love,
Grinity

I am still working on the letter... We go back in 7 days. I hope to get it done by then, but it's not really urgent given her preschool days are done. As suggested above I read Louise Porter's book, well the only one of them I could get on kindle and read while breastfeeding and putting the baby to sleep (my only real reading time). It's a good choice being Australian and reasonably current. I have a couple of quotes from it which I feel exactly pin point the pre-school's issues and I am ruminating on how to insert them.

"It remains a source of astonishment... that the same sane and caring adults who would not dream of forcing a child growing at a faster rate than average into shoes too small for her feet will nonetheless insist on forcing a child whose mental growth is faster than average into a learning program too small for her mind and imagination." Louise Porter, Gifted Young Children.

"Of any children in schools, those who are learning least on any given day are the gifted ones."

"A teacher's knowledge of child development - which is valuable in all other circumstances - can also be a handicap for gifted children it it sets a ceiling on an educator's expectations of them in the belief that, because of their age, they are not ready for more advanced experiences."

The last one being the most important in this context. I truly believe the center to be painstakingly set up by knowledgeable teachers around ideals for child development - having completely overlooked the percentage of their children who are very bright to gifted, and so NOT mentally 3-5 yrs old. But they are so entrenched in letting little children be little children that it is blasphemous to suggest that their developmental play is no more developmental for my 5 yr old than it would be for the average 7-8 year old. Sure it's entertaining for a while but it's not building new skills.

The school seems to do a lot of training on giftedness but I wonder if the preschool have ever done any. They are well versed in spotting many other developmental issues. This is an expensive private preschool attached to a high fee private school in a wealthy area. If the preschool suggests OT the kids get it, if they suggest hearing assessments they get them, if they suggest speech therapy it happens. This is a preschool with zero real behavioral or social issues to deal with, obviously every kid has their day but it would be unusual to even see significant ongoing separation anxiety, let alone persistent difficult behavior from a child (I hear there was one difficult child last year and I suspect he was asked to leave). Any little thing will be picked up and addressed so that each child has the best possible opportunity to thrive. Except perhaps the gifted ones.

It's almost stepford ideal really. One almost wonders if that is what the director wants from life - a perfect environment in which to put ideal children through their paces. Which would be the well adjusted very bright kids I guess.

They don't seem to be picking up the kids that are self entertaining in a quality environment but not actually stretching their wings at all. Their environment is fun and challenging to an average to bright child, so when my DD doesn't persist with what is to them a more advanced puzzle they conclude she is not ready yet - unaware that my child won't persist with the jigsaw puzzles because she was doing puzzles of that difficulty before she started preschool two years ago. They seem unaware that her friends' oddities are most likely related to giftedness too and instead conclude that the child is less mature than average. It seems they think he is a bit odd and they find him frustrating to deal with but they just can't put their finger on why. I don't know that he's gifted but I would be surprised if he wasn't at the very least VERY high average, or whatever the current term for nearly gifted is, and that's assuming a 2% cut off.

Given I have a 3rd child who, if we stick with this school, will go through preschool I would like them to have some training in gifted by the time she gets there.... Of course my 16 month old might not be gifted, but it's statistically unlikely and in some respects she may be my most advanced baby...

Grinity--I think you've made a number of good points. I think that that pre-school would work for a lot of gifted children. For the kids who need something that is more like primary school, I'd almost rather see those kids accelerate to primary school.

I'm curious as to the experiences of those of you who have parented PG preschoolers. Do you think that your children would do/would have done better in pre-schools such as the one Grinity describes, or in a more structured, school-like, academic program. My kids aren't PG, so I don't have a personal context here. My kids would have hated a structured academic program at that age, but would probably have loved access to some more advanced materials to play with and explore.

MumOfThree: I wonder about buying the book you are reading as a thank you gift to the pre-school, or loaning your book with sticky notes and your handwritten notes in it (as if you were noting to yourself). I've sometimes sent something along to a teacher with a, "came across this and thought you would find it interesting...." note. "I was really struck by chapter __________.". That would provide a way to highlight some of the quotes you pulled out without it appearing to be a criticism of the teachers. I've found that suggestions for change are sometimes best recieved when they are couched as collaborative sharing rather than feedback. Of course, having never met the teachers in question, I have no idea whether or not this is even an issue.

I agree with the others that criticising what they did for your child after it's too late for them to do it is not likely to be well received. Are you planning to/in a position to give them a gift in thank you for looking after your DD? If so, perhaps you might consider giving them a couple of puzzles that would have been appropriate for your DD and are more advanced than what they have now, maybe with a note saying "I realise these say they are aimed at older children but my DD was enjoying puzzles like this at that age and we noticed you didn't have any like this, so perhaps they will be a useful addition that will be enjoyed by other children" or something like that.

TBH I'm not really with you on what they did wrong, though; puzzles at the wrong level is one thing I can understand, but I have a hard time in thinking of what another three examples could be. I don't see it as the role of a play-based centre to "challenge" children at all - IME they challenge themselves and don't need special equipment to do so; the beauty of most equipment used with this age group is that it can be used in lots of ways. When I think about the things my DS most played with at the equivalent stage, I think of books - which were there for adults to read to the children, but which he read to himself - sand and water etc., outdoor play equipment, construction toys, art materials sometimes - all these things were used by all the children and I don't know what else I would have wanted him to have available; he certainly enjoyed it and learned from it. I wouldn't have wanted them to "identify" my DS and do special things with him. I'd have been upset if they'd been trying to force him to do things that weren't interesting to him - is that what happened with your DD? If so I'd think twice about sending another child there. If it's just about what toys etc. they have, then I'd think that budgeting to give them things occasionally (say, instead of buying them just for your own child at home) would be likely to be more effective than trying to get them to buy them.