Does doing things early make any differnece in t he long run?

[codswallop]

chatiing with ohter mums wiht babies ds3s age after school this am. We were notincing th differnces between them and their siblings and we concluded that doing things early ( reading, walking, teething, swimming) makes no differnce in t he end ( after all academic prowess sadly not judged on number of teeth or ability to recite abc)

that they all swim in the end, all read int he end etc..
what do you a ll think?

[SoupDragon]

Not sure. With some things it certainly makes no difference (eg walking) but I wonder if with stuff like swimming they will always be more comfortable in water than a late swimmer? DS1 (5) spoke early and clearly and his language is still above some of his peers (those whom I've known since pre-talking) but the gap certainly narrows. He walked later than his peer group but is certainly now on a par with physical abilities.

[Fio2]

I learnt to swim late and never had much confidence in water until my teens. I am a brilliant cinfident swimmer now [boast boast boast]

dont think late, walking, talking reading matters or riding a bike much unless it is to do with a learning disability

My mum cant swim or ride a bike, well she can but not very well because she wasnt taught as a child

[SoupDragon]

I learnt to swim at around 9 and have never been confident (I am competant though!). DS1 and 2 seem so natural and at home in the water. It's impossible to judge isn't it - each child has different talents.

I suspect it's more important how often the skills are used - walking is used all the time so there'll be no difference because of when they started. Early reading is fine but if you don't then go on to read regularly, the skill will be permanently rusty.

[marialuisa]

I think with things like swimming it can make a difference. My mum can't swim and her 4 other kids are not confident swimmers (actually the 4 year old has never been in a pool). I only learned early because of the divorced dad syndrome but ended up swimming at national level until my mid-teens.

[Fio2]

I have to laugh at my husband when he reads. he is a very clever but technical man but when he reads he pronounces everything wrong and I just sit giggling at him. We went to wales last year and without thinking he said "does'nt the view just look like canadia?" "Pardon?"

[StripyMouse]

I reckon it depends on the child and what skill you are tlaking about.My DD1 was walking long before her peers and made no long term difference - just more work for me earlier on keeping up with her and she had more bumps as hadn?t the spacial awareness and sense of an older toddler. However, learning to swim earlier is a def. advantage in my book - the younger the child, the quicker they seem to learn and with no/little fear or stress. Doesn?t mean they will be championship swimmers any more than a child who learns at four instead of three but makes them safer and more confident more quickly - got to be a good thing. As for language skills, it has been proven time and time again that the speed at which they develop language is no guaranteed indicator of intelligence - Einstein didn?t speak for a long time, well after most children learn the basics. Saying that, it is a relief once they start as i was beginning to wonder if my DD1 was ever going to string a proper sentence together and then it all came together in a rush.

[suedonim]

I don't think it makes that much difference in the long term. Neither of my boys could swim until they were at least eight but they are both strong confident swimmers now, as is dh, who didn't swim until he was 12.

Ds2 didn't talk until he was 2.5yo but has just gained a First in psychology and is embarking on a PhD. His late start hasn't held him back. However, ds1 and dd1 both spoke early (10mths and 9mths) and they both have excellent language skills. 8yo dd2 was a late talker (2.5+yrs) but now never shuts up!

[tamum]

I didn't learn to swim until I was 11 (because it never seemed to occur to anyone to suggest that I should take my arm-bands off ), but then had all my personal survival awards by 13, and worked as a lifeguard in my holidays for years, so I don't buy that one. Obviously it is better in safety terms if they learn earlier, but not in terms of making any difference in the end.

I agree, I don't think any of it really signifies how kids will do in the long term. When ds was a baby his "friend" was walking by 8 months, 5 months before ds, and could walk backwards and all sorts before ds was even mobile. I was talking to the friend's mother the other day and she was bemoaning the fact that he's so physically uncoordinated and hopeless at sport, so go figure

[DecoMum]

I'm interested suedonim - you say they didn't talk until 2.5 years. What at all? No words, or just no sentences?

I'm concerned since ds1 was talking a lot by 1 - he had loads of words and used them a lot. ds2 has yet to say ANYTHING and he is 15 months. He still just babbles single syllables mamama and bababa and not very often at that.

[suedonim]

Sorry, I should have been clearer, Decomum! They both had some words, from about a year onwards, though I doubt dd had more than 20 until she was 2.5yrs. They both understood everything you said to them, it was as if their brains were processing the info before they put it into use themselves. They both spoke scribble talk a lot so they were vocal, just not comprehensible.

Ds2's first sentence was 'Said "toast" not "bread".' in a very grumpy tone, when I gave him bread after he'd indicated he wanted toast!! Ds1 was good at interpreting ds2's grunts and pointings and I think that's partly why he didn't feel the need to talk. Dd2 went from her few words to quite complicated sentences within days. She knew her colours early even though she couldn't say the words - it was very odd!

[Thomcat]

All the medical professionals i've chatted to, professors, teachers, portage workers etc all say that 0-5 are the most important years in a childs life, that it doesn't matter massively if you don't get certain things taught by 5 but it cartainly helps and is better if taught earlier. Not to say that they won't learn eventually but the earlier the better as then they can move on to learn other skills rather than learning the ones that could have learnt / were ready to learn earlier.

[codswallop]

yes Mi meant really if you talked at 1 or at 2

[MeanBean]

Might make a difference for specific skills like piano playing, tennis playing, etc., if it is going to lead to concert pianist, Wimbledon, or whatever, but I don't think it makes much difference if it's to a normal level.

[Thomcat]

I don't think walking and teething make any difference at all, but I think reading early will help a child develop quicker in other areas such as more vocab, spelling etc.

[hewlettsdaughter]

Haven't read all these posts but agree with your conclusion coddy. Dislike competitiveness re walking, talking etc.

[codswallop]

we agreed that you chilled out about it as you got older - you saw htat your first kid anaged to get teeth int he end so it didnt bother us.

ds2 was a slow talker, now all he says is " mummy will you play cricket with me?"

dh bought him pads yest

[Jimjams]

Luckily that's not true of autistic kids though TC - if it was I'd throw myself of the nearest cliff. They go on developing new skills into adulthood.

My friend met someone who didn't talk until he was FOURTEEEN - he's a bit odd now but was sitting in the pub having a perfectly normal conversation, has a job etc.

I remember when ds1 was tiny feeling fed up with competitive mum syndrome and a friend pointng out that it all evens out. After all you either know your shapes o you don't- you don't know them really well, same with walking, you walk or you don't etc. etc.

[zebra]

Can't help but think that early walkers may be more agile in general -- eg, better at gymnastics. Not an important life skill, just a consequence.
-Z (mum 2 2 early walkers/complete monkeys)

[tamum]

Not necessarily though zebra- see my post below!

I think there are two separate discussions going on here- what I was talking about, and I think coddy meant, was this idea that there's something superior about your child doing something like crawling early, but how in reality it makes very little difference in the long run. I agree that in general it's better for children to be taught things sooner rather than later in general.

Jimjams, that's amazing, but quite encouraging I would have thought!

[SoupDragon]

DecoMum, my DS1 spoke early, clearly and lots and DS2 barely uttered a word until he started nursery at around 21 months. At this point his vocabulary exploded and he's not looked back. I assume it was classic Second Child Syndrome where he never really had to talk before. He certainly understood what was said to him. Your DSs may well be the same so don't worry.

[Hulababy]

I don't think it does TBH. For the majority of children I think any gaps even out at primary school age, unless there are other SN things going on. Most will go on to read just fine, walk and run fine, etc.

I did read something interesting about early swimming though. There was an article in some paper - mentioned it on MN at the time - that early swimmers can often be at most danger. More to do with parents feeling confident about their child's ability and the child being over confident = dangers, etc. But again, I think this is often more down to common sense stuff anyway.

[Thomcat]

The developing skills into their teens is true of children with Down's syndrome as well jimJams, I'd forgotten that fact for a moment. Just in general i would say that the earlier a child learns to read the better I would have thought, in an ideal world though aye.

[musica]

It's interesting teaching the piano - if a child has an affinity for an instrument, then it doesn't make anywhere near as much difference as you'd think when they start. But I certainly think if you can start earlier it can be beneficial. Having said that, if you start before they are ready (rather like potty training) it can disillusion them with it and be counter-productive.

[coppertop]

Ds1 was/is an early reader. By the time he was 2yrs old he could read pretty complicated words, knew all his colours, numbers etc. At 4yrs old he's still way ahead academically but IMO it's highly likely that his classmates will catch up at some point. OTOH he didn't really speak until he was 3yrs old. It wasn't that he physically couldn't. He just didn't understand why he should want to. He's still behind the rest of his class verbally but it's not always obvious and he's definitely catching up. A couple of weeks ago an assistant SENCO was sent to observe him at pre-school. After watching the class for a short while she had to ask someone to tell her which child was ds1 as she just couldn't work out which child was autistic.

I'm not convinced that learning a skill early is really an advantage in the long-term.

[tamum]

Slightly off-topic, but coppertop, that's fantastic news! He's obviously doing brilliantly.