To think that gifted pre schoolers need to learn through play

[ReallyTired]

A bright child who is nursery age needs formal education like a hole in the head. It is desperately important that they learn the social skills they need for life. A well run nursery is good place to foster a range of skills.

If a gifted child is bored with nursery/ reception its often a sign of autism and if anything they need more learning through play rather than less. Possibly an autistic child might need an adult to show them how to play and foster good social skills. There may be bright children who need intensive help with their social skills who aren't autistic.

A really bright child will learn faster through self directed play than sitting in a classroom doing formal actvites.

That's worrying, completely inadequate provision. Is it a question of lack of resources? It must be in the interest of all for those children to get extra help as otherwise I suppose they are very disruptive.

Where I live in Switzerland, children who are deemed to have inadequate social competence, or are slow at learning, or for some reason don't fit with the mainstream, are separated into special smaller classes. Do you thonk that would be better than just throwing them into a normal social situation? They certainly get more attention because of the smaller classes and the teachers have extra training, but I don't know how well it works because the children in Them have such different problems. Also I don't really know if they are intended for children who are diagnosed as autistic.

But here, people are concerned to keep the problem children out of the mainstream classes, for the good of the other children, as much as to help the special needs ones.

Bugs, yes, they get extra help, in the form of an autism outreach person observing them and training staff in how to implement the 'management' strategies. That IS the support and pretty much all that gets written into a statement after a long fight to get one.

My son is highly gifted (we know that now, but did not then) who would destroy the rental house we lived in because he was bored. Academics, just half an hour a day (plus plenty of exercise) stopped him driving pens through the wall, drawing on the walls and cutting the carpet with scissors he found (he was a climber) when I was changing his brother's nappy or going to the toilet. He went to a child-led play-based preschool where he was happy and had good friends, but he was bored, especially when he was at home and I was preoccupied with his (high-needs) brother.

He is not autistic in any shape or form.

My boys have enver even met Autism Outreach; not so bad no becuase of the Base but not even when in MS.

It's part resources (and unless a statement is issues resources are not ringfenced so good chance will never reach child) but also attitudes; there's very little provision for SN education now but so many parents are anti-inclusion that it's become a real firestarter to even mention. There's no requirement for SENCOs (SN coordinaotrs) to have special training, and the teacher training provided by many universities has a whole afternoon on teh subject of ALL sn; an afternoon that is quite often skived. Mym former uni professor tried to take that on and got nowhere. Teacher students just don't see SN as relevant to them.

Mind that afternoon is more than GP students get...... same prof asked a class of practising GPs what autism was; one GP raised his hand and said 'something to do with hearing?' My own GP told me she only gets it because her best mate has a child with ASD.

And then there's the lack of joined up provision- education is separate from social services which is separate from health and children's disability SSD is separate from adult disability- meaning tehy all battle to save their own little patch of budget and nobody takes responsibility. it's obvious that investment in the first years can save longer term in a big way but as it's someone else's budget, nobody cares. This won;t get better as statements are being ended, and the criteria for PIP (replaces DLA) seems almost designed to exclude individuals with autism or MH difficulties.

Oh and no most bright kids are not autistic BUT many parents of autistic kids did first realise their child was different and think it was because theya re so bright.

Certainly staff at Montessori were suggesting we put ds1 up for a scholarship to a lcoal prep, and he was assessed as having a verbal ability of 21 aged 6. It's the Asperger's though, in the main, although the two kids in his ASD Base (him and another boy) are between them top of class in most subjects now. DS1 is also Base Rep in the school council representing his BAse that takes up to age 18 even though he is only year 7; he was Chair of school copuncil in MS primary and that wasn;t through and inclusion scheme.

So whilst it's NOT a given it is not uncommon for kids to initially stand out as different in that way. The other gaps show through a little later.

Both dd amnd ds did much better in more structured setting. Dd was bored of nursery by the end (she is oct born and went to nursery at 5m) so she had 5 years of unstructured play based learning. She is now spending most of her time in a mixed year1/year 2 class (she started reception in sept). So YABU not all 4year olds need more play based learning.
BTW Dd has excellent social skills (was voted on to the school council by her classmates)

I do not think she is gifted whatever that means just averagely bright

Hopandskip, could it be that instead if being highly gifted your son is highly jealous of your high need baby? Also intelligence isn't a pass to trashing a house? Is it?

Or was every scum bag rioter last summer also highly gifted as a child??

weird discussion.

first, there isn't a hard line between 'formal learning' and 'play' - play based education could be effectively used all the way up to and including degree level! Shame it isn't.

and all pre-schoolers will generally thrive in a play-based learning environment. (though what the play that is best for individuals will vary). 'play' can cover a fairly wide range of activities, including those which are sat down.

i have met gifted three year olds. they were probably going to stay that way. but what they needed was pretty similar to the other kids (what they produced might be greatly better/different!)

a gifted preschooler is composing music or doing maths reading novels , a bright child isnt gifted IMO sigh being gifted is rare ,

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1392978/Saffron-Pledger-3-IQ-140-sets-sights-Mensa.html

i would class this as gifted child ( excuss the link)

yes i would say saffron is gifted , and she is the cutest little girl

My eldest was clever at preschool age but was doing things a bright 6 yr old was doing she isnt gifted ,

Actually, I don't think that she is particularly exceptional (still cute though!) :) I really don't see the point of mensa except as a sort of competitive thing which seems daft. I remember seeing something about a 2 year old joining it and I just thought why? They don't have anything for young children!

I don't know DS's IQ, nor is he a member of Mensa. He was doing the sort of stuff that Saffron was doing and more, though. I could bore amaze you with anecdotes but I suspect that Worra et al are entrenched in their "no such thing as a gifted preschooler" belief so it's probably a waste of time and would almost certainly out me to anyone who knows us.

I do agree that the gifted label is overused and makes it very difficult for parents with gifted children - I mean really gifted children rather than those who can recite Twinkle twinkle correctly :) I suppose it's the same as pseudo-allergies making it hard for parents whose children have real, life-threatening allergies to be taken seriously.

I actually do agree with the less structure, more play argument. I'm a childminder and I see many bright children who are pushed so hard they have no idea what to do when left to make their own choices. It sets my teeth on edge when a parent tells me their child must practice their handwriting through the holidays, or do extra maths. I'm all for child-led learning through play at this age.
Often, a child will arrive at my house with a workbook "in case she gets bored". I make it very clear that we do what the child wants to do at my house and, to give them credit, most parents are happy with this.
I have never had a child who wanted to do their workbook :) They all, without exception, leave it to gather dust while they get on with the serious business of playing.

The things my son struggled with were his social skills, his physical skills and learning to switch off and relax. These are all very common problems with gifted children and learning through play really helped him develop these skills. He did often want to do a page of maths - note: he wanted to - and I would let him, but I also made time for the equally important skills he struggled with. Fine motor skills were developed with art, with games like Scissors Paper Stone, with maze games. We also used climbing equipment to help with his co-ordination. Impossible not to develop social skills in a childminder's house

Play and relaxation are vital for all children. I feel very strongly that they should take precedence over any structured learning, especially in the Early Years.

Tanith, my DS1 would probably have picked the workbook! :) He used to sit and do worksheets that my MIL would bring home from school. It was the same situation as you though, he wanted to do it - we didn't plonk him down in front of it and make him do it. He would have played too but quite often he was happy just working away by himself. The imaginative play/role play thing came later for him but he does a lot of it now.

I just realised something that has made me a bit sad because I didn't realise I was doing it. DS2 is doing those things that were mentioned in the article but I don't consider him 'gifted' or even exceptionally bright because I'm comparing him to DS1. DS1 was just doing so much more at that age and picking things up so quickly and easily. We think back to what DS1 was doing at his age and DS2 just isn't there yet - it doesn't really matter because he's a different child with a different personality and different skills but it has just made me feel a bit bad because if DS1 hadn't been the way he is then we would probably would have thought more of what DS2 can do.

I agree. It's the child-led element again - if a child wants to do a workbook, I have no problem at all in letting him. I've had a child with me this week who is delighted in his new found ability to spell and wanted to spell more words. No problem at all, he's a well-adjusted child with a lovely non-pushy mum.

I have a younger child of 2 who seems quite bright and I do have to stop myself from thinking "well at this age, DS was doing...". I think it's difficult not to compare them. I also think to myself "at this age, DS couldn't do...". It helps that they are very different characters: she's by far the worst for mischief

My gifted dd1 who also has autism hated nursery. What she needed was someone to understand that she hated the feel of the wind outside, the loudness of a large group of children, other kids touching her while sitting on the rug and she certainly didn't need someone trying to force her into dressing up clothes. She also needed someone to understand that just because she had a large complex use of words it didn't mean she understood a word of it all.
Dd2 isn't gifted but also has autism. She needs someone to show her how to play nicely, share and role plays. She isn't bored in the slightest and loves her nursery.

Op your talking out of your arse

Yes Tanith - DS2 is definitely more (ahem) energetic! He is also brilliant at things at this age that DS1 wasn't. I suppose everyone does compare their children to a degree even just to have reference points.

That article made me laugh out loud. A 3-year-old who can count to 50 is considered a genius? Er, no. And the questions she supposedly answered are hardly the stuff of remarkable cognitive skills.

The child is absolutely adorable, but I'm a bit concerned that her parents feel the need to publicize her perfectly ordinary brightness in the pages of a national newspaper.

DS1 was "gifted" according to the definition used by the Ed Psych bod.

IQ in the top 0.8%

Also didn't speak until about 4, and still has delayed phonology, wasn't toilet trained until 5 and still isn't reliable, only learned how to say "hello" rather then "the slitheen came from raxacorocofallapatorius" last year.

He was only tested for IQ as part of the process of investigating his quirks. He has high functioning autism.

The enriched curriculum - learning through play - is the best thing that could possibly have happened for him. He is unrecognisable, so much progress.

DD also thrived, as a child with just above average ability. I'll be interested to see how 3 year old DS2 gets on, he appears to be as academic as DS1 but doesn't have the ASD to struggle with.

There's another one on the BBC website about a 2 year old who was able to count to 40 By these standards my children are complete geniuses!

"count" or "recite", I wonder? Because there's a difference and DS could definitely count at that age. He could also, once he understood the rules, work out for himself the numbers up to 1000 and beyond.
I remember him trying to explain that 0 is a very important number and getting cross that I didn't understand why.
That's the other thing about having a gifted child: you feel totally inadequate and so, so stupid

YABU. There's a place for structured activities and a place for free play. Both have their merits in developing different aspects of each child.

How old is your DS now Tanith?

He's 12 now, and still as gifted as ever he was