Aibu to think most "gifted" children come from well off, affluent families?

[Blueballoons1]

Eg start instruments or sports very early, can afford top tuition, often a parent has the skills to teach the dc at home, they have the time & money to travel around the country for events.. Parents oversee practice is done at home.. Whereas they may well be quite medicore compared to a child with raw talent whose parents just cannot afford what it takes..
I just feel for music, sports or academics money & an affluent background is part of the parcel for the majority of "gifted kids"..

Yes very much so. In DD's sport (figure skating) even the national/international competitors have to pay for the vast, vast majority of their training, travel, equipment and expenses themselves and the prize money doesn't come close to covering annual costs even for the medallists. Any sport having such an economic barrier limits so much progress in the sport.

I don't think the real gifted children come from affluent families. I just think the kids who come from affluent families are lucky enough to have an army of people to create a portfolio and market them better to make them look like they are gifted. Of course some of them may be gifted but the majority are not. They are just lucky that they have their whole lives planned ahead for them and they just attend.

A 60 year study by Lewis Terman, with a whiff of eugenics to it, followed 1,500 young people with IQs of 140 or over but he missed two future Nobel prize winners —William Shockley and Luis Alvarez, whose scores were too low to qualify for the study. The other 1,500 generally did well in life but no Nobel prize winners. I think that ASD and ADHD people (who when interested can hyper focus) probably look at things in new and different ways. I always tell my children that if you're like all the rest, you're never going to be exceptional.

There is a massive difference between genuinely gifted children and children who have had lots of opportunities who are strong at things that are learned and take practice.

Example - genuinely gifted kid excels young at things that take logic, reasoning, ability to think abstractly and grasps concepts quickly. Therefore able to read/write/solve logical questions far ahead of same age peers. This difference in learning curve continues. In many ways they are gifted at what can't be taught, or at least is harder to teach. It's more innate, organic.

Vs...

Kid whose parents are wealthy so they've been in private swim club, intensive dance or sport, art lessons, music and extra maths tuition. They excel and get more practice at things than most kids their age. Maybe they swim 6 -8 hrs/week instead of just a 30 minute once weekly session, so they are good at swimming, this is noted by classmates during school based lessons, maybe they swim for the school if there's a team, or their accomplishments are shared in school announcements b/c they went to a swim meet. Same with dance, they do 3-4 hrs/week, develop good posture. Maths they are in top set because parents pay for kumon or extra tuition via a tutor who works ahead with them and ensures strong understanding of concepts/mastery. It isn't that these dc have increased gifted abilities, it's that they have opportunities. It isn't logic/IQ/natural smartness. If you do something for 10 hrs a week x 44 weeks a year, you will get naturally good at it. These are things that can be taught and opportunities that can be provided for those that can afford it. It isn't innate, it's given to them.

The latter (excel due to opportunities) are usually from solid middle class or upper middle class homes, no trauma or adverse childhood experiences, rarely neurodivergent. The former can be from a large range of backgrounds - economic, disability, neurodivergence etc. I once read an article that say truly gifted/high IQ children are more likely to have average IQ parents.

I agree with you OP. I was/am gifted- in my career it's very useful.

I think that raw intelligence is hugely assisted by money, resources, connections and aspirations in the middle classes.

There are brilliant working class children- but so many more barriers before them to recognise their academic potential.

Example - genuinely gifted kid excels young at things that take logic, reasoning, ability to think abstractly and grasps concepts quickly. Therefore able to read/write/solve logical questions far ahead of same age peers. This difference in learning curve continues. In many ways they are gifted at what can't be taught, or at least is harder to teach. It's more innate, organic.

I keep reading in the 11 plus threads for state grammar that the exam covers 'year six content' that hasn't been 'taught' at the time of the exams and that doesn't make much sense to me that a bright child would need to be taught these type of questions. A book for familiarisation is useful, but my child saw the patterns and concepts quickly and did not need teaching.

My work takes me to the full gamut of society. The two most talented children (1 in performing of all kinds plus academics, the other in gymnastics/sport) I've met are FSM and one lives in a shelter. The massive difference to uncovering their gifts has been the father of one who developed his sons performing and academic ability from you tube and did homework with his child then followed through with library books around the subject and the mum who took up free school lessons even though it meant her doing graveyard shifts at her minimum wage work. Her daughter was eventually spotted by Chelsea. One other talented child I met was from an upper middle class family - poor in time...

That's nice and I love SS centres, and know how incredibly beneficial they can be, I volunteered in one for a couple of years. I'd hope Labour would bring back SS as one of the first things they do. They also enabled young parents to develop skills that could help them find employment, they were so warm and welcoming and one of the best things I experienced with young dc. It is inclusive and the right step in the right direction for sure. Even well off parents went to the SSC to have their babies weighed, get infant feeding advice or join groups.

On a population level, of course private schools give a huge and unequal advantage. It's also been said on this thread that having academic talent / giftedness, it can be easier to benefit from, without private school as the all learning is covered in school, no need for expensive tuition or clubs if you are naturally bright you can do very well indeed academically, even at state school as you will be in the higher sets, can access the school library and teacher will help you. It's different for non academic activities such as sports and music. This is where fee paying schools elevate all their students, from the average to the highly talented. I'd like to see a scheme where every primary school pupil learns an instrument.

I'll throw one more thing out there which I'm sure I will be flamed for. The ABRSM system of exams is the antithesis of developing musicality and enjoyment of music. I have seen so many children be completely put off by their often boring repertoire and having to do the same 3 or 4 pieces over and over again. I'd like to see the whole thing scrapped or transformed so students start with grade 5 when they have learned for a few years with enjoyable music focusing on musicality and fun. Those who have been squeezed through the ABRSM system by pushy middle class parents often end up hating their instrument and giving it up as soon as they can. It's all about 'what grade is this piece', not do they enjoy a piece of music or find it engaging. The regimented ABRSM approach risks undermining musicality and creativity. IMO.

I think you've got that the wrong way round. Those countries that don't have a private school system don't gave private BECAUSE the state system is so good. Getting rid of private Doesn't necessarily improve the state offering.

I don't really understand what people mean when they say there is less social mobility in the UK compared to countries in Europe, and in the next sentence claim that other countries don't have a social class system with an elite class and a lower class and claim everyone is equal. It makes no sense.

To have social mobility you have to have a defined system of class. I assume that by social mobility they really mean that they want to see everyone being the same rather than people moving up the ranks.

I think nature is needed, but nurture definitely plays its part - most of us will never find out if we could have been an Olympic fencer or champion lacrosse player, because we've never had the chance to try them. Some areas - running, singing, drawing, writing, maths - might be seen in anyone, because they are part of things everyone gets to do at school. Many people have the opportunity to kick a football in a park, but far fewer will skate on ice.

But even if you find something you're good at, you will need parents to support it. I swam - my mother was happy to take me to lessons, but was always clear that I would never be taken to early morning squad coaching sessions (and as we lived out of town with no public transport, I couldn't have got myself there.) I don't think I was good enough anyway, but there's also an element of the hours of practice (Malcolm Gladwell's 10 000 hours,) and you need to be allowed the time and sometimes facilities, kit and transport for that.

There are scholarships, bursaries and various forms of support for kids who stand out in different fields- bit usually it will still depend on parents having to fill in forms and get them places. I have a friend who was a choral scholar and later had to decide between rugby and cricket as a sport- he was a professional rugby player (till injury stopped him.) But his parents were there supporting him with a lot of that. Some great singers won't ever be given scholarships because no one ever knows they could apply, or won't support them in doing so.

My DC were in the 'gifted and talented' cohort at school, top 5% in the country apparently and predicted for Oxbridge.

I was a single mum surviving on minimum wage and tax credits. They never saw their father. No extra tuition or classes apart from football. No high flyers in the family, no big 'careers'.

DC1 is a surveyor now and DC2 is finishing his medical degree.

I think parents have the most profound effect on children and their confidence and self-belief.
But you can't write out the entire start-to-finish map. People never play the parts you expect they will.
It's a lot of encouragement. It's a lot of learning. It's a lot of small steps.
Even if you're blessed with a mediocre child, your parentling will make the biggest impact.
My youngest has a mensa iq of 156. That puts her not in the top 2%, but the top 1%.
It's 1 iq point higher than mine.
I did go to Oxford as a student, but when I was a 29 year old adult, after having completed a course at Reasing University and being encouraged.
I had no opportunities or encouragement or recognition as a teenager. Certainly no opportunity to go to university.
It never stopped me learning or encouraging.
I ran weekly homework clubs for kids - just make it fun. learn your timestables.
I would say from a lacklustre upbringing myself - never starved or beaten - but openly mocked, never hugged, intentionally never praised.
My one true learning is that if people openly support and encourage another person - it can make a fundamental difference.

I don’t know what methodology was used but generally IQ is taken an average of lots of different components. You can have a skewed score reading that will average out lower but a person can be exceptional in one narrow area.

I work in a school & most really gifted are neurodivergent from a mixture of backgrounds

@Tinysoxxx yes DD couldn't be given a FSIQ score as her profile was too spiky all in the above average range though between 120 - 147 for the WISC-V

Ok, I’ll bite as someone who was identified as “gifted and talented” as a child, and works with children from all sorts of backgrounds.

In my my opinion, sport/music classes etc are almost irrelevant to the discussion. A high IQ is about the speed at which you can grasp and manipulate new concepts, and this is something children are born with. There are lots of studies that suggest that IQ is relatively stable and can only be raised a few points through parental engagement etc, but on the flipside can be significantly dragged down by adversity in early childhood.

People with a high IQ tend to have children with a high IQ, so that is why there are clusters of very smart kids in wealthy areas due to their parents having had the ability to gain entry to complete complex training. My parents have high IQs, and so my siblings and I have high IQs. I never did my homework and never studied for tests, my parents were very hands off and never got me to do activities like kumon - and yet I was a high achiever at school. That’s not something that can be coached.

However, there are also people with very high IQs who haven’t been able to escape poverty or life on a low income due to the way our society is set up e.g. the complex and compounding impact of intergenerational poverty, or the idea that university is not for working class people (a barrier that has now thankfully broken down but still limits many smart people’s aspirations). I have met extraordinarily smart kids, but their family live in poverty as (for example) they may be a single parent family and their mum may have a disability that prevents her from working. They would still beat the child who does five extracurriculars on a test. It’s largely genetics.

Good post. You can’t get away from the fact that intelligence is pretty fixed but that potential is not always reached.
I also think that many people of average intelligence find high achievers “different” so often label them as neurodivergent. It’s much more likely that they are just thinking and processing on a different level.
I often find it frustrating when staff at work can’t “keep up”. You learn to just dumb down so that you operate at their pace. The urge to correct people is incredibly difficult to resist and as a child that becomes annoying to those around you. As you grow up you learn to stick to the social rules. Those with ND tend not to learn the rules.
Since high IQ is much less common than average IQ it is easy to identify the brighter children, they do stick out but it doesn’t always mean that they are ND. Although, maybe being bright is actually a type of neuro divergence since it is a significant variation from the norm/average.

I would say generally yes because they have the opportunities and a gift is recognised and encouraged. There are however plenty of kids from poorer backgrounds who shine and if supported by parents can get sponsorship and support but most likely not as easy.

Nope.

DS is naturally gifted in Maths. Always has been. We're totally ordinary, just a trick of genetics (ExDH & his father both Maths minded, not to the level of DS, but that's clearly where it comes from). He's at uni now, although Oxford didn't want him (stick it up your backside, Oxford!🤣), so a Covid kid.

Same year I taught the most gifted pupil I've ever met in 25+ years teaching: girl from a very underprivileged, single parent, East End of Glasgow family. She's at St Andrews flourishing.

Oh & DS went to a big, inner-city comprehensive. We don't have grammars or academies here.

Exactly this. Any kids sports at national & international level really does run into tens of thousands annually. Gofundme is often a last resort for parents who can't keep up.
A talented polo young player will never make it without the access to horses, money to attend events & camps in Spain or Argentina, also a talented young player will be expected to have a good grasp of Spanish. Money is vital in sports like polo, rowing or skiing.

But you said you get a lot of support. Look at the teaching staff crisis, schools are extremely underfunded both time wise & resource wise. This simply doesn't happen now.
Most kids are lucky is they get through a term now with minimum absenteeism from their teacher. That's the reality

Thinking of the gifted individuals I know, it's more linked to their autism than money...

That is partly true as there is a lot of “ double gifted “ children ( not my term just the one I see used ) .