was meeting milestones early/late an indicator of your child's intelligence later on?

[deliverdaniel]

I'm curious. DS1 did everything early- physical milestones/ speech/ cognitive etc as a baby and toddler. He is now 4.5 and bright and curious (I think) but doesn't stand out particularly amongst his peers in terms of intelligence. DS2 is now 18 months and has done pretty much everything late (at the very late end of normal- doctor says he is not actually delayed.) In your experience does this say anything about their relative intelligence? Will it predict what they will be like in the future according to what you ahve seen from your kids? They are both amazing and lovely in different ways and it doesn't matter at all how 'clever' they turn out to be , but I am interested as they are so differerent and wonder if this means anything or nothing. Thanks!

I don't think it means anything much at all. My DS was much slower to hit miles than my DD but now that they are a bit older I can't see any significant differences in their overall ability or intelligence. They just developed at different rates.

Hit milestones. Autocorrect fail.

My son is only 2.4 so not yet grown up enough to fully comment. However, I can see that he is very intelligent already by the way he works things out and has a very inquisitive mind (as do most toddlers I realise but he seems even more so.) Hes always been physically advanced but I do notice that his speech at the moment isn't as great as some other children I know. It's fine but certainly not advanced. Despite this I notice that he has better understanding of numbers and colours than other children, can find solutions to problems better, is good and putting things together and working out puzzles etc. it may be that while he's ahead I these areas now, he may not be in a couple of months. And then he may overtake the others in his speech.

I think what I'm saying is that, no it's probably not an indication. As long as they're within the normal time limit of reaching certain milestones and there is no concern then they could end up perfectly average or highly intelligent. I reckon looking at parents is probably a better indication. Are you and their father intelligent?

My first did most things later than her peers, rolling over, sitting up, crawling, walking and talking. I remember when a 10 month old walked into baby group and my 15 month old was showing what felt like no signs of walking. Of course she got there in the end and now she is in top sets for maths and literacy. My friends we girl who did everything first is good at maths, struggles with literacy and brilliant at arts and drama.

I have one who did everything early, both in terms of physical and cognitive milestones who at 11 is gifted and talented as far as some definitions go. He was obviously very bright from very early on. Who knows if he will maintain that advantage - I think some people show a lot of early promise but end up very average. My elder son was a bit slower than average on motor skills and about average in terms of the cognitive stuff although it turns out he is dyspraxic. However, he is doing pretty well - he is 14 and on target to pass all his GCSEs comfortably. He still can't do anything sporty to save his life but since he can be active in other ways so even that isn't an issue. My brother was a late developer too - had to see speech therapists etc as a child and although no brain of Britain, he is totally average now.

I know a very late walker (17 mths at least) who now play county level sport.

So, I think it is very difficult to predict. Children develop at different rates and at different times. So long as they are developing I don't think you know until they are some way down the line where they will end up.

My five year old couldn't walk or talk clearly but had an IQ of 142.
The one that walked and talked early has an IQ of 125.
Mrs Middling average in developmental milestones has an IQ of 135.

My anecdata suggests it means fuck all.

It is fun to ponder though. And it shows up all your own dark fears when you have children that are developmentally delayed.

Mine did everything early, really early,

Then he suffered a massive neuro regression aged 4 and now has severe learning disabilities.

Means nothing.

I don't think it really makes much difference, as most people do all the early intelligence milestones eventually. What makes someone really intelligent is evaluative/analytical ability, and that doesn't come out until later, and can develop at different rates. For instance a middle of the road 7 year old can suddenly flourish at 13 whilst the 7 year olds who were ahead might not have the ability to flourish so well in those skills even though they found reading easy.

Development is a journey rather than a race. Ds development was delayed due glue ear and orthopedic problems. He is fine now and has caught up. Dd was really early with her speech and average with physical skills. She is doing well at school.

The term "gifted" gets very over used. Being gifted is not defined by how fast a child flies through a reading scheme. A gifted person is capable of original thinking. The sort of person who can compose a symphony or create a work of art, write a great piece of literature or change the world with an invention or scientific theory. I am sceptical that there are many mumsnetters who really have gifted children. Such people appear about once in a generation.

Remember these so-called milestones are just averages and mean very little in the grand scheme of things. Kids develop at different rates in different areas e.g. physical, mental, emotional and being way ahead or behind in some areas doesn't mean they will stay that way.
DS1 could walk and sort 20 shapes aged 10 months but was quite late talking and very very late with things like swimming and riding a bike (9). He decided on his future career aged 7 and stuck with the plan to this day (early 20s, Oxbridge graduate).

My DS is 19m, so I have no idea, but this thread reminds me of a conversation I had with my MIL talking about her three boys growing up.

The middle one did everything late, but would do things well quickly after he started. She puts this down to temperament and not wanting to try things and fail at them. So he waited till he could do something confidently before getting stuck in. My DH (youngest), by comparison, just threw himself into everything. DH did achieve more academically than his brother, and my MIL wonders if a feedback loop of lower expectations affected her middle son, who is a really clever and lovely guy but still with low self-esteem. There's a similar dynamic with me (younger child) and my sister (older child).

And this is turn reminds me of something I saw on tele about make vs female brains and experiments which show mothers playing with baby boys expect them to be able to handle more physically than mothers of baby boys, so while physical capability is the same, the boys are consistently challenged more.

Long-winded, but what I'm getting at is that a) lots of variation may be due to temperament / learning style rather than ability and b) in the vast majority if normally developing kids we almost certainly, if unwittingly, reinforce differences by early labelling / measuring against peers. Not that I think we can avoid it, just that it's probably always a factor.

HJBeans your DH and his DB sound like my two girls. Oldest is 4.4 and very late with some milestones. She gets frustrated very quickly and gives up. She was beaten to first forward roll by her 19m old Sister but is reading simple phonics books confidently.
19m old is much more confident physically, has a better vocabulary than her Sister did at 2 and just shows a much greater willingness to try (I'm very thankful for this with her being an August Birthday).
In short I think it's their natures/personalities/environment that can help a child meet milestones early and that their inherent ability/intelligence becomes apparent later on.

depends how you define 'intelligence' really!
personally I have no wish to know how good my children are at doing IQ tests.

Einstein was very late talking.

Lots of people who do well on iq test achieve nothing in life.

Reallytired - when I used the term gifted and talented I did say by some measures, meaning the measures they use in school rather than the purist view. As it happens teachers have been raving about the quality of my son's writing for a while. It is too soon to say if he is truly gifted because he is only 11. Only time will tell. He is, however, in the top 10% of the school which is itself in the top 10% of schools for attainment nationally.

It is all a bit irrelevant yes, but he did reach all his milestones early and continues to be ahead but in the end it is just anecdata. The vast majority of threads on MN are just about anecdata because that is all most of us have to go on.

Who knows how my son will turn out. Maybe he will be a world class footballer as that is what he wants to be at the moment and the academic stuff will all be a little irrelevant.

I think its too easy to get excited just because your child is in the 10% at primary. So much depends on the catchment area of your child's school. At dd's school a child who has a pulse, can speak english and is reasonably well behaved gets put on the gifted and talented register. (My daughter is in this group.)

Parents of precious first borns often get a completely over inflated opinon of their child's ablity. There are plenty of threads on mumsnet complaining that their "gifted" child is not reaching their full potential because they are no longer top of the class. The affect of parental hothousing and having a September birthday wears off.

The cruel reality is that you cannot assess who is in the top 10% at primary school. BigBoobiedBertha your son who is in the 10% at a high performing primary may well be less abled that the child at a deprived primary who cannot speak English. A child from a very advantaged background will do well academically even if they are not especially bright. In London there are lots of children who start primary at really low academic levels, but fly later on.

Advantage begets advantage. A child growing up in a professional household will have wider life experiences and more opportunities for developing language. Teachers often have very high expectations of such children.

MiaowTheCat it would be wrong to say that any specific poster on mumsnet is over optimistic or deluded. I have never met you. However I am sure that in your years of teaching you have met such parents.

No, I don't think so. Personality yes.

DS is good at maths and a whiz at languges but didn't sit until 9 months or walk until 16 months. Talking was pretty average I think? Short sentences started at 2.

Personality wise, he is reluctant to do anything (especially physical) if he doesn't know that he can do it. He can't ride a bike or swim (at 6) even though he physically could do those things, it's confidence which stops him. So I would not be surprised if it was the same for walking.

Einstein spoke late I think - worth bearing in mind in meeting milestones late

I don't think it means anything.
Dd1 did everything physically on textbook late average. Once she did it, she did it well. The only thing she was noticably early on was speaking.
However I remember a friend of hers who was the same age within a week. At 2yo, dd1 had been well into full sentences for months-I remember her saying to granny at about 20 months "Actually I'm choosing at this moment..." Friend was being referred for SALT because she had one word-and that was unclear. Fast forward to aged 4yo, and you couldn't tell the difference between them in speech.
DD1 is still careful on what she does, and what she does, she generally does well. She's 14yo and in top sets-but so is her friend.

Dd2 did everything early. She was walking by 8 months, talking slightly better than her sister. Her slant on life is to throw yourself at it and if it fails hope someone catches you. At 11yo, she's still like that. Intelligence wise she's probably slightly better naturally than dd1, however she lacks the acuracy and the patience to work through something she's not sure on, so on paper she doesn't do as well.

Ds is perhaps most interesting. He could walk at 9 months, however most of the time he chose not to because wheels and pushing a car was more important than walking. He was a reasonable talker-sentences by 20 months, but was hampered by lack of hearing so often chose to sign instead.
Again, I can see that in his work. I wouldn't like to guess how intelligent he is because if he likes it he flies, if he doesn't, well it can sing for the effort he puts in. He'll either be a early drop out or top of his field.

DS1 reached all milestones on time, but not early, and is good at school. His personality equivalent to a social butterfly - he has lots of friends and enjoys different activities.

DS2 reached all milestones late - all of them, physically and communications. Said his first word at 3. He is top of the class in every subject, and G&T in maths. He's exceptionally tenacious and resilient. He will not give up on things he likes, such as puzzles, maths problems, a music piece (he plays the piano).

It's a mix of personality, natural talent, and natural 'intelligence' (which is obviously from my side of the family ).

They are 8 and 9, so I have a bit of hindsight!

Ds1 didn't talk until he was 3. Sensory processing disorder, asd. Now he's 10, his literacy is at the level of a 16 year old according to his teacher last week and is doing well in all areas of school except PE.

He sat up at four months, walked at six or seven months. Now he's the least coordinated kid you could meet, bless him. He's not an athlete.

So no. I don't think it matters long term.

Reallytired - I only wanted to make the point that early promise is being maintained here, at least as far as Yr 6. It doesn't necessarily fizzle out. I used a relatively objective measure to back up the point - that is what the thread is all about after all. Similarly slow progress on physical milestones has continued with DS1 who is in Yr 10. How both of my boys were as toddlers hasn't really changed. Some children may change. My boys haven't.

I am not that bothered about the G & T label as label as there are schools, such your DD's by the sounds of it, where it is a pointless and it has muddied the water as far as the concept goes. Besides personality is as important, possibly more important, than the raw IQ. We have no real and worthwhile measure of that in schools. The two together will sort out the advantaged from the truly gifted. Even with advantage not all gifted children will necessarily use their gift so their potential to compose that symphony or write a great work of literature will remain just that - potential. On that basis I disagree that it is a once in a generation thing. You can have a gift without using it. On the other hand advantage by itself won't make you gifted - you can't make a silk purse out of a sow ear.

I am sure you are right that some children in more disadvantaged areas will be brighter than my DS. Lots of people are. There are also lots of areas that are a lot more advantaged than us, with outstanding schools filled with the children of professional parents, in leafy affluent suburbs and I am equally sure that DS2 is brighter than some of those children. However, you seem to be confusing disadvantaged areas with poor education. You can have very good schools in very disadvantaged areas which allow children to flourish. You also seem to be forgetting that very bright children can do well even in a poor school. No one thing will make a child outstanding, average or below average. It is a mixture of personality, background, IQ and schooling. On that basis, it is very difficult to answer the OP other than with examples of how it has panned out for us as individuals. She can take from that whatever she finds useful.