2 year old gifted or bright?

[kezzy13]

My son is 2 years 5 months, he can count to 100 + and recognise any number given to him into the 1000s, he knows all colours, letters (both names and sounds) and shapes, he can identify shapes such as hexagons, octagons, dodecahedrons,, and parallelograms.

Not sure if he is classed as gifted, he starts nursery next month and they have told me they will keep an eye on him and let me know their opinion.

He is also quite slow physically, he is still in a cot as he's never tried to climb out, still wants to go most places in the pram, can't jump, refuses to attempt to dress himself and has no interest in potty training at all.

Can't tell if he's gifted or if I just have my 'first child' rose-tinted specs on

Xx

I was just going to say extremes of anything are a bit of a worry to me . My friends son was the same and is autistic . My dd was / is bright and is still so at 13 but not gifted . ( well she is in a few subjects but not globally ) She could write at 3 and do numbers etc but I had no idea she was different to other children and am the least pushiest parent you will find . Just let him enjoy jumping in muddy puddles and be a 3 year old otherwise he is going to extremely bored in reception .

user, I think you are totally misunderstanding.
My ds never did/do rote learning. Some children(people) don't need it.

The examples on here are just rote learning, though, simple memorisation, nothing more, it isn't a case of "never did/ do rote learning, not needing it" if its been repeated twice its rote learning.

If your child is good at sport/music/art, etc, people don't seem to see problem encouraging it.

I believe the reason is that "academically gifted" at these ages almost always just mean early acquisition of skills that most will learn (music/art/sport are not limited in that you can always improve, handwriting, reading, counting, shape recognition are self limiting in that once you've mastered them they're just essential skills on the road to academia - like riding a bike might be to the world champion BMX rider.)

The description in the original post is of an child who's acquired a lot of great skills, but hasn't others which you would expect to. Just like you'd want to say to a six year old, "great that you've mastered butterfly swimming, but we really need to get this counting to 10 licked", encouraging a 2 1/2 year old to jump is probably more valuable than encouraging already mastered maths - even if it takes a game of hopscotch to do it.

I am sure OP is encouraging her ds to jump...
Why people always assume academically advanced = hot housed, no childhood fun?

As for early acquisition of those core skills, I have to say my ds has benefited hugely. Early reading means early access to lots of resources.
Maths skills can be used for learning science, computing, art, music, maybe more.

Why do you think those are self limiting, sirfred?

He is two. He might be gifted, or he might not. It's too early to say, and at this stage, it doesn't really matter.

My dd is so-called "gifted". Tbh, I hate the term, it makes her sound like a freak. (She isn't.)

"Giftedness" isn't a real thing, in my opinion, anyway. Intelligence is a spectrum, and my dd is simply on one end of that spectrum.

At two and a half, she didn't have the slightest interest in shapes - she was too busy worrying about world poverty and the Chinese occupation of Tibet. A lot depends on what they are exposed to - bright children are like sponges and it's surprising what they can absorb, given half a chance.

Your ds sounds lovely. Relax and enjoy the toddler stage. If he is exceptionally intelligent, it will become very apparent in due course.

As for early acquisition of those core skills, I have to say my ds has benefited hugely. Early reading means early access to lots of resources.
Maths skills can be used for learning science, computing, art, music, maybe more

But who is to say a child who can early is gifted? I could read soon after I was 3. At 5, my 'reading age' was the highest it could go on the school's scale (18?).
I'm an intelligent adult but no genius. I reckon I read about as well as the average adult now

Somehow, I wouldn't use the word either myself, but I can sort of see op's pov.
First time I encountered the word "gifted" was from nursery teacher, (especially, I am foreign), so I used the term, to describe my ds, not knowing any consequences for using that word!
I didn't really understand the resentment for word gifted until I found MN.
I think England has tarnished the meaning of word "gifted", when they introduced the scheme to determine top 10% of class as gifted.
At least, people wouldn't use the word in my native language, unless they are truly exceptional.

It sounds like he has a great memory, which will serve him well.
For him to be truly gifted I would say he would need to be able to add and subtract numbers (2 or 3 digits) etc and be able to understand and use concepts

DS1 was assessed when he was 4 with a reading and spelling age of 14+, he also had good maths skills but he had lacked in social skills which in my opinion are just as important for overall success and happiness.

Irvine I used to teach in a school where the children sat a standardised cognitive ability tests in year 7 and just labelled the children who got the top 10% of scores as "gifted and talented"

It was such absolute nonsense - the top 10% of scorers were obviously bright, but that didn't mean they had any particular "gift" or "talent" and it meant that children who wrote amazing poetry or had fantastic critical insight or enquiring journalistic minds missed out on the English extension activities, fantastic truly gifted artists and musicians and linguists were not included in the "talented" label, the dyslexic child who was streets ahead even of the teacher in maths was allegedly not "gifted and talented" either - instead all the extension activities were targeted at the across the board bright children, many of whom were not actually "gifted" or "talented", just able and bright...

The word gifted has lost its original meaning and become synonymous with bright since misguided "G&T" schemes set up with the ubiquitous aim of ticking boxes and impressing OFSTED.

I have come to the conclusion that there are parents who do think teaching very young children is a good thing and those who do not think teaching very young children is a good thing.

As someone who chose to teach dd from a very young age, I obviously saw it as a good thing. There is the assumption that if you teach your child, this is all you do with them. However this seems as silly as assuming those who say you should let children play in mud have children who spend every waking hour caked in soil. There are lots of hours in a day and lots of time to do different activities. A balance of social skills from their going to play groups, physical activity from parks or woodlands, and just basic, left alone time to daydream and do their own thing is IMO best. Spending some of the time on academic skills is then not a problem.

There is also the assumption that others will catch up, so what is the point? This has not happened with dd. She is still well above average and a long way ahead in maths.

Then there is the thought that they will end up unhappy in the long run. I know people who have not got good qualifications who are unhappy in later life.

So, I think the OP is doing well at raising her child and in a way she wants to. I'm of the minority view on MN that educating a child in a subject will make a difference to their ability in that subject.

I'm of the minority view on MN that educating a child in a subject will make a difference to their ability in that subject.

I don't dispute that, actually, but how far ahead is desirable, I wonder? Some children will be working significantly ahead of their peer group without any teaching at home. I'm not sure if it really benefits them to be pushed even further ahead than where they already are. Surely it's better to try and give them more breadth of knowledge, and opportunities to learn about stuff that they would never do at school?

Why do you think those are self limiting, sirfred?

Because once you can read, you can read, once you can count, you can count, once you can recognise a dodecagon you can recognise a dodecagon. Those skills of course are essential in accessing other things later, but in themselves they have a limit. Just like riding a bike may lead you to race at the olympics, or being able to run and jump may make you a ninja warrior, but in themselves they are just skills that end.

So that's why you encourage what you can achieve with those basic skills (creating stories, engineering, programming, social science or whatever) rather than "reading" or "writing".

I'm answering why encouraging the basic academic skills is not promoted as much as music/sport/art, because they are so basic, and they're promoting different things - if you were talking about poetry, programming, or literary criticism then they would be as encouraged as much as the music/sport/art.

Interesting thread. My 2.4 son is the same, knows all the shapes even ones I am not sure of, is onto 3D shapes. Amazing memory of numbers etc if he spots a certain bus number never forgets it etc. Beginning to read 3 letter words. He's at nursery. I think it's v sweet he loves leaving and he's def ahead of some peers e.g some are just getting to grasp with numbers 1-10....BUT BUT BUT on the end they all catch up. It's not like you meet an adult who doesn't know their numbers or shapes or colours :)

Surely it's better to try and give them more breadth of knowledge, and opportunities to learn about stuff that they would never do at school?

I think you do whatever the child likes lerning. Dd likes maths and science.

....BUT BUT BUT on the end they all catch up. It's not like you meet an adult who doesn't know their numbers or shapes or colours

They do move on to other things once they have mastered the easy stuff. For instance how may adults do you know who know what binomial expansion is? Dd did this at 12.

I know what the binomial expansion is as I was taught it when I was at school. And I have a maths degree

What you know is not necessarily a sign of being gifted, it all depends on if you have been taught it.

My ds, 5, unsurprisingly enjoys and is very good at, maths. This is partly due to my enjoyment and ability as I talk about it with him. He also has a large knowledge of science as DH has a chemistry degree. Does that make him gifted? I don't think so even though he is clever and at the top of his class.

What you know is not necessarily a sign of being gifted, it all depends on if you have been taught it.

I agree.

Blimey, that is advanced! My DCs were only just speaking at that age. He would have been eons ahead of any of the kids at my children's nurseries, even the brighter ones.

What you know is not necessarily a sign of being gifted, it all depends on if you have been taught it

I also agree. I have never claimed dd is gifted, just educated.

I think he sounds very advanced. Neither of my dc were anywhere near able to do those things, none of them!

People saying they are like sponges - I feel it's true to an extent but their interest varies greatly. Dd1 is 5 and still has no interest in numbers or shapes. Teaching her to count to 100 would test the patience of a saint!

Teaching her to count to 100 would test the patience of a saint!

When dd was young,, I used to dress maths up as games or play. They learn so much easier when it is made fun. Just playing shops can be an opportunity to learn counting and money.

For the 3D shapes, senteacher has nets on their free maths printable pages. If you print them on light cardboard you can cut them out with tabs and stick them together. They can help and can colour them in, talking about the faces, edges and vertices as you go.

There is so much you can do to make maths fun. Dd liked the Mythical Maths books, where you collect stickers to put onto a woodland scene.

I think he sounds amazingly interested in learning. My little one certainly wouldn't recall those things even if he did take an interest in them. Keep nurturing it, I'd say, and giving him all the opportunities to learn that you can... I do believe early confidence and pleasure in acquiring knowledge can have a really positive impact later on....

We loved senteacher 3d models as well, richmal.
Especially the version which you can upload your own artwork and print a 3d models!
And they happened to have names of the bones too!

I am not sure what to say in order not to offend anyone here... ds hadn't even said his first word at 2.45 yet he is G&T in maths identified in year 2 (he is now in year 5) and is very good at all subjects (just top of the class but not officially G&T), and doing well at music. At 2 and a half he could make excellent mud pies though. It would have never had occurred to me to teach him 3D shapes. Making sandcastle yes. Teaching decagons no. Hasn't stopped him from excelling at school.

2.45? 2 and a half!