Another gifted at 2 y/o thread?? You bet!!

[OutnumberedDad]

Hi, this is a very long post but I would really appreciate your input.

I'm going to skip the whole 'my child can do this...is she gifted?' part because I recognise that it's impossible to say at this age. However, and for the record it is my first and therefore my glasses are extremely rose-tinted, she satisfies all of the criteria for an advanced child and is probably around Level 3 or 4 when compared to the Davidson's levels of giftedness.

Due to this, I have a multitude of questions in my mind on the best way to nurture her. I am equally aware that she may normalise but currently her learning is growing exponentially with no sign yet of stagnation so I want to keep stimulating her.

A potentially relevant point since I've read that intelligence can be hereditary is that I was basically a 'child genius'. Believe me this isn't a brag since I didn't blaze a trail of glory in any field but I could fully read, write and I knew all of my times tables before starting primary school. I achieved a score of 178 in a Mensa test aged 5 and did my Year 6 SAT's in Year 2. However, accelerated learning didn't work for me because I hated the physiological differences like being smaller than everyone else and I wanted to stay with my friends and with a daughter in the 2nd percentile these height differnces will exist for her too.

My Mum avoided pushing me academically because she didn't want me to be a troubled child prodigy as popularised in the media. Therefore, from Year 3 to Year 6 I essentially plateaued since the school were unable to stretch me and I became bored and increasingly disruptive. To some extent, these traits remained with me throughout my school life.

So, what on Earth should I do with my daughter? Ultimately, I want what my Mum wanted for me in that I just want her to be happy. However, at 27 months, she's already pretty much at a Reception Level for maths and English and while I know the formative years are about developing life-skills, how will she not get bored if she spends every year of her school life going over concepts that she already knows?

She is very friendly and every day we are at the park or going to baby groups so she is enjoying all of the wonderful parts of growing up as a child but should we also be stretching her academically? It seems ridiculous to not give her an opportunity to progress in the next two and a half years but in giving her that opportunity will school not then become even more redundant?

Again, I know that her rate of learning may slow but at a time when she is absorbing everything around her it seems odd to think about slowing her rate of learning. However, that is a legitimate thought which crosses our mind as parents.

For those who think we should stretch her, how should we go about it? We will of course make everything fun but should we 'teach' her as a teacher would or just allow her to learn by picking things up naturally in a non-focused way?

Sorry for the essay and I would really appreciate your responses.

@TooManyMiles You have basically described my entire life: A Dad who made me a bit of a performing monkey; doing lots of things very well but nothing excellently; and not enjoying or not doing things I'm not good at.
Scary how accurate that is in fact!

All in all it was a brilliant post with so much great advice and I think I'll copy it in to my notes to look back on from time to time.

That's kind of you to say, Outnumbered, I am glad if it helps.

I'd agree with the suggestions already given; don't try to teach but do enrich her environment. Follow her interests, expose her to things that will allow her to find more interests.

I once heard a great description of education as a pyramid - to reach higher you want to broaden the base. So with gifted children, spend their primary years giving them as much extra breadth as you can. They will mostly do it themselves given the least opportunity and encouragement.

Definitely look into music; Suzuki method ideal if you have a teacher near you (coi teach suzuki violin) - first step at your daughter's age is listening to a range of good music plus recordings of the first book(s) of the teaching repertoire for the instrument. Violin great but could consider piano or cello also.

I agree with broadening their base but not necessarily with learning an instrument. Have fun with them teach them how to enjoy the world around them. DS was a dinosaur expert by 3yrs old so we took him to the natural history museum. He was fascinated by fish so DH took him fishing regularly and they caught some pretty big carp. He had his whole kindergarten class digging for fossils one lunchtime and we spent one birthday fossil hunting with a couple of his friends, they loved it. He also had football parties and go kart parties.
He spent hours gardening with his grandma, learning the names of her flowers and plants. He has a very broad knowledge base due to his incredible memory, this has helped him with his sciences.
He has learnt to appreciate the beauty around him and has a real love of music. He did have formal music lessons but was more interested in sports so decided to give up lessons.
Children need a rounded education to really succeed in life.

I chose to teach dd. There are lots of hours in the day, and spending a few minutes here or there playing at counting and adding buttons, teaching her to read, doing some of the early learning books from Wilkos, etc, was just part of the mix, along with playgroups and days out.

Preschool children who have "taught themselves", have not done it without some adult input into their education, so it is just a matter of degree.

I did follow the curriculum in primary and being ahead did cause problems. However, she is now settled in an excellent secondary, loves school and is doing very well.

I would chose to educate given the choice again, but it is for every parent to decide what best suits them and their child.

I didn't choose to teach, as I didn't know what to do. But I did give him any resources that he was interested.
I started to take more active roles in finding adequate resources that may benefit my ds since around yr1/2, when I found MN and started to follow recommendations.
Only thing I really regret not pushing from early age is musical instrument. I didn't think he would enjoy the structured lesson, but he would have, if we did.

dd is off to university this year, we've made plenty of mistakes along the way and it's not always been an easy ride. I'm not saying we've made all of the below mistakes, but some of them have been pitfalls we've skirted around (or if I'm brutally honest, fallen into)

I heartily agree with ensuring they have time just to do stuff for fun, don't measure activities in terms of learning potential, if they are engaged and enjoying it, it's a good activity, even if it's watching tv, as long as that activity isn't done to the exclusion of all else. It's really important they learn to chill.

As they grow up, watch for exhaustion, let them know it's ok to drop activities, even ones they are really good at. Looking back at dds childhood there were crunch times were she was getting good at lots of activities and she had to choose which ones to carry on with and which ones to stop, with immense pressure from activity leaders not to stop.

Also watch for perfectionism. For mental health it's important from an early age that they are given tasks where they get things wrong. Watch for damaging teachers who make comments when the child makes mistakes in front of the class in a way they wouldn't do about another child.

When praising reinforce the bits of their personality that aren't about achieving, give them opportunities to be helpful, don't let their self worth become bound in their intelligence.

Enjoy them for who they are, treasure them. One day they leave home and bloody hell Im going to miss dd with every fibre of my body later this year :(

I agree with Twofishfingers and BrieAndChilli that the levels in question (which are originally due to Deborah Ruf) are really rather dubious. They don't fit all children, they assume all children at a given level exhibit particular characteristics, and they don't allow for twice-exceptionality. Reality is messier than this. The PEGY website makes essentially the same points:
"Deborah Ruf’s “Levels of Giftedness” [...] may be useful indicators for some parents, but others have found them misleading. They are drawn from a total sample of fewer than 100 children across all the ‘levels’ - only seven for the highest level - and it is not clear from where the frequency of each ‘level’ is derived. Very academically driven indicators have been selected.
However, it is very important to note that it is also possible for a child to be extremely gifted, and not necessarily demonstrate these characteristics. For example, Albert Einstein did not talk until he was four. Although early reading is common among profoundly gifted children, some children with extraordinary intellectual gifts nevertheless do not read until they begin school. Profoundly gifted children sometimes also have a disability that prevents them from demonstrating some of these characteristics; the existence of both disabilities and giftedness in the same person are not mutually exclusive."

Yes, trying to put children into neatly labelled boxes is always going to be problematic.

My DS was a late talker. When he started school, he was simply seen as a child with SN. He wasn’t expected to do well academically and we were told he would always struggle with language-based tasks. Nobody seemed to notice, or care, about his ability to do complicated puzzles.

A couple of years later he transferred to another primary school. There he was seen as gifted in maths with a bright future ahead of him and no mention was made of SN. Nobody seemed to notice, or care, that his handwriting and spelling were weak.

So blanket pessimism at one school, then overshooting into blanket optimism at the next!

Anyway, apologies if I have drifted somewhat from the topic at hand!

Same here - DS said his first word at 2.5 and first sentence at nearly 5. He was on the SEN list for his first three years in school.

Then his teachers would say 'He's pretty good at maths' (in year 1-2) and in year 3 it went to 'he has a very deep understanding of more complex maths problems' and in year 5 'he's a genius'.

That's interesting Twofishfingers. It does seem to be a developmental pattern that occurs from time to time in DC who are mathematically-minded.

Did your DS eventually outgrow his language problems?

The maths brain is a strange entity. I remember a while back reading of a survey of winners of the Fields medal (the maths version of the Nobel prize) and none of them were precocious readers. In fact some of them needed extra help learning to read.

The most gifted person I have personally met, definitely fits into the astonishingly rare maths genius bracket, as in degree level at primary age, couldn't really read well till 11. And in fairness probably only got that far because they needed it for maths.

I think it is hard to say in general terms. If you are interested in maths then you are going to be better at it than English, regardless of whether your natural ability for both is the same. And I think that however well intentioned those around are, if you are measuring yourself by the standard you have in maths, it's easy to think an otherwise good or average level elsewhere is weak. Which becomes a bit of a vicious circle.

Dd's writing was always her weak spot. And she isn't gifted in the way she is with maths. But I think at least 90% of why it was weaker than it should have been for most of primary was down to interest and therefore effort. On the occasions she was/is motivated it's actually pretty impressive, even if it will never be unusually so like her maths.

She did speak early, but I've never for a moment thought it was indicative of anything but being a noisy bugger.

I sometimes find posts in this section incredibly infuriating, but I can see you “get it” so I am sure you will make good decisions - keep trusting your instincts.

I wouldn’t deliberately hold her back (just as I wouldn’t deliberately push her). I still remember my thirst to learn from a very young age. If she is enjoying it and initiating it then she is ready.

Agree with the idea to encourage a diversity of outlets for her to explore, rather than just purely the core subjects. Music could be an excellent choice, but go with what interests her (my son is very bright but not at all musical!). Explore particular topics and passions with her, areas they might just touch on at school.

And don’t neglect the social side and other skills needed. My parents were so thrilled by my academic strength that they didn’t really nudge me to develop other skills, but I really think having some “outside school” hobbies you enjoy helps make you more rounded.

I was a tiny child too and really struggled emotionally and socially when school tried to deal with my boredom by moving me up a year. But my experience with schools now is that they are much better at accommodating the diversity of abilities within the classroom - my son gets lots of extension work and extra challenges etc

Outwiththeoutcrowd, DS was diagnosed with a speech disorder called Developmental Verbal Dyspraxia (apraxia of speech if you look at American websites). He had many, many hours of speech therapy and had to learn to pronounce each sound individually and then out them together slowly.

However he always had an incredible capacity to concentrate for long periods of time, do puzzles, put objects into categories, line up toys in order of size, spot patters and shapes, put numbers in order, etc. But it's really only when his speech improved that he could 'demonstrate' his understanding of maths. And surprisingly (that was our main concern) he has been fine with learning to read and is now a good reader, but doesn't really 'get' fiction. The books he reads are more of a realistic nature, he tried books like Harry Potter but doesn't get them at all.

It's worth reading the book called 'The Einstein Syndrome: bright children who talk late'. I don't like the title of the book but a lot of the content is representing DS' childhood correctly.

The maths brain is a strange entity Humanity has evolved to have a maths brain. Dyscalculia is very rare. People who have had a poor math education or been brought up to believe maths is beyond them is a lot more common. There are those who will learn quicker, but maths has taken humanity thousands of years and no one is going to work it all out for themselves in one life time. They have to be taught it. A child who is degree level at primary has been taught maths.

Twofishfingers, I bought the Einstein Syndrome book and it gave me hope!

Good to hear that your DS didn't have problems learning to read. My DS didn't either but he found writing laborious for many years.

JustRichmal I agree with you that most people could improve their grasp of maths with the right sort of education. It's not intrinsically beyond them.

When I talk about the maths brain being strange, I'm thinking of the way those who are preternaturally good at maths can often have surprising deficits in other areas, or have had them in childhood. It's almost as if a necessary forfeit has been paid - see Steven Pinker's ideas about Einstein's genius and early language deficit being interrelated.

JustRichmal, I would agree with you in theory but in real life, DS' understanding of maths concepts (not just times tables and adding in his head) has been truly mysterious. For example, as a toddler he would always choose books that had page numbers. It took me a long time to figure that one out. He had a selection of bedtime books but would only ever pick the books with numbered pages, he would never point at the images but he would point at the page numbers. as soon as he could walk he would walk up to car number plates and would point at the numbers only, not the letters, turning around as if asking us 'what's this'. He would spot shapes on fences, on the ground, and same he would turn around as if asking us what they were. He would make piles of lego in colour categories. I'd turn around and he would have lined up his toys in order of size. His little pre-school would be absolutely gobsmacked as he would sit there and watch the clock for most of the morning, they couldn't distract him, and when the clock would hit 10 he would pick a book as he knew that it was story time. etc etc.

The converse isn't true though about early language and maths. Some kids can be precocious readers and early talkers and also be exceptional mathematicians.

Twofish, my ds was similar, grasped some concepts without been taught properly and obsessed with numbers. Clock thing has shocked few people, since he was able to tell time to the minutes both way, 8 :46 and 14 minutes to 9, before 3. He learned it from playing with talking teaching clock. But I agree with JustRichmal, they still need to be taught once it become certain level.

I wonder if that might be more often the case with girls, Kitten? Girls do tend to have more evenly distributed skills.

I had actually just been wondering to myself about Maryam Mirzakhani, the first woman to win the Fields Medal, who sadly died last year. She may not have been part of the survey of medallists I mentioned earlier as she only won the medal quite recently. I seem to recall reading that she had wanted to be a writer at one point, so maybe she was not so lopsided in her abilities as some of the men.

Just because one child is showing a particular trait, such as not talking early or noticing numbers early does not mean other children who have not shown that trait will not be good at maths. Some without these traits may even turn out to be exceptional. However, no matter what a child's level of IQ, their ability will be improved by education.

Genetically, Ada Lovelace had strong linguistic connections, yet with strong education from her mother, turned out to be a noteworthy mathematician

I do not think there is enough evidence to pick out the children who will be geniuses by some trait which manifests when they are only two. In the future there will probably be a theory which either proves or disproves it, but as yet, the research has not been done.
However, anecdote is not evidence.

Completely agree with toomanymiles.

My dd is gifted. We were v lucky in early primary as she went to a school where she didn't majorly stand out and there were a core group of very bright kids. It was a state primary that people move out of London for so a lot of pushy and v educated parents... She was happy and we didn't need to do anything!

We then moved to a completely different location and dd did struggle initially and kind of felt a need to not stand out by being so obviously bright. Luckily she fell into a sport which she loved and was nurtured to practise at a high (national) level. She had minimum 12 hrs per week of training by yr 6. This stretched her in a different direction and minimised the impact of being bored at school...

She then got a scholarship to a fab secondary school but we are v conscious of the pressure this has put on her. And we try to make any achievements, academic or otherwise, as low key as possible. Our focus is on politeness, sticking to school rules, independence and social skills. Then the rest is a bonus.

I am not stating that children who are gifted at maths all started talking late - it's not what I am saying at all. But there is a known group of children who share many characteristics, who have been observed to starting speaking late and be exceptionally gifted at maths.

Trust me, we all (including me) completely underestimated DS when he was little. He was completely on his own planet, with very little social skills, struggled to communicate, not making eye contact and we were very worried about his development. He failed to reach most, if not all physical and communication milestones. I am only saying that people tend to (tend to, that's very important) associate early language development with 'cleverness' - and put young children in specific learning categories (the low achievement tables at school for example). Of course some early developers will show to be gifted children in the long run, but we shouldn't make the assumption that late developers automatically have a low IQ or can't be gifted.

I'd say, take time to ensure you are supporting her through her emotional development. In an age appropriate way talking about feelings, naming them and showing her it is ok to feel sad, cross, worried, lonely, bored and supporting her through dealing with feelings. This can be done even at such a young age
An example would be - she's had fun playing at nursery, park or whatever and it is now time to go home and she is cross and upset because she doesn't want to stop.
Saying " I think you might be feeling sad and cross because you don't want to stop playing. I know, you've had a lovely time and it is sad to stop. Those sad feelings are not very nice are they but we do need to go now. We can play again tomorrow/soon etc"
Also making sure she realises that your love, attention, delight in her is not based on her achieving/performing but on her being her. So make sure you have play and fun times where the focus is on being with her and just playing for the sake of it. Follow her lead in play, tell her you love her when she is grumpy and cross and throwing a wobbly as well as when she does 'clever' things.
This might all seem obvious and come naturally to you anyway but the reason I mention it is this:
Like any child she will experience sadnesses and frustrations and boredom etc as she grows up. These may be based more for her on a mismatch with where she is at academically and what school offers or realising the differences between her and her peers, but if she is already developing a healthy way of dealing with negative feelings and knows you are able to support her with this, it will make the emotional side so much easier to deal with when she is 6 or 10 or 15.
As far as the academics are concerned, at this age just play, play, play. She will still enjoy playdoh and swings at the park and learning to scoot and cuddling dollies and looking after them and helping with cooking and racing toy cars in the hall and kicking a football and painting and blowing bubbles etc. If while playing shops or schools or pretend cooking or reading a story together, you introduce her to more academic activities that is great too. The orchard games are great for early academic skills and having fun too. Making sure she is supported emotionally should underpin it all though.