Challenges of having a G&T child.

[Iwasjustabouttosaythat]

How has it been for you? DS is only 4 but already I’m feeling like I have to be apologetic all the time or play down his abilities. Some other parents are genuinely curious but most either assume I’m exaggerating or assume I’ve been crazily hot-housing him. I’ve found this with kindergarten teachers too. Since I moved him to Montessori it’s been fantastic, but I’m worried about him starting primary school. I don’t want to go back to being looked at like I’m the crazy mum who won’t “just let him be a child”. It’s as though I wouldn’t love for him to run around and go down the slide again and again and again instead of trying to read books to uninterested kids at the park. Actually no, I love him just how he is and wouldn’t change him for the world, but I’m not solely responsible for those traits. How do other people deal with it?

My dd went to a primary school that most on here would avoid. General low achievement, high fsm, high Sen, low ofsted etc. A child just in the top 10% would be an outlier, let alone a genuinely gifted child. But no state school could have done more for her, we were very lucky.

Her school had the experience of catering to a wide range of ability, so it didn't pose a new problem to have a child that didn't fit the norm. She certainly had far more tailored education than many at schools with larger numbers of high achievers.

For secondary she's at a very selective independent, which naturally due to the extra money and resources meets her needs better. But with hindsight and endless funds, I still wouldn't have wanted the same for primary. What she lost in progress she more than gained socially. And providing she is challenged, she's of an ability where progress from a curriculum PoV is irrelevant.

Agree with hopping not all parents try their best to support dc socially. Some parents seem to almost view it as proof that their dc are unusually gifted, rather than just bright. When of course that simply isn't true.

I don't necessarily agree those who struggle fit in more as they get older. I'd say more the opposite.

I think putting dc up a year is pointless educationally, and makes it needlessly harder socially.

We are in a high income area. The local high school is extremely popular and has excellent academic results. It adds a few hundred thousand to the house prices in the zone and rentals are in high demand. People have been known to rent for two years or more if there are siblings, get utilities connected, change address on everything required but never move in, they stay in the house they own out of area and drive kids to/from school. I know someone currently doing this. Don’t even understand it as it’s basically the same total per year as a private school/child. Weird. Anyway, the school is great at accomodating bright kids but is not so able in regards to accomodating many of the inherent problems that come with giftedness.

I had this bloody label - it causes more harm than good.

one of my DCS is and the other is not - bright but not exceptional. How do I know - because I was one of those children.

We do not make a big deal of it - but books are inside and play is play. He understands that the brain is not the only part of him that needs working out. They are children for so short a time work out a compromise and do not get so hung up on it.

You seem to be more worried than is normal about what other people say.

True Thehogfather, I have an acquaintance with a G&T who is the same age as one of my kids. When they visit the kid brings along some thick uni textbook concerning astrophysics or similar and sits there, reads it and doesn’t interact with anyone. I point out that’s extremely odd but the answer is basically that it’s because they are SO gifted their brilliance can’t be understood, basically more gifted than gifted and so on. The kid doesn’t have one friend. Doesn’t relate to anyone and hasn’t been trained in social skills with the gifted excuse constantly being trotted out. I honestly doubt that kid will ever get a job.

I would be mortified if my kids did this. There has been a lot of blood, sweat and tears teaching my G&T what is expected. They may not be interested, they may find it banal and not see the point but it is necessary and that has been hammered in since they were 4,5,6 until the present. It starts with kids in the playground they have nothing in common with.

For instance we see friends of friends occasionally. They are cricket nuts. We are not. Couldn’t interest G&T child less (I sympathise). I have trained them beforehand to look at latest cricket news and then throw it out there in a 10min conversation with cricket nuts, then they are allowed to excuse themselves and run for the hills . Unbeknown to us, cricket nut had another friend who held a high position in a top tier firm and they enquired about and organised relevant experience opportunities for G&T child, “this great lad who knows his cricket”. You don’t get that by ignoring people you have nothing in common with in favour of your interesting book. Again, this needs to start in the playground not be squirrelling away with only like minded folk.

People can be gifted to the hilt but unless they have semi-decent social skills it is staggeringly hard for them to truely maximise their potential (as opposed to ‘getting by’).

What does 'maximise their potential' even mean? Sometimes I wonder what the long term aim is. Definitely not 'learn as much as quickly as possible, at the cost of everything else e.g. social skills'.

But it is not all about 'getting a successful, well paid career' either, which is why it grates a bit that people keep saying 'they'll never get a job' or 'they won't be successful' - what is success? Gifted people might well think outside the box and apply different values to things, and come to a very personal definition of 'success'.

Nor can it be about 'due to your gift, you are obliged to find a way to meaningfully contribute to society in a way that not gifted people couldn't' - gifted people have no more or less obligation that others in this regard.

Personally I would like my children to find a path in life that is meaningful to them and gives them contentment. I do guide them in 'keeping doors open' by not neglecting their social skills, but if they should choose to prefer being an un-engaged piano soloist who is poor but can do as they like and doesn't have to be 'nice' to other people over being a successful, well paid one, who puts some effort into behaving socially acceptably, then that will be their choice, not mine.

Brilliotic, I am not sure that's how it works in reality. I have two children, one is G&T and one is bright and good at school - the difference is enormous. We didn't do anything different with our kids, they've never had private tuition on academic subjects. (except normal stuff like sports and music, Cubs, etc). yet one of them excels at schools, in every subject but especially in maths, he is years ahead in some of his learning which he does on his own, without much input from us except just supporting him with books, websites, etc.

As a result of his interests in maths, computing and engineering, and partly because his personality (he is a loner) he struggles socially. It's not that we force him to do this learning, it's his choice. So we feel that we have to encourage and support activities that will improve his social skills. We don't isolate him - we do the exact opposite.

The objective is that he will have a happy time at school, that he won't be bored, that he will be challenged and supported. We are not thinking beyond that - his career, money, etc. It's just about being happy at school.

I agree, twofishfingers, I was just responding to the 'maximising potential' comment. Wondering what that actually means, leading me to wonder what we actually hope to achieve in the long term.

Because in the short term, well we all want our kids to be happy, and sometimes that means encouraging and supporting their weaker areas for example social skills, sometimes it means accepting that what makes them happy is not particularly social and if we want them to be happy we need to let them do what makes them happy. A good balance between them probably... supporting the child with the social skills but also allowing the child his/her enjoyment of what he/she likes.

If the child, possibly with a lot of parental guidance and support, acquires decent social skills, then it can be their choice later in life if they want to use those skills or not. They might just prefer being a loner. If they never do acquire those skills, they won't have the choice though. So supporting a child with their social skills can help them be happier in the present, and keep doors open for the future. But to me this is not about maximising their potential, it is about keeping their choices open.

What does 'maximise their potential' even mean? Sometimes I wonder what the long term aim is. Definitely not 'learn as much as quickly as possible

Whilst that is never the stated aim, it does so often appear to be the only result that so many of the things people want for their child would produce. So many people talk only about success within the field of G&T - so the skilled mathematician will be requested more and harder maths, the skilled golfer, more and more golf practice.

Now obviously the aim is not to limit opportunity to do other stuff, or limit the opportunity to be with social peers, but that tends to be the result, because the gifted young kid to be challenged will almost exclusively find common interest and challenge with older kids if anyone at all. In such scenarios the babying and allowances for youth completely change the dynamic.

As always, I don't want my child challenged by school, I want my child to find what interests her and challenge herself - ie the intrinsic motivation is what I want to develop. I fundamentally believe that people are happy when they do things they choose, and become expert in it. Early specialisation by excessive praise or challenges by parents or teachers is a negative in all walks of life would be my hypothesis.

I see even less reason for the G&T kid to spend time working on their strengths at 6, it may not even be what they're interested in at 10 or 18, or if it is, they'll still find it easy to pick up then.

And Brillotic, I do think lots of people would not be happy if their child was a un-engaged piano soloist who is poor but can do as they like and doesn't have to be 'nice' to other people over being a successful, well paid one I've certainly disappointed a lot of people at the times when I've chosen to be a jobless, homeless itinerant, or dropped the opportunities to do different things, they genuinely thought I would be happier working.

Of course it was my talents that allowed me to do it, because I always knew how easy it was to get a very well paid job being very, very good at something, but certainly when externally pushed to do something, I would almost always react negatively. But of course I was also self taught in all my strong areas.

two you illustrate my point exactly. Of course for your ds or others similar they can be perfectly happy without being social butterflies. And with a different personality again you could have done everything the same and still have a child who really struggles.

However if you'd ignored his social skills, and focused on his identity as a gifted child, he could easily have become the isolated loner with no social skills.

Which unfortunately some parents do.

I do agree with the posts about maximising potential and happiness. Dd is y9 and I've no idea which direction she'll go in at present. Maths is the area where she could do something wonderful if she maximised her potential. But she could just as easily pursue languages, biology, politics, history etc. And if she works hard beyond school there's no reason she can't achieve highly in those areas, but she doesn't have the same ability for any that she does for maths, in which case she won't maximise her potential. Either way as long as she's happy I don't care.

My only concern would be dd or any other dc losing interest in a subject they are gifted in purely because they've been hothoused or put off by endless easy work.

Maximising potential means making the most of your talent or gift.
Not thinking you don't have to work, or burning out at a young age.
it's aiming for as high as you can.
So I'm told
it's that whole ethos of the talent/gift isn't enough, you have to work hard to reach your potential.

Maximising potential means making the most of your talent or gift

All you've done is rephrase "maximising potential" as "making the most", good simplification of language, but it doesn't take us any closer to knowing what it means.

I feel it’s quite a silly saying. Everyone means “meet your potential” but what they’re saying is make your potential really quite impressive but whether you meet it or not who knows?

I realise that’s not the point being made by Brilliotic but the phrase always makes me laugh.

To me it means having the opportunity to explore or reach your limits in the long term.

Ok but should we/our children explore/reach our limitis/make the most of our abilities/maximise our potential in everything we are good at?

Isn't that an oxymoron - if I wanted to reach my limits in maths, I would have to do a lot more maths than I do. Spend a lot more time on it. Which would automatically mean less time to focus on one/all of the other things I am good at. Meaning that with everything apart from maths, I would not reach my potential.

So I would argue that it is impossible for anyone to reach their full potential in everything. You can pursue many interests, of course, and be good at all of them, but will not be reaching your full potential in all of them because you simply cannot 'work hard' on everything at the same time (there are only 24h in the day).

E.g. a child is effortlessly good at maths, and effortlessly good at chess. To reach their full potential at either, they will still have to work hard and put a lot of time into it. Time put into one is time away from the other. They will never know if they might have made world champion in chess if they hadn't pursued a maths degree/PhD/career at the same time.

Fair enough: you might argue that in order to 'reach my potential' in maths, I must also develop a balance of other skills (social, e.g. to bag that Oxbridge space/graduate job in the city/... at interview, communication, being able to write conference papers and present them at conferences, ...) so to reach my potential in maths I cannot do just maths, but need other stuff too.

But what if I don't actually like maths very much, but do love chess? Or what if I do actually enjoy maths a lot but don't want to make it into a career nevertheless, prefer to keep it as something I do for myself, for intrinsic pleasure.
Am I obliged to try to reach my potential in maths, because I am gifted at it, or do I have a choice in the matter and can choose to pursue a chess career despite being perhaps not/less gifted at chess?

IMO giftedness does not create obligation. Lots of people never reach their potential in maths (or anything). Why must people who are gifted at maths (or anything) reach their potential?

I agree with 'having the opportunity to' - and with My only concern would be dd or any other dc losing interest in a subject they are gifted in purely because they've been hothoused or put off by endless easy work.

Yes, it is a shame when someone is put off a subject that they might otherwise enjoy; this happens to children on both ends of the ability spectrum.

brill that's exactly what I mean by the opportunity to do so.

And I think the long term is equally important. With hindsight if I'd focused on dd's maths to the exclusion of all else, and hot housed the maths curriculum into her, she probably could be finishing a degree now, rather than 2 years from taking gcse at the usual age. Which ignoring the warped childhood aspect of doing so, and the long term consequences of such an unbalanced education, still wouldn't offer any more long term opportunity to maximise her maths potential than she has if she chooses to pursue maths at degree and beyond at the usual age.

Without hot housing in the slightest she could already have the a-levels, simply by responding to her interest with linear curriculum rather than whatever popped into my head or is available at school. But even though in that scenario she wouldn't be compromised elsewhere, long term it wouldn't improve her opportunity as an adult. The only way it would is if the school were insistent she worked at normal speed and I needed to do so to avoid her being put off.

I think it's as simple as giving them the tools to be able to do anything they are capable of.

For instance if my child wanted to be an astronaut (they don't), I wouldn't want them to progress, get close to reaching their aim, then be told they don't make the cut as they don't have the ability to work with others in ways required.

If they don't want to do something, no-one is forcing them but at least they have been given the tools (suitable education, experience, social skills). If they choose not to use the tools they have been given, that's fine, at least they have the choice.

My dd has a talent which people remark on all the time. I say ‘thank you the loves doing x’ then We talk about something else. I show off to family though. It’s not hard or isolating. I’m not sure what the problem is.

brill

I think that burnout is quite a risk for children who have been hothoused.
I think it's up to parents to be responsible for making sure their dc take time out and have hobbies and interests, other than their main subject.
yes, sometimes it can be hard, but their mh is so important and as clever as they are they don't have the life experience that we have, and sometimes need a firm hand to guide them.
Mine is having a proper holiday this year, whether she likes it or not.
Then if she wants to spend the remainder of her time doing 4/5 hours practice, that's up to her.

I think that burnout is quite a risk for children who have been hothoused.

I agree with this but it seems like one of the traits of G&T kids (rather than bright kids) is that they are capable of extended and intense concentration in their areas of interest, and they seem to be good at what interests them, so I think it would be unnecessary to hothouse them. Don’t get me wrong, I’m sure some people still do this. These kids may need help learning to hone their skills in a useful way so guidance is necessary on some level of course.

I have limited experience with G&T kids (hence this thread) but my research so far indicates that what truly allows them to shine is access to what they’re interested in. If it’s space then let them have access to everything possible from the basics, to the maths and physics, get them a telescope and take them to the observatory. Whatever their passion is, if they are allowed to truly indulge it they will thrive in that area. It gets harder I’m sure, if maybe their area is painting and you don’t have the money and space necessary for the materials. It’s just an observation.

I never want my son to feel like life is a competition. I think while he’s young as much exposure to different ideas as possible will help him find his passion/s. Buoyed up by, hopefully, some positive social experiences, and then just letting him really, deeply go ahead in his area of interest at high school. I think DP and I are passionate enough about other things that whatever he loves, he will still be exposed to a lot of different ideas. To be honest this is the path I always intended to follow my children but I suppose it makes me feel better to know that he will most likely thrive in whatever area takes his interest.

Haven’t read the thread yet OP, where about in the country are you (roughly)?

I ask as there are groups for g&t children.

Thanks querty. I’m not in the UK. We hav groups here too which I’m thinking about...

I've found that discussions about end of term reports, parents evenings, reading levels and maths ability tend to be best avoided with other parents. Especially when 40% of children struggle to reach 'Expected' levels, I know it would just appear to be bragging, so I play everything down, focus on their child or change the subject. I only feel comfortable discussing my DC's achievements with family or with friends who have completely different aged kids to mine. There is one exception, a friend who is a retired teacher with a similar age child who recognises my DCs ability and enthuses about it, but knows I won't discuss it when other parents are around. It doesn't help that one of the nicest Mum friends I have, has a DC with developmental delay. So I tend to just try to be supportive about her DC, rather than discussing my own. I do find common ground where I can and focus on that. So, I'd advise doing that where you can if you want to befriend other parents. Little things, like moaning about the things about your DC that drive you crazy, can help you bond and bring humour to your discussions.

I've also found that certain teachers are much better at dealing with exceptionally bright children. I've had parents evenings where the teachers almost minimise achievements and ones where teachers are beyond excited about my DC's achievements and really seem to understand, encourage and work on stretching them. It seems that some teachers are better suited to working with the less able to average children, yet others thrive on challenging the super bright kids too. It's really been luck of the draw - so out of the 10 teachers my Y4 DC has had so far (includes job shares and a school move), only 4 of them have really been especially supportive to me and my DC. Some years seem to have been more about coasting along unchallenged, but I would expect this in a state primary. The only advice I would give is not to wait until parents evenings to engage with the teacher and you'll soon get a handle on which type of teacher they are. When your DC comes out of school excited to tell you about the extra work they did or how the teacher got them designing their own questions and helping other children, you'll know they've clicked with their teacher.

We're planning to send DC to grammar in a couple of years in the hope that they'll be surrounded by other very bright children there and should thrive. But I have to admit, I'm already stressing about how I'm going to choose the right one support both emotionally and academically.

Oh and should just add that extra curricular stuff like music/sport/dance/theatre (DC pretty average st some of these) have helped stretch my DC and present opportunities for common ground with other parents.

Access to what they are interested is a point that I can agree with iwas
The kids at dd school have so much more than they would find in a typical state school, or indeed most other non specialist private schools.

They have sound proofed practice rooms for a start that they can use whenever they want to, within reason.
A piano, mostly grande in most rooms, and access to their own personal accompanist, something we'd struggle for out of school.
The emphasis on their talent and the school work has to fit into their musical commitments, rather than the other way round like mainstream schools.
The academic is the min expected, there aren't many extra curricular opportunities, apart from Scouts and ad hoc groups that run for up to an hour, but not regularly.