What’s gifted at 2?

[Ellie2015]

Many of you mummies have talked about their kids being gifted on this forum. Just curious to know what could your DD’s do (gross/fine motor, speech, social etc) at age 2 to call them gifted..? (Obviously I have a 2 yr old DD and I am under no delusion to call her gifted :))
Thanks xx

I think it's a mixture of nature and nurture Mikado. If we were on a walk we talked about leaves and flowers and looked up trees later. They had time to inspect the cracks in the pavement and count them. We had season tickets for the London museums (when they weren't free). They had alphabet puzzles and I taught them their letters and phonetics from the very beginning but they were keen and soaked it up and were v attentive. I recall the GP when DS couldn't have been more than one opening a book and pointing to an animal and ds said clearly "hippopotamus" and she was speechless. Then at the Natural History Museum at a 6 th birthday party, the guide asked if anyone knew the name of the dinosaur on display and ds told him (I can't remember what but a small unusual one). The man asked if he'd been before to see it and he just said "no, it says what it is on the sign" and pointed.

Some things were just there - DS, unusually for a boy loved poetry. He has just had his first poem published. Didn't read English at uni.

Their father has a brain the size of a planet which probably helped.

Having said that most of their friends are quite privileged and they went to v selective London day schools. However, while everyone who went to those schools was very bright only about 10-15% got into Oxbridge/medicine.

Who knows? But I think the greatest ingredients are love, stability, curiosity and a smattering of opportunity.

@mikado, I disagree so, so much with you. When you say 'Again, so dependent on what they're exposed to' you make the assumption that a) there will not be any talented and gifted children coming from deprived backgrounds and b) that children who do not talk early will have not been exposed to a rich language and learning environment.

That attitude and misconception has affected our family so much. We were judged as parents because of our DS' late speech by health visitors, by other parents, even by family members. That attitude has actually hindered DS' development as professionals were pointing the finger at our parentIng instead of at at a possible disability or medical condition.

There is an existing 'category' of children who talk late and who are of very high intelligence. There has been books written about it.

Sometimes it's a journey.
DH's grandad. Sent down mine at 14 even though teacher begged for him to stay at school (left mine at 18 to be a professional soldier and did v well in an ordinary way). Each of his five dc went to grammar school and became teachers/nurses/white collar workers. All the 12 grandchildren went to uni - half are drs, vicars, lawyers.

Oh, and ds's father, my dh didn't have the luxury of painting and poetry or two life enhancing gap years. Four generations from poverty to absolute privilege.

My dd is now 7. At 2 she had the most amazing vocabulary, extremely inquisitive and everything was "where/what/why?"
Could draw pictures that would pass for a junior age child, craft skills that were better than mine!

She also wanted to learn about obscure things on the internet such as the great fire of London, was obsessed with play doh ( much to my horror ) and going towards 3 she taught herself to swim.

I remember one teacher saying that they had only met one or two truly gifted children in their career. My dd is not what I would consider gifted as she isn't a prodigy at anything in particular. I prefer to use the word bright.

At 7 now she's obsessed with history, is reading way beyond her years, knows all her times tables to 12, art is still amazing, weaker at maths, story telling and imagination is fantastic. Handwriting is like an adults.

She still has the most horrendous tantrums when she can't get her own way and was considered late to toilet train.
They're all so different and I think it's hard to pinpoint what makes a child gifted.

I'm sorry TwoFishFingers, I wasn't presuming those things and absolutely appreciate that delayed speech does not equal low intelligence and it sounds like the professionals you met were quite close minded.

My comments were more general re early speech and memory and positive outcomes. Re vocabulary I meant exposure is relevant because a child who isn't exposed can't then have a wide vocabulary, not suggesting the opposite is true.

Thanks TheHogFather, I thought you meant visual recognition of numbers.

Mikado, my ds was counting backwards from 1000 when he was 16 month old. Did I teach him? Not in a sense I call teaching, but more of feeding his interest. He has shown more interest in the page number on the book than actual story on the book.

Same for letters. I didn't know anything about phonics, so when we had book and puzzle about letters, I taught him letter names. He always followed words with finger when I read a book to him. Also he watched tv with subtitles, and already trying to read the books to himself before 2.
So, it's as pp says, nature and nurture, I think.

I think the problem with these threads is that they often fall into more of a discussion about what G&T actually is, and I think it’s helpful for the OP to provide a definition of what they’re asking about.

For me, I assume it’s the internationally recognised G&T, people who just seem to have an extraordinary and innate understanding of certain things at a very advanced level for their age. Bright isn’t the same thing.

I believe G&T on these threads often means the top 10% of a school?

The OP asked about gifted, not G&T!

With my brother and my son, their gifts were observable from six months old. (Different talents)
With DD, it wasn't until.she was older, probably from five or so, but it was always obvious she was highly intelligent. She spoke late, btw, but in complete, complicated sentences as soon as she began. She didn't crawl, walked very late too, but never wobbly like a toddler.
I think she likes to perfect things before displaying them.

irvineoneahone that's really interesting about the page number, makes sense, thanks.

The OP asked about gifted, not G&T!

A definition of “gifted” then?

mikado not before 1 that I know of!

Because I was only teaching her in the course of normal daily life it was more mental than visual, the written form came later. I suppose I must have shown her what the numbers 0-9 looked like in written form at some point before she was 2 because price labels and various games evolving from them were a go to entertainment to keep her in the supermarket trolley before she was 2. And again as with pretty much all I taught her I just assumed that if she grasped the basic concept of visual 0-9 then any visual multiple digit number would be obvious enough to recognise without needing to specifically teach it.

Hence why I say it's not so much what she could do that I look back on and view as a sign she was gifted, more that she could follow my line of reasoning and methods at that age.

Re a definition, imo top 10% is bright, top set etc rather than g&t. Gifted to me is more within the top 1%. Although if we're discussing it from an education/ curriculum PoV probably top 2%.

I don't really like defining it given the range within that top 1% is vast.

Gifted to me is more within the top 1%

Top 1% of what?

Population, but that's why I don't like defining it, unless as a comparison to the definition of top 10% in a school, given that it's impossible, and usually pointless to try and pinpoint where exactly your dc fits in ability wise at population level.

I think too that on here it's especially pointless, given the number of threads about lack of school provision which is a problem for a broader group. And it would also preclude many people who haven't got any idea whether their dc even fits the definition, let alone where exactly they fit in. Especially those with younger dc.

I think another thing to consider is like my ds, who has exceptional understanding of how number works but struggled with word problems.
He had no problem reading any words but lacked inference.
He was talking in perfect sentence at home but selective mute outside.
Can you classify him as gifted? I am not sure.

What population though? Sorry to labour the point (as obviously I mostly agree with you about trying to define it at all) but are you comparing the top 1% of mathematicians to be gifted in maths and the top 1% of footballers to be gifted in football, and the top 1% of authors to be gifted in writing etc. As it appears to me to be really one of those things that you could only define like that in a very few fields (Chess ranking perhaps) and then only applicable to the field.

So that excludes anyone who could be in the 1-2% in many, many subject areas, and also makes it odd to define the top 1% of mathematicians against the top 1% of 17th century kazoo players.

And is it about performance (ie you actually have to perform at a particular level) or is it about ability - for example at my A-Levels, I refused to do further maths, I was possibly top 1% of the country in maths at a-level at that time, but I didn't want to waste my time with further maths, I didn't need it, and I could concentrate on the subject I did care about and was likely even more gifted in. Was I still gifted in maths when I only tuned in a few hours a week?

They are valid questions but I think on this board generally we are talking about top 1% in academic subjects such as science, maths, English, occasionally we'll have discussions about children who are particularly talented at art, or a musical instrument.

There is no hard definition, and even if there was a hard definition we don't have access to all the necessary data to know if your particular child is in the top 1% as fee paying schools don't do SATS, and don't have the same assessment system. There are no universal equivalent of IQ tests for children that we could compare them between countries.

I understand your questions but I don't think the answer exists.

fred depends on the context of the conversation. If we were discussing gifted musicians it wouldn't be relevant for me to chip in with what is adequate for dd musically, given she isn't gifted in that area. Whereas I do understand and could discuss the problems surrounding provision, peers etc.

If you mean more in the sense of comparing for the sake of it which child is most gifted, I'd consider it such a pointless exercise that I wouldn't care how they cared to define it, I'd dismiss them as batshit.

I'd also definitely say I mean ability rather than achievement, there are far too many external factors to base it on achievement. And even if you could rule those out, there's no recognised way of testing it.

Even something as mundane as maths sats wouldn't tell you anything about dc gifted in that subject. Not least because the curriculum has a concrete ceiling. The old level 6 could be achieved by everyone from bright to once in a generation genius. Or the exceptional genius could attend a school that only went to l5. Or a child that has had other problems and started late could get a 4 and still be profoundly gifted.

Even if you use a specific example, such as 'when did your dc understand equations of motion' there are still far too many external factors to define which dc is most gifted.

Adult wise again it's hard to say. I went to a truly crap school and a mediocre sixth form, and coasted, disrupted and truanted my way to top results. That would appear to make me more able than eg those from good schools and supportive parents who may have recently left sixth form having put considerable effort into obtaining the same grades. But who knows, maybe I would have hit a plateau if I'd have pursued those subjects at university and ability wise they'd overtake me. My dd is also on course for the same top grades, but the older she gets the more I realise she is a on a very different level to me, both in maths ability and general intelligence, but at 18 her measurable achievement in terms of results in shared subjects won't be any different to mine.

But as I said I think defining it is only relevant to the context. Someone jumping on a thread to disagree the curriculum itself doesn't provide for academically gifted dc because their g&t child found it challenging and it is relevant to anyone reading it that their definition of gifted encompasses a broader range. The same person asking for advice because their top 10% child is being consistently given work aimed at average ability and it doesn't really matter how you define gifted, the issue is the same.

I always wonder what people mean by ‘gifted and talented’

I was singled out early on in life as gifted and talented. I got extra lessons and pushing, and went on to do a very exclusive degree, and work in a proffesionals job.

I wasn’t ‘gifted’ in anything. I loved reading because my mum always read to me and bought me books on tape, and so I mostly learned through reading (still do). I liked school, and enjoyed doing work. I still do, I’m at peace when I’m learning and doing things.
I think really I was just a quiet, bookish girl who enjoyed reading. I didn’t have any gifts bestowed from above, and my success in adult life is a combination of luck (mostly) hard work, enjoying learning and having good social skills.

I get a bit uneasy on these threads when people try to get advice to push their ‘gifted’ child, who sounds like they may be autistic. Autistic children can have an astonishing capacity for learning certain subjects, and seem to do so effotlessly. This can be something academic and prized, like maths, or less obviously useful things (I can think of one person i know whose knowledge of doctor who is amazing!) But I wouldn’t call these children ‘gifted’, though they do have obvious extreme talent in some areas, as an obsessive interest in narrow fields is part of the autistic spectrum. Children with ASD are sadly less likely to go into success, as so much of success in the academic and working world relies on ‘beurotypical’ skills, such as coping with change/stress, communication, etc.
That’s not to say there’s no point investing in children with ASD, of course there is! But the ‘pushing’ they often need is support with coping in areas that they find really hard, like social interaction, dealing with stress, learning things that they aren’t as interested in. This will help them so much more than A level maths papers. And they often don’t need any support or pushing in their area of interest, as they’ll lead you due to their love for it!

My neurotypical child is like me at her age, and I read these threads with interest. I don’t feel that any amount of ‘pushing’ will benefit her, but I’m aware that the ‘pushing’ I had may have benefited me in ways I don’t see (increased confidence, exposure to wider ranges of things).

Personally, I think that at 2 the best thing you can do for your child is look for any additional needs and arrange support for them accordingly, and foster a love of reading and learning. I was a late walker, average talker, and certainly didn’t know my alphabet at the age of 1 or anything like that!

Ignore the typos 🙈
Beurotypical?!

At two my ds knew all colours, numbers up to three digits, grouped his schleich animals according to habitats, could predict the next number in a sequence, chose books over all else, knew his address/dob/and all his family’s dob, knew the letter names.

By five he could read fluently and do year 6 sats papers.

He is 11 now and very bright. And has aspergers.

Mine differed from each other in that DS2 could speak full sentences not long after 1, but DS3 couldn't speak at all until almost 3. Ds1 started reading at about 2, the others were first term at school.
What was often commented on was that all 3 had really good concentration, and all of them enjoyed maths and spatial puzzles. Maths was just natural to all of them, never had to really explain. They were all very articulate once they started speaking, noticeably more so than their male peers.
But although school designated them as gifted, I think they were fairly bright, rather than genius.

I think autism and g&t can be very blurred at toddler age or in young dc. I think it can equally go the other way chewed. No professional or person with any real wide experience of autism would even suggest dd had it, but I'd be a millionaire if I had a pound for every time someone suggested she had it. Which of course doesn't do any harm. However if she had other difficulties, eg behavioural, emotional, a different sn etc it could certainly delay getting the correct support and/or dx if I was convinced she had autism.

And I think with any sn and high ability in the broader group, let alone gifted, it's very hard to see where one ends and the other begins.