Is a child's giftedness really determined by how quickly they developed as babies/toddlers?

[emy72]

I had a look at the NAGC website and a lot of the research tied to levels of giftedness seems to suggest that the latter is directly linked to how early your child could talk/walk/read/use the computer etc....I wonder whether this is true and what people's experience of this are. I also wonder for things like reading/using the computer etc how much this is a child being gifted and how much this is actual parental input. Or maybe both? (ie if there are no books or computers in the house, a child would be less inclined/ stimulated to learn)

It seems to imply that if a child is a late developer then chances are they will never be gifted. Any thoughts on this? (Ps my own experience is a bit mixed on this one, so I was wondering what other people's experiences were....)

Total rubbish imo. Children develop at very different rates.

The whole concept of 'giftedness' is flawed anyway - in schools it refers to the 'top 10%' of a class which is pretty arbitrary, and will be different in different schools.

My DD1 walked at 9 months, talked at 10 months and was a good reader in recpetion. SHe is now 8 and is above average nationally but not gifted. Most of the kids in her class are bright and I'm sure they did things at different ages.

No, it's a pile of shit. And that's a technical term.

I don't think so.

DS1 was an average developer with most things and a bit late to talk. At school he is slightly behind with his writing skills but ahead with reading, a long way ahead with science and on the G&T register for maths.

DS2 was a very early developer, including speech and although he finds writing easier than his brother did and read earlier, he has the same talents for maths and science.

There is not much difference in their abilities from about age 3 onwards TBH.

I am not a scientist but I would agree with No134. Speaking from personal experience, DD2 was behind DD1 in walking/talking/toilet training but has surprised us with her academic ability, we always thought it was big sister who was the clever one. However they are only young and who knows what they will be doing in twenty years time?

Hmmm, instinctively want to say I don't believe this however own experience (or DS's experience)would follow the pattern NAGC cited research. He walked at 8 months, talked stupidly early(and at great length!), I can remember his pre-school teacher lovingly laminating the pages and pages of stories he would write there aged 3. I have always been of the opinion that he has just "got things" earlier than some but as everyone got there eventually it means nothing, i.e now he's 10 yrs old his advanced walking skills are pretty unremarkable! But.... have recently had his yr 5 parent's evening and have had it made very clear that his teacher does consider him to be "exceptionally gifted"??! Not sure what to make of this as none of previous teachers seemed to think this, but he has had a succession of NQT's since starting school and this year has had a teacher with 27 yrs experience. Actually had been wondering about starting a thread about it as have left feeling a little "unsettled" about the whole thing...

Alienbump, It could be that your son is flourishing under this particular teacher, we all know how partic teachers can be a catalyst for reigniting the love of learning. Why are you unsettled by it?

OP
Please take with skepticism the widespread citation's of Ruf's Level of Giftedness and associated observed trends of preschool development in Gifted children, it's just one set of results, it is NOT definitive.

My DS is 3. Met all milestones at normal time but is a whizz now with computers, wii, numbers, reading, conversation etc...He is one of 4, he being the youngest. I would say that generally he is self taught. He recognised 1 to 10 when 12mts and knew them out of sequence. He asks questions about everything and engages with all ages. He has a great imagination too. We reckon he is very able but not gifted. I think it would be setting him up for a fall if we went round expecting him to be gifted! People have told us to have him tested...whatever that means...but we reckon he'll be what he is and we'll help him meet his needs if necessary.

If early use of computer were a sine qua non for giftedness, then there'd be no gifted children 30 years ago, very few gifted children in third world countries and relatively few gifted children in the kind of academic family who won't let their child near the computer until they are fluent readers.

The brightest people I know happen to have been late developers. Could well be coincidence, but makes me far less inclined to predict wonderful futures for any toddler who can string more than two words together.

I don't let DS near the family computer. It's for grown ups.

Do you think I'm stunting his giftedness?

Or your own, Gracie?

If gifted just means naturally good at everything, then you probably did walk, talk, read, write, etc, pretty early, but this doesn't mean you are capable of original ideas, doing anything particularly useful for mankind or having a successful career. In other words, if gifted people were all early developers, then you don't have to be gifted to be a genius.

Just had this awful thought that instead of conversing with a load of hairy truckers MN's actually populated with gifted toddlers. It might explain a lot!

ps there are plenty of reasons why someone who is naturally good at everything wasn't actually an early developer in all areas (eg glue ear as a baby, hypermobility, undiagnosed eyesight problems, etc). So even on that level (ie that giftedness just means a high level ability in all areas), the presumption is a load of tosh.

Yes, I admit it, I am 6 months old.

I've been talking since I was 3 weeks old, but was a bit delayed with the typing, because my muscle tone was a bit low at first.

One word - Einstein

I technically come into the category of gifted (as the name suggests), and I've also worked in a professional capacity in this area.

I would say universal precocity is not necessarily an indicator of giftedness. Children are usually very asynchronous and they are good at different things at different ages. Nobody is good at everything, and I mean nobody.

However indicators that children might be on the bright side of normal are an understanding of formal vs informal language at an early age, occasional flashes of sophisticated humour, an interest in intellectual problems, that kind of thing. But it is by no means a definitive measure.

If anyone's interested, Professor Joan Freeman has done some really interesting work in this area, in which she followed up gifted children in later life. I would strongly recommend a look at her research.

My ds didn't walk until 17 months, didn't read until he was 6y5m and at 10y8m his writing is still very poor but he's registered as YG&T for Science, Maths and ICT, in all three he is working at GCSE level and is above average for everything else other than his writing.

I would share the following for your amusement though. I was not a particularly early reader, but by the age of about 7 or 8 I was reading a Samuel Beckett work I found at home, mainly out of boredom (these were the days before CBBC). It was a trilogy with No I entitled "Molloy" No II entitled "Malone Dies" and finally No III "The Unameable". I chose the work because I knew the folk song "Molly Malone" and I thought this might be the backstory, which was bound to be really interesting. I was sadly very disappointed because I did not think the book hung together at all. And there was no Molly Malone story at all.

Only in adulthood did I realise it was supposed to be three separate novels I think Beckett was possibly a bit too much for an eight year old.

It works for some & not others I think. So early developers have a higher likelyhood of being gifted than later ones, but it's not cut and dried.

I fit the definition of gifted and I didn't talk until I was nearly 3. My mum to put it in her wonderful words thought I was 'retarded' and wanted to take me to the doctors. I was fine and flew through school, university, PhD. As a scientist I would say that the thing about biology is that all biological systems are unique and the gifted guidelines are an over simplification of averages.

LOL.

My PIL keep banging on about how our niece is very bright. they are basing this on the fact that she "tried to stop the nurse from giving her her MMR jab"

the fact that at 14 months she is not crawling/walking/babbling doesn't appear to be a contraindication for them

In my experience, the NAGC research hasn't been true. DC1 was an early developer. She's 17 now and, although she's achieved well academically, she's not a real high flier.

DC2 was slooooow. He didn't walk until he was 16 months, didn't talk until he was nearly two, couldn't read or write until he was seven.

He was put on the SEN register in reception, because the teacher thought he was slightly autistic. I was quite appalled that the school wanted to label him, but offered no help. Just after that, we moved house and he went to a new school. At the first parents' evening, his new teacher said, "He's very very bright, you know." Her theory was that his brain wasn't in synch with all the normal developmental milestones.

DC2 is now 12 and going into Year 8. His handwriting is still poor, but he's years ahead in just about everything else. He also has good social skills and a wicked sense of humour. He's a genuinely gifted child, who's just developed at his own pace.